1279 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

MDarwin wrote...

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Whats amazing to me still after all this, is Dragon Age is a game that sat in development for as long as it did, was touted as a throwback to the genre and style that Bioware made its mark in and gained the majority of its long time fans from, and it appears at least from alot of the info on DA2 we've heard so far that it lasted all of one game.

They never said or promised anything else.

As far as I rememember DAO was to be a sort of BG2 with new "techinical/game play advances". The RPG style of BG2 was to be "dominant" in the DA(O) Franchise/Adventures.

Now, one can argue: Was it or Wasn't it? Also your choices/action was supposed to have a great impact on the outcome of the game. With me: It failed.

These are my opinions, not anybody elses!

That was the build up at least, we saw it in every preview movie or interview tossed around as a marketing tagline "The spiritial successor to Baldur's Gate 2" And I'll agree with you, half of the decisions you make really don't mean much since half the time they either don't carry over properly, or in the case of Witch Hunt are just broken beyond belief (how WH got through QA I'll never know)  Not that WH has any sort of satisfying ending in the first place even when it works properly, at least not an ending the way it was built up via marketing anyway. Kinda par for the course lately with Bioware.

[Merced256]

Morroian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Morroian wrote...

This forum needs an emoticon for beating a head against a wall. Why do you keep saying this? I don't know whether its the language barrier or not but once again they aren't simplifying the actual dialogue.

From a gameplay perspective the only relevant part of the dialogue is the part that is selected by the player.  It is in that selection process that the roleplaying occurs.

But what you're selecting isn't dialogue.

Then what the hell is he selecting? Dialogue is a conversation between two or more parties. Most intiated party interaction is refered to as... conversation. Hmmmm:innocent:

[Morroian]

Merced256 wrote...

Morroian wrote...
But what you're selecting isn't dialogue.

Then what the hell is he selecting? Dialogue is a conversation between two or more parties. Most intiated party interaction is refered to as... conversation. Hmmmm:innocent:

http://www.thefreedi....com/paraphrase

Modifié par Morroian, 20 septembre 2010 - 07:00 .

[Merced256]

Morroian wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Morroian wrote...
But what you're selecting isn't dialogue.

Then what the hell is he selecting? Dialogue is a conversation between two or more parties. Most intiated party interaction is refered to as... conversation. Hmmmm:innocent:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paraphrase

Which is an improvement? I have a better one actually.

www.thefreedictionary.com/pictograph

edit: Enjoy your new conversation system.

Modifié par Merced256, 20 septembre 2010 - 07:01 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Merced256 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
But no one has said they want a pew pew game with limited interaction and limited dialogue options.

And it doesn't even accurately describe Mass Effect either (will I be killed for saying that?).

No, but people will undoubtedly think you are delusional.

Except for the fact that she's correct.

Really? Seeing how its completely subjective; i wonder how anything can fit the mold of correct or incorrect. But as much as i hate the self righteous douchery that is invoked whenever that card is played.. well i feel obligated. To me it was pew pew pew with dialog. Why? Because you could literally beat the game without using a single skill or allocating a single skill point. So what exactly made it different from gears of wars taking that in to consideration; not much.

But since i know some people like RPG-lite, i won't go on about how my view is law like so many. However, don't tell me whats right and wrong on a subject in which there is none.

I'd also love to know the percentage of those that are fine and dandy with the ME makeover, what system they played DA on. I have a hunch the majority is of the console persuasion, not that it's a bad thing mind you, but there's certainly a different mindset of what makes a good rpg between the different user bases.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I'd also love to know the percentage of those that are fine and dandy with the ME makeover, what system they played DA on. I have a hunch the majority is of the console persuasion,

Nope, PC

[Merced256]

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I'd also love to know the percentage of those that are fine and dandy with the ME makeover, what system they played DA on. I have a hunch the majority is of the console persuasion,

Nope, PC

You may want to elaborate, else someone think you were trying to speak for the whole of those who purchased DA:O. However if that is what you are doing, then i would appreciate some numbers to back up any claim that 50.00001% of DA:O owners purchased the PC version rather than a console one.

