1279 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Tsuga C wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
With how badly it was handled in awakening by the DA team (granted the whole expansion pack reeked of a rush job in the first place) who's to say DA2's implimentation will be any better? Thats all I was getting at.

I've read several denials since the inception of this new forum/social network from BioWare employees that EA isn't leaning on them regarding what to make, how to make it and such.  I do wonder what happened to cause the release of the less than stellar DLC.  

Easy answer, total bs. Its pretty obvious considering the majoirty of the DA DLC isn't exactly stellar in the first place that a design philosophy at Bioware has changed from when its done, to out to make set in stone dead line.

Take into mind I'm well aware of the sky rocketing cost of game development these days but still, I'd imagine its pretty difficult to create a completely deep and complex RPG at todays standards in a 12-16 month time frame, I'm certainly not suggesting it should take Bioware 5 years a game like it did with DA (though I'd assume alot of that time was spent looking for a publisher before the EA buyout) but in the same sense, it would totally suck for Bioware to start fumbling releases and having the overall quallity suffer, due to time restraints much like Obsidian has had a habit of doing by putting out unfinished/unpolished titles. (Kotor2, Alpha Protocall, NWN2) Or the now defunct Troika which tended to sign terrible contracts as well that never allowed them to actually finish titles before having to put them out.

It would also be disappointing to see all Bioware titles dumbed down and "streamlined" to the point of barely resembling an RPG, much like Jade Empire and Mass Effect 2.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Taking into consideration the complete let down how conversations were handled and ultimately fleshing out of companions was handled in Awakening, I have some doubts that it won't be anything more than simply adapting ME dialog wheel and voice over system and slapping it into DA. Giving the short development cycle and the "rushed" feel that Awakening left me with

The system in Awakening isn't being used in DA2.

I never suggested it was, just as a counter to the whole "Oh DA and ME are seperate teams!" excuse. With how badly it was handled in awakening by the DA team (granted the whole expansion pack reeked of a rush job in the first place) who's to say DA2's implimentation will be any better? Thats all I was getting at.

Why wouldn't you take DAO as the example? Its more analogous given both are full games where Awakenings was an explansion pack with clearly limited funds invested in it.

Tsuga C wrote...
I've
read several denials since the inception of this new forum/social
network from BioWare employees that EA isn't leaning on them regarding
what to make, how to make it and such.  I do wonder what happened to
cause the release of the less than stellar DLC.   ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png

And FWIW David Gaider said in his recent online chat that EA havent interfered. Unless he's outright lying.........

Modifié par Morroian, 20 septembre 2010 - 10:42 .

[MDarwin]

Amioran wrote...

MDarwin wrote...

You know what, I get the feeling if someone does not "submit" to your supirior mind. You just don't like it, do you?

My parameters for good/bad art and "the written word", are mine. Not yours or anybody elses, thank you.
Franz Kafka war ein Deutscher. Just like I ones was. I still don't like his works.

You can not prove me wrong. Art and literature are a matter of taste/liking. Not everyone likes J.R.R. Tolkien either.
It is up to each individual to define his personal sense/opinion on Art and literature, or in general.  <_<

Not yours or mine.

Listen, I don't really want to enter a discussion of art since this is not the proper thread, but really, someone that thinks that art is only "taste" really understand nothing of art in general. So what's the point of discussing it with you? It would be like discussing chess with someone that neither knows the rules.

You cannot like Kafka (that it is only ONE of the authors mentioned) still that doesn't mean that he created a genre and that he was a great author. Tolkien is crap, really. Tolkien is not art, it is manierism, that it is all another thing. Let's not mix things, want we? Naturally, as I've said, you probably don't have the means to discern if a thing is one way or the other, and some say ignorance is bliss, so let's leave it at that, want we? You can call me superior as you want, truth doesn't change just because you want it.

As a simple suggestion I advice you to start reading a bit more about art in general, maybe you will comprehend after a bit that art is not only "taste", on the contrary, there are many objective aspects that cannot be denied nor ignored. You can well not know them, sure, but this doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Sorry to "crack" your Ego.  
But to make you happy: You win.
But your still a "Kunst-banause".
Let's just agree that we disagree. That is Ok to me.

Wish you all the best.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Taking into consideration the complete let down how conversations were handled and ultimately fleshing out of companions was handled in Awakening, I have some doubts that it won't be anything more than simply adapting ME dialog wheel and voice over system and slapping it into DA. Giving the short development cycle and the "rushed" feel that Awakening left me with

The system in Awakening isn't being used in DA2.

I never suggested it was, just as a counter to the whole "Oh DA and ME are seperate teams!" excuse. With how badly it was handled in awakening by the DA team (granted the whole expansion pack reeked of a rush job in the first place) who's to say DA2's implimentation will be any better? Thats all I was getting at.

