88 réponses à ce sujet

[Oblivious]

Cynical Being wrote...

 "As the escape from the main character's homeland came at the price of the death of his brother, as well as the forced killing of his neighbor's husband. The latter came with one of the most grave choices in the demo, as the representative demoing the game had to choose between killing the infected innocent himself or passing the task off to his wife."

.... What the Hell?? I didn't know that they would give that kind of a spoiler, I mean it may not be huge but.. I don't even know what to say. Didn't a Dev just say that we wouldn't know who dies only yesterday..? Maybe this whole self imposed blackout is a good idea. 

Maybe people are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. Like when ME1's opening was announced everybody shouted "WHAT?! JENKINS DIES?! That's it, I'm gonna ignore everything even related to this game because I'm gonna get spoiled!" Or when KOTOR was announced "WHAT?! TRASK ULGO DIES?!" etc...

Dunno whats so hard to understand about it to be honest:?

[thedistortedchild]

Oblivious wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

 "As the escape from the main character's homeland came at the price of the death of his brother, as well as the forced killing of his neighbor's husband. The latter came with one of the most grave choices in the demo, as the representative demoing the game had to choose between killing the infected innocent himself or passing the task off to his wife."

.... What the Hell?? I didn't know that they would give that kind of a spoiler, I mean it may not be huge but.. I don't even know what to say. Didn't a Dev just say that we wouldn't know who dies only yesterday..? Maybe this whole self imposed blackout is a good idea. 

Maybe people are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. Like when ME1's opening was announced everybody shouted "WHAT?! JENKINS DIES?! That's it, I'm gonna ignore everything even related to this game because I'm gonna get spoiled!" Or when KOTOR was announced "WHAT?! TRASK ULGO DIES?!" etc...

Dunno whats so hard to understand about it to be honest:?

Ehh... I sort of feel where they are coming from though. If you don't know what's going to happen then it will effect you more when you play, even if it is just the first thirty mins. Remember the trailer that revealed the Loghain spoilers for DA:O?

[DarkSpiral]

Merced256 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

LOLZAO wrote...
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu spoilersssssss, Hawke brother and the Templar die.

Well. Since it got mentioned, I'll just say that that's what happened in their story.

So you're implying our opening chapter dictates what party members we'll have from that point forward? I hope this is true, and would certainly add depth to story and gameplay if true. If you're lying though... 

What he said.  With less ninjas.

[Nohvarr]

So they'ev kept the previous games combat system, upgraded the art, and made the characters more responsive and hard hitting....



I'll be expecting all those doomsayers to turn in their written apologies to the Bioware dev team on this forum by March 20th.

[L33TDAWG]

Having rainbowspasms

[toastymckracker]

Nohvarr wrote...

So they'ev kept the previous games combat system, upgraded the art, and made the characters more responsive and hard hitting....

I'll be expecting all those doomsayers to turn in their written apologies to the Bioware dev team on this forum by March 20th.

Um, are you reading something different than I am?  Every preview I've read so far says that the combat has been dumbed down.  And "When I press a buton, I want something awesome to happen!" sounds a little too much like Fable 2.

I'm starting to get concerned now.  If this ends up being a hack n slash game with very light RPG elements the way that ME2 is a TPS with very light RPG elements, I'll never buy another Bioware game again.  I LOVE Dragon Age: Origins.  Expand upon it, don't dumb it down.  Please.

[Morroian]

toastymckracker wrote...

Um, are you reading something different than I am?  Every preview I've read so far says that the combat has been dumbed down.  

You're the one reading something different. In any preview talking about the PC version its clear combat isn't being dumbed down.

[DPB]

toastymckracker wrote...

Um, are you reading something different than I am?  Every preview I've read so far says that the combat has been dumbed down.  And "When I press a buton, I want something awesome to happen!" sounds a little too much like Fable 2.

This is what is meant by that:

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Would you prefer if I'd said "Okay, guys, when I press a button, something INCREDIBLY lame happens. Actually, no...wait. Nothing happens at all. It's like...yes...! The OPPOSITE of something. Can we make pushing a button result in existential angst?" 