[Morroian]

Merced256 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I'd also love to know the percentage of those that are fine and dandy with the ME makeover, what system they played DA on. I have a hunch the majority is of the console persuasion,

Nope, PC

You may want to elaborate, else someone think you were trying to speak for the whole of those who purchased DA:O. However if that is what you are doing, then i would appreciate some numbers to back up any claim that 50.00001% of DA:O owners purchased the PC version rather than a console one.

All I'm saying is I played it on the PC. I don't have any of the current generation of consoles except the Wii.

[Merced256]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
But no one has said they want a pew pew game with limited interaction and limited dialogue options.

And it doesn't even accurately describe Mass Effect either (will I be killed for saying that?).

No, but people will undoubtedly think you are delusional.

Except for the fact that she's correct.

Really? Seeing how its completely subjective; i wonder how anything can fit the mold of correct or incorrect. But as much as i hate the self righteous douchery that is invoked whenever that card is played.. well i feel obligated. To me it was pew pew pew with dialog. Why? Because you could literally beat the game without using a single skill or allocating a single skill point. So what exactly made it different from gears of wars taking that in to consideration; not much.

But since i know some people like RPG-lite, i won't go on about how my view is law like so many. However, don't tell me whats right and wrong on a subject in which there is none.

I'd also love to know the percentage of those that are fine and dandy with the ME makeover, what system they played DA on. I have a hunch the majority is of the console persuasion, not that it's a bad thing mind you, but there's certainly a different mindset of what makes a good rpg between the different user bases.

Oh i have no doubt most are of the console persuasion, and the more i consider that the more i recognize why the whole throwback to BG2 marketing theme was quickly abandoned in favor of 30 seconds to mars + a blur trailer. :innocent:. Then that "this is the new ****" ... thing. Yea.. I get the feeling more and more with games like this that its not at all disimilar to asking a random 15 yeard old on the street who The Cure is, even if they know who it is they'll undoubtedly think its some old and busted band that sucked anyway. Consider CRPGs The Cure.

[foodstuffs]

My opinion is right, yours is wrong. My opinion is law, and those who disagree are breaking the law. But I have neither the time nor the inclination to do anything about it.



I truly do not understand why people feel everyone needs to acknowledge that an opinion is, in fact, an opinion. One should know an opinion when they see it, even if it is stated "matter-of-fact."



The way some of you are going on, I'd swear your heads are about to implode. It is not required to go ape**** because someone states an opinion matter-of-factually; that will not be the end of the cosmos.

[Monica83]

I simple tryed to explain why i don't like the new dialogues system using a Logical Approach it's strange how some people don't understeanded that... I'm Just laughting at those people that past dictionary link on the post lol that's really funny..

I puchased dragon age origins as new old style Crpg game... This politic or marketing choice to make thing simple by streamling things make me sad... Also i laught of ear how people are cryng only because RPG have long dialogues... If you dont like elaborate dialogues try something else and don't waste your time with rpg games... Someone also writed in this forum " I'm am only thr one that hopes they mass effectively the game?"... Why ruin a title.. You don't like dragon age? Play mass effect its soo simple!..

[FieryDove]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I'd also love to know the percentage of those that are fine and dandy with the ME makeover, what system they played DA on. I have a hunch the majority is of the console persuasion, not that it's a bad thing mind you, but there's certainly a different mindset of what makes a good rpg between the different user bases.

I am not sure, I do know that many PC players would have loved ME1 but it had two large strikes against it, it came out really late on pc vs xbox, and the horrible DRM. And no before anyone says anything it wasn't the same handful of people who complained about it, the threads were huge 600lb. gorrilla's.