Why wouldn't you take DAO as the example? Its more analogous given both are full games where Awakenings was an explansion pack with clearly limited funds invested in it.

Simple, Awakening had about roughly the same amount of a development cycle that DA2 will have. Origins was in development for 5 years,  quite a difference don't you think? Keeping in mind that DA2 is also supposed to span 10 years, yet overall be a shorter game than Origins and when you start thinking about the quality of spanning 10 years worth of story into a shorter game.. Well I have some reservations on how well its going to be pulled off given the dev cycle, the quality of awakenings and much of the post release DLC.

[JrayM16]

No offence to them, but since when has Bioware ever made good dlc? The only piece of dlc they ever put out before the EA merger was BRing DOwn the Sky for ME1, which was decent, and after that all BW dlc has been done under this alleged "iron fist of EA." Dlc has actually been getting better on a curve since the EA merger: SHale, Leliana's song, golems, overlord, lotsb.



As for DA2's short dev cycle, it should be noted that the main DA team had been done with DA:O since early or mid summer 2009. The rest of the time was for polsihing by a subset of the team and for the console versions to get finished up. This means that from conception to completion, DA2 will have an approx. 21 month or so dev cycle. While still somewhat on the short side by BW's standards, this is the average turnaround time for almost every large-scale game in the industry these days.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Why wouldn't you take DAO as the example? Its more analogous given both are full games where Awakenings was an explansion pack with clearly limited funds invested in it.

Simple, Awakening had about roughly the same amount of a development cycle that DA2 will have. Origins was in development for 5 years,  quite a difference don't you think? Keeping in mind that DA2 is also supposed to span 10 years, yet overall be a shorter game than Origins and when you start thinking about the quality of spanning 10 years worth of story into a shorter game.. Well I have some reservations on how well its going to be pulled off given the dev cycle, the quality of awakenings and much of the post release DLC.

DA2 will have been in development for 2 years when released. One of the developers stated this in this pcgamer preview. And in the Gaider interview on another thread he stated that BG2 took 18 months to do.

Modifié par Morroian, 20 septembre 2010 - 11:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

2. It still doesn't explain why they feel like they can't appreciate the other despite its flaws

Because the other fundamentally breaks my playstyle.

The Masked Rog wrote...

Actually you can because you don't know what is meant by the phrase you have in front of you.  Sometimes you says someting thinking you mean it in a joking way and the other char takes it as a grave offense. In DA" this  wouldn't happen. See, the new style is much more accurate.

Except that you'd actually be sayuing something you didn't expect to say.  That's grossly unrealistic.

People misinterpreting you is far more plausible an event.

SirOccam wrote...

Both games might be made by BioWare, but the teams responsible for them are completely different. And I
doubt it's a BW company policy that paraphrases should be misleading.

If there is a car that uses a reolutionary new braking system, and it crashes all the time, I would question the
wisdom of the design team that next chooses that same brake design.

Aradace wrote...

Doesnt matter what you think at this point.  The FACT of the matter is that this is where the game is
going.  ****** and moan all you want but it's going to change NOTHING about DA2.  If you dont like it where it's gone, dont play it.  It's that simple.  From the article is apparent (VERY apparent it seems) that those of you crying and complaining about the game's direction is basically being ignored (which I find hilarious TBH.)  EA/BioWare wants to go in the direction of a more "cinematic" experience and that's where it's going to go and has already went.

It matters to me that people realise how roleplaying and cinematic presentation aren't compatible.

If the public generally accepts this, then the game marketing will have to stop calling these games RPGs.  That will leave the RPG market abandoned, but eventually someone will come along as try to tap that market.  As long as that market still is defined in a way that is meaningful, we don't lose the ability to have games in it that would be
recognisable as RPGs 20 years ago.

But if BioWare manages to convince the world that RPG = story, then no one will ever make an actual RPG again because no one will know what they are.  This is how Newspeak worked.

bsbcaer wrote...

But then you're not really roleplaying the character are you?  If you're reallying roleplaying the character (really, you can only do that your first go through the game I think), then you should live with the consequences of the actions that you chose for your character.  We as human beings do things that are out of character all the time, so why can't your main character do the same?

No.  The characte should be the one making all the decisions.  it's when I made the decision for him that I stopped roleplaying, so I had to go back to fix it.

And absolutely you can roleplay more than once.  You just need to compartmentalise your knowledge about the game so your character doesn't act on information he doesn't have.

Then why bother playing RPG games on the computer at all?  Just get a bunch of friends together and play Vampire: The Masquerade or Star Wars or go old school and play Dungeons and Dragons then? 

You've just nailed it.  The entire point of a CRPG is to reproduce the tablerop RPG experience within the need for other people.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 septembre 2010 - 11:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

outlaworacle wrote...