Kidding aside,as much as you may not agree with the sentiment, I said -exactly- those words to the combat team. Why? Because it's a valid approach. I wanted to move the game as far from what I saw as a core problem with the combat system as possible: You queue up critical shot...wait...wait...wait......and you eventually fire it, likely after the emissary finishes his spell. You shield bash a guy, and he falls down and then you shuffle up into position and eventually, usually at the same time as he stands up, you get, maybe, one swing in. As I've said before, it was like the game was taking your orders like suggestions that it would eventually get around to executing.

Is that fun? Is that the kind of excitement that we could deliver? Absolutely not.

So a simple mantra was put into place. An easy litmus test: "Hey, I just activated inferno, and I'm standing here waggling my hands for like 5 minutes. That is not awesome. If I'm casting a spell, I would like it to start casting, immediately, and raining fire down on my foes." From there, it's just a matter of balancing combat as a whole so that the more reactive responses are balanced out with other abilities.

Sometimes simple rules can result in some pretty astonishing results.

Modifié par dbankier, 19 août 2010 - 11:15 .

[SDNcN]

toastymckracker wrote...

Um, are you reading something different than I am?  Every preview I've read so far says that the combat has been dumbed down.  And "When I press a buton, I want something awesome to happen!" sounds a little too much like Fable 2.

Why, would you rather press a button and have something uninteresting happen on screen?

They've announced that player input during combat is more responsive, individual spells and skills are customizable, previous dialogue choices impact the tone of future delivered lines, and enemy and companion AI has improved. How exactly is the game being dumbed down?

[Zhijn]

David Gaider wrote...

LOLZAO wrote...
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu spoilersssssss, Hawke brother and the Templar die.

Well. Since it got mentioned, I'll just say that that's what happened in their story.

You BW folks confuse me to much!. =(

[Daryn Mercio]

k so I'm confused, I heard, or read, that we have a templar dying along with a brethren or something and we might get to romance his widow? Can someone please clarify?

[Apollo Starflare]

Noooo spoilers! Oh wait, it's just as I guessed anyway. Oh and it might not even happen that way for me. Awesome.

Brockololly wrote...

Morroian wrote...

The IGN review does have something on the differences as does this preview:
http://www.gamesrada...93233136058/p-3

Nice- I hadn't seen the Games Radar one- good find!

Thats probably one of the better previews I've read thus far- its actually informative!

Yeah I tend to find Games Radar are pretty good on the whole. Should check there more often.

[The Ethereal Writer]

Merced256 wrote...

SDNcN wrote...
Though, I don't really see why locking out certain companions based on Player actions is a bad thing. Do players really need take all possible companions with them in every single playthrough?

Yea i agree, and i'm encourage somewhat by the statement that they want companion relationships to develope further only for those who are consistenly part of your party. Unlike in DA:O where you can take every relationship to its max solely off of gifts rather than any dialog option or chosen action taken during gameplay.

I seem to remember reading something like all gifts in Dragon Age 2 are specific to certain companions, more so than in DA:O. By that I mean giving say, one companion a gift triggers unique dialogue. So you don't just go "Here have a gift gimme some approval." Does that make sense? I don't know if I'm explaining it well enough

[Bobad]

I quite like the idea of making such a defining choice early in the game, whilst on the first playthrough the loss may not really be felt, on any subsequent playthroughs with differing outcomes the loss of a character whose progression you would have otherwise realised may be particularly affective.

In addition to this would be how the surviving characters felt about the outcome, how would Bethany react if her twin brother Carver had died in an attempt to save the Templar?, how would Carver react were Bethany to be killed in favour of the Templar that was posibly pursuing her?, How would Mother Hawke react if both twins died?, and would any of the family be altruistic enough to have problems with making little effort to save the Templar and his wife?.

I'm sure such things would make for a hugely differing experiences in each playthrough, as I am also sure it would be a very complex set up in terms of programming variables and resources, but if, and I stress if, this were to be the case it would be a very bold move and if exectued well, groudbreaking.

Modifié par Bobad, 24 octobre 2010 - 12:10 .