I do believe me1 would have done much better than me2 in review/critic/metric scores had the drm not been so laughable. I myself waited till the tool came out and ya, bargin bin $10 then. I guess it was kind of good in that respect but I would have gladly paid retail for ME1 if it was reasonable to do so.

[The Masked Rog]

Monica83 wrote...

I simple tryed to explain why i don't like the new dialogues system using a Logical Approach it's strange how some people don't understeanded that... I'm Just laughting at those people that past dictionary link on the post lol that's really funny..
I puchased dragon age origins as new old style Crpg game... This politic or marketing choice to make thing simple by streamling things make me sad... Also i laught of ear how people are cryng only because RPG have long dialogues... If you dont like elaborate dialogues try something else and don't waste your time with rpg games... Someone also writed in this forum " I'm am only thr one that hopes they mass effectively the game?"... Why ruin a title.. You don't like dragon age? Play mass effect its soo simple!..

Problem is you are making the assumption that the dialogues will be any different in Dragon Age 2 where there's no such evidence. The dialogue wheel can allow for the same depthness than Origins, while providing more fluid conversation. Why do you think every change from the "old school cRPG" is bad. Old school cRPGs had their flaws too, you know? Bioware shouldn't feel the need to do it like they did it in the 90s because that's just silly.

[SirOccam]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The question is do they care that theres a good number of people who were disenchanted with the way ME2 handled dialog? Going by some of the responses Mr Gaider makes to criticism especially involving the questionable conversation system deployed in awakening, I'd question if they care one iota.

A spade is still a spade, when you see just about every preview under the sun make comparisons to ME2 what do you expect people to take from that? That its not at all like ME2?  I don't think you need be a rocket scientist to see why there's alot of concern of them "mass effecting" DA2.

I'm sure they do know, and I'm sure they do care. If they see a bunch of people flaming something, I doubt they are too eager to turn that crowd on themselves. But their decision has to be balanced with what they feel is best for the game, and considerations about statistics. A very loud few might seem like a lot, but in reality might be very few indeed.

It's very easy to see why people think "Mass Effect" when they see a dialogue wheel and a voiced protagonist. It's another recent BioWare RPG that featured those very things. But there's a difference between "it has a dialogue wheel and a voiced PC like Mass Effect" and "they are turning the game into Mass Effect with swords." One is a perfectly reasonable simile, and one is a crazy exaggeration.

There are several points I keep hammering on:
1. Mass Effect is not a dialogue wheel, and a dialogue wheel isn't Mass Effect.
2. There are completely different sets of people working on Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2
3. The wheel has the capacity to offer just as many choices as Origins' list had. More, actually.

What it comes down to is this: the Mass Effect writers had a bad habit of making their paraphrases not match the spoken line very well. The DA2 writers know this. They are not the Mass Effect writers, and I doubt they wish to follow their example. That doesn't mean the concepts of the wheel and the voiced protagonist are not worth using. It was the execution that was flawed.

Monica83 wrote...

The problem is that SirOccram im just
wondering if we can select what hawke say's like happened in origin when
you read your answer and you select the response.. Paraphrasing
implemented like mass effect is too much schematic for a dialogue don't
give you really deep interaction this i'm sayng.. I want the control of
what my character is going to say.. I want think what answer give...With
paraphrasing system this is not possibile..

Oh, but it is possible. I don't want them to "paraphrase like Mass Effect" either. I want them to paraphrase like Dragon Age 2.

Even if the system they
implemented is perfect... The best way for me is write the entire
dialogues options and add tone also... I give you an example

A npc or a party member ask you something:

You can react in many ways:
Violent: 3 different type of lines for violent answer...
Diplomacy: 4 differnt type of diplomatic answer..
Sarcastic:4 different type of sarcastic answer
Investigate: the ability to ask to npc more information...

If
this is implemented with well writed answer to select can big a big
improve from dragon age... but from what i read it works in this way

Npc: Ask you something
You can choice: Violent,Diplomatic,Sarcastic Answer... then Investigate...
You
click an answer and your character says something much longer and
different from the answer you chose...