Yet people want to continue debating it, endlessly. It is what it is. Time to move on, I think.

If we just accept it now, and then raise the objetion for the next game in development, people will say we're too late and we should have complained earlier.

Now is as early as we can ever do anything.

Amioran wrote...

Care to explain what this "supposed" limitation would be for an already CREATED character? I'm curious. I gues you become all mad on movies because the protagonist has a voice. But since I already expect the answer to this, I tell you that interaction has nothing to do with the difference of an already setted character and one that it is being created (as in the case of the warden).

I don't really undersstand your question.  I think you're asking about the difference between playing a character designed by the player (like DAO) and playing a pre-generated character (like in ME).

They haven't really told us which we're getting in DA2.  They have said we'll get to decide how Hawke feels about things, or how Shepard was more constrained because he was a preset character, and that suggests Hawke isn't a pregenerated character.  The design goal appears to be to make Hawke as much our character as the Warden was.

I'm eager to see the results of that attempt, because I think the voice makes it impossible.

Sidney wrote...

You've never had control of dialog. That's a lie you've been living and can't seem to escape. You select dialog from a horrible constrained list at all times no matter the input mode. In 99% of all RPG dialog you have picked you've never picked a line of dialog that was "you" - there's some sort of "Yes" or "No" options that you might have thought of but that's it. You can mis-read dialog all over the place - I misread the saving Redcliffe in DAO, I misread "I love shoes" when dealing with Leliana. It'll happen no matter the input mechanism.

Your voice doesn't exist.

Patently false.  And here you explain why:

In the text only version your character "speaks" like Hemmingway with autism in single sentences and I doubt you speak that way to anyone you meet. Do this, seriously, speak your lines of dialog outloud playing
DAO. Just literally read what they say and you'll never defend the text only lines again. You sound stupid because no one speaks the way they write dialog because that dialog is nothing more than an input mask for a dialog tree.

EXACTLY!

The lines in DAO (or any RPG without a voiced protagonist) aren't even necessarily the wrods your character utters.  They're an abstraction.  They're as much an abstraction as the single word lines you types in text-parsing games in the '80s, or the keywords you select in dialogue in the Elder Scrolls games.

And because they're an abstraction, and you never see the actual line the character utters or how he utters it, then those details are free for you to control as you see fit.  You have near-total control over everything that comes out of your character's mouth.

JrayM16 wrote...

No offence to them, but since when has Bioware ever made good dlc?

Pretty much all of the NWN content.

And arguably the Ascension mod.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 septembre 2010 - 11:33 .

[bsbcaer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No.  The characte should be the one making all the decisions.  it's when I made the decision for him that I stopped roleplaying, so I had to go back to fix it.

And absolutely you can roleplay more than once.  You just need to compartmentalise your knowledge about the game so your character doesn't act on information he doesn't have.

Yeah, but you've already admitted that you metagame in previous posts, so you're not really roleplaying at all...

If you were truly roleplaying (or trying to roleplay as close as you could), you wouldn't reload at all and go back and "fix" it.  If you selected something thinking that's how your character would react and something you didn't like happened, well that's how things happen in real life so you're taking YOURSELF out of the role and starting to metagame...

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Why wouldn't you take DAO as the example? Its more analogous given both are full games where Awakenings was an explansion pack with clearly limited funds invested in it.

Simple, Awakening had about roughly the same amount of a development cycle that DA2 will have. Origins was in development for 5 years,  quite a difference don't you think? Keeping in mind that DA2 is also supposed to span 10 years, yet overall be a shorter game than Origins and when you start thinking about the quality of spanning 10 years worth of story into a shorter game.. Well I have some reservations on how well its going to be pulled off given the dev cycle, the quality of awakenings and much of the post release DLC.

DA2 will have been in development for 2 years when released. One of the developers stated this in this pcgamer preview. And in the Gaider interview on another thread he stated that BG2 took 18 months to do.

Which is somewhat of a contradiction to the "2 years of DLC" we were  told at release, so which is it, were they already hard at work on DA2 or making DLC and Awakening? You honestly haven't noticed a drop off in not only communication but quality since the EA aquirement?

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 20 septembre 2010 - 11:41 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

bsbcaer wrote...

If you were truly roleplaying (or trying to roleplay as close as you could), you wouldn't reload at all and go back and "fix" it.  If you selected something thinking that's how your character would react and something you didn't like happened, well that's how things happen in real life so you're taking YOURSELF out of the role and starting to metagame...

Yes, if I selected something thinking that's how my character would react and something I didn't like happened, I'd just play on with that.  That's roleplaying.

I was describing a time when I acted out of character, and thus I needed to go back and replay 25 hours of the game to fix it.