But you're saying if it's implimented well, it could be a big improvement on Dragon Age Origins, but from what you read, the character says something much longer and different from what you chose. If I'm reading you correctly. Don't you see the problem with that? You're taking it for granted that the paraphrase won't match the spoken line very well. But why do you assume that? Just because the Mass Effect writers did it? Those writers aren't working on Dragon Age 2.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I'd also love to know the
percentage of those that are fine and dandy with the ME makeover, what
system they played DA on. I have a hunch the majority is of the console
persuasion, not that it's a bad thing mind you, but there's certainly a
different mindset of what makes a good rpg between the different user
bases.

I started out playing Dragon Age on the XBox 360, but I was pretty naïve about what consoles were even like. It was my first game for the XBox (in fact I owned it before I even owned the XBox; long story), and I had just gotten my first HDTV not long before that, and I thought the graphics were going to be amazing. Shows how much I knew. I played through it and even got Awakening for it, before I had heard and seen enough to convince me that it really WAS that much better on the PC. I've played it several times on the PC now and I plan on getting the PC version of Dragon Age 2 as well.

I played both Mass Effect games on the console and thought they worked rather well there. Whenever Mass Effect 3 comes out I won't hesitate to get it for the console as well.

I don't see why people have to choose sides and declare that one is better than the other. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses. Much like the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series.

[FieryDove]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Problem is you are making the assumption that the dialogues will be any different in Dragon Age 2 where there's no such evidence. The dialogue wheel can allow for the same depthness than Origins, while providing more fluid conversation. Why do you think every change from the "old school cRPG" is bad. Old school cRPGs had their flaws too, you know? Bioware shouldn't feel the need to do it like they did it in the 90s because that's just silly.

Unless a real conversation is shown in a real gameplay demo this is doubtful. The wheel as-is or has been shown as well as other games they have used it can only fit a couple of words...a few, whatever. Paraphrase what my characters is going to say is the death of roleplaying my character. The icons...yeah that will make some difference, maybe...Hopefully I won't punch or stab/shoot anyone just by selecting "No, I don't think so".

[Monica83]

I agree completely with Fiery and i respect your point of wiew sir Occram

[Amioran]

Lilacs wrote...

What Monica is trying to convey is that she wants to see more of what she would want  her character to say. 

Fine, but that has NOTHING to do with deepness. 

She is also referring to the paraphrase system in Mass Effect, where the paraphrase choices do not convey too well a character's intent.  Oftentimes, that means a reload or two from a saving point.

Also a written dialogue is a paraphrased system. Taking ME as an example of the "wheel" system is just an idiocy. The medium doesn't pertain to its results. If you use a screwdriver to kill a person it doesn't mean that a screwdriver is evil impersonate. I bet she doesn't take Divinity 2 as an example of the way written dialogue work, isn't it?

[The Masked Rog]

FieryDove wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Problem is you are making the assumption that the dialogues will be any different in Dragon Age 2 where there's no such evidence. The dialogue wheel can allow for the same depthness than Origins, while providing more fluid conversation. Why do you think every change from the "old school cRPG" is bad. Old school cRPGs had their flaws too, you know? Bioware shouldn't feel the need to do it like they did it in the 90s because that's just silly.

Unless a real conversation is shown in a real gameplay demo this is doubtful. The wheel as-is or has been shown as well as other games they have used it can only fit a couple of words...a few, whatever. Paraphrase what my characters is going to say is the death of roleplaying my character. The icons...yeah that will make some difference, maybe...Hopefully I won't punch or stab/shoot anyone just by selecting "No, I don't think so".

Then we have completely different views on the dialogue system. I for one found that the Dragon Age system more often than not made me say things I wasn't expecting to say. Jokes where they didn't exist, etc. The paraphrase system with icons will at least make the convos more fluid, rather than forcing me to read from a shopping list of all to similar options which often lead to the same result. At least with the current system I can knw exactly what I mean with what I say. That's roleplay for me. Dragon Age origins made it very difficult not to choose an option randomly just to get over with it.

[Amioran]

Monica83 wrote...

Amiorand.... *sighs*
Is that hard to understeand? is simple...
In a roleplay game if i made a character i want to be SURE how is it my answers..

That has nothing to do with deepness at all. It is just what you like or don't like. But, again, this has nothing to do with objectively of a medium in respect to another. All your examples of ME just prove that you have no idea of the difference between talking of a thing and tying the same with some result.

Both are different approaches, none of them is more deep than another. You should understand this, and more than anything else you should understand the meaning of the words you use.

[foodstuffs]

SirOccam wrote...
I don't see why people have to choose sides and declare that one is better than the other. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses. Much like the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series.

If one is indeed better than the other then why would people not declare that? 

[Amioran]

And anyway all the whining from people putting down the "wheel" system, as always, is concerned primarly with subjective approaches on the matter.

There have been written books with a definite "buildind the tension not knowing exactly what is being said or why one thing is tied to the next" as for example Burroughs, Kafka, Rimbaud etc. that have become classics. No definite approach is better in absolute than another. This is total idiocy.

Let's please abstain from emotional disturbances in judgment, as for example fear of what will come.

Modifié par Amioran, 20 septembre 2010 - 08:44 .

[Amioran]

foodstuffs wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
I don't see why people have to choose sides and declare that one is better than the other. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses. Much like the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series.

If one is indeed better than the other then why would people not declare that? 

Because it isn't true?

It is just an idiocy. No approach is better than the other, no matter how you would like it. Literature is full of different approaches, some done well, some badly, but still nobody say the same approach was not correct just because the result didn't work, isn't it?

It is obvious that the two have both advantages and disavantages, failing to understand this is just hypocrisy or only what you like to see, discarding all the rest. Fine for a teenager maybe, but speaking of serious things....

[foodstuffs]

Amioran wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Amiorand.... *sighs*
Is that hard to understeand? is simple...
In a roleplay game if i made a character i want to be SURE how is it my answers..

That has nothing to do with deepness at all. It is just what you like or don't like. But, again, this has nothing to do with objectively of a medium in respect to another. All your examples of ME just prove that you have no idea of the difference between talking of a thing and tying the same with some result.

Both are different approaches, none of them is more deep than another. You should understand this, and more than anything else you should understand the meaning of the words you use.

Having a crappy dialog system, assuming it is so, will have negative results.  Crappy dialog choices will very easily break immersion, possibly obliterating depth all together.  I've flat out quit some games for that very reason.

[foodstuffs]

Amioran wrote...

foodstuffs wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
I don't see why people have to choose sides and declare that one is better than the other. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses. Much like the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series.

If one is indeed better than the other then why would people not declare that? 

Because it isn't true?

It is just an idiocy. No approach is better than the other, no matter how you would like it. Literature is full of different approaches, some done well, some badly, but still nobody say the same approach was not correct just because the result didn't work, isn't it?

It is obvious that the two have both advantages and disavantages, failing to understand this is just hypocrisy or only what you like to see, discarding all the rest. Fine for a teenager maybe, but speaking of serious things....

Right, because a person's opinion is entirely irrelevent, especially if they disagree with you, at which point you attack while stating absolutely nothing useful. 

[Amioran]

foodstuffs wrote...

Right, because a person's opinion is entirely irrelevent, especially if they disagree with you, at which point you attack while stating absolutely nothing useful. 

You can have your opinion, naturally, will that however automatically make the opinion correct? Obviously not. Since there are many PROOFS that what you say is completely inaccurate, in many forms and mediums (going from literature to cinema to teathre), it is obvious that your "opinion" is concerned only by what you want to see, discarding all the rest.

Naturally you have the right to do so, however it is still inaccurate and biased, so it is not a real opinion, but just a bunch of emotional sprut, based on no objective point.