[Noir201]

Tbh, i more excited about Kingdom under Fire 2 then DA 2, amazing when you get to see a gameplay video, instead of just reading the same pr spin over and over.

[DPB]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Which is somewhat of a contradiction to the "2 years of DLC" we were  told at release, so which is it, were they already hard at work on DA2 or making DLC and Awakening? You honestly haven't noticed a drop off in not only communication but quality since the EA aquirement?

DLC is made by a small subset of the development team, they don't have everyone working on it. The same goes for Awakening, if you look at the list of credits it's much smaller than DAO. Those who weren't occupied with DLC and Awakening presumably worked on DA2.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...
DA2 will have been in development for 2 years when released. One of the developers stated this in this pcgamer preview. And in the Gaider interview on another thread he stated that BG2 took 18 months to do.

Which is somewhat of a contradiction to the "2 years of DLC" we were  told at release, so which is it, were they already hard at work on DA2 or making DLC and Awakening? You honestly haven't noticed a drop off in not only communication but quality since the EA aquirement?

Its not a contradiction, the DLC and Awakenings are made by small teams, not by the entire team who worked on DAO. I think there's even a separate patch team. MIke Laidlaw said they finalised the DAO DLC once they realised DA2 was coming together quicker than they had anticipated which undoubtedly meant folding the separate teams into the DA2 development, which sounds eminently reasonable.

[soundchaser721]

IMHO the dlc was pretty lackluster. Awakening had such promise when it was announced but it just didn't have the budget to follow through. Gaider even mentioned in one of the PAX interviews that he wanted to bring a lot of the characters from origins back specifically the romances but they just didn't have the budget for it. As for why they didn't have the budget, DA2 comes to mind but i doubt it had that much of an impact on awakenings budget. Its just a little disappointing that they reneged on their promise of dlc up until DA2 i guess because its coming together so well they feel the need to just stop making dlc. Which makes me wonder if they just winged witch hunt and have no grand scheme for morrigan.

Modifié par soundchaser721, 21 septembre 2010 - 02:14 .

[Morroian]

soundchaser721 wrote...
IMHO the dlc was pretty lackluster. Awakening had such promise when it was announced but it just didn't have the budget to follow through. Gaider even mentioned in one of the PAX interviews that he wanted to bring a lot of the characters from origins back specifically the romances but they just didn't have the budget for it. As for why they didn't have the budget, DA2 comes to mind but i doubt it had that much of an impact on awakenings budget. Its just a little disappointing that they reneged on their promise of dlc up until DA2 i guess because its coming together so well they feel the need to just stop making dlc. Which makes me wonder if they just winged witch hunt and have no grand scheme for morrigan.

Well from what David Gaider said they definitely do have plans for her. Plus they also said that Witch Hunt was always going to be the last DLC for DAO whether it was now or another year in the future.

I agree on the budget issue though hopefully it will be increased for DA2 DLC. As for the no 2 years of DLC well the point is we're getting a whole new game ahead of schedule.

[SirOccam]

Arrgh...I got to the very last point then accidentally hit the Back button on my mouse. Well it doesn't matter since we've pretty much gotten to the point where we're repeating ourselves. And I don't say that to sound exasperated or frustrated, just...resigned? It's pretty clear that there's a fundamental difference of taste that can't be resolved, nor should such a thing be expected.

On the contrary, it's always a lot of fun to tackle a big issue like this with someone who's not going to get bored of it two posts in, or replace arguments with sarcasm or worse. It's like subsisting on a diet of tic-tacs, but every once in a while you're presented with a nice, juicy cheeseburger.

Anyway, (*burp*) I'll just skip to the last one:

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The game needs me because I make the decisions. It doesn't run by itself. I control the protagonist. My (and your) input IS special, it's just that there are bounds on what that input is. And that's not a bad thing.

If my input is limited to those inputs anticipated by the designers, then my input isn't special.  Any other person could credibly reproduce my input.

I don't see this as meaning your input isn't special. But by the same token, you're not a co-author. You are a consumer, as am I, as are we all. We purchase a game, and (hopefully) enjoy what it presents to us. The great thing about RPGs is that they give the player freedom to affect the course of the game. It's not unlimited freedom, but it's more than you'll get reading a book or watching a movie.

But I don't necessarily think more freedom always means a better game. Look at Fable. There is an enormous amount of freedom there, but the main area where I feel it suffers is the lack of narrative drive. And that narrative drive, I feel, is nearly antithetical to the concept of freedom. For example, you have the freedom to marry and raise a family with almost anyone you wish, but there is no storyline there. They don't have a unique personality, and you'll never learn anything interesting about them or have any kind of compelling, emotional experience. You could make up a story in your head, but what's the point of that? It's like buying a novel only to find huge sections of blank sheets of paper. I don't dislike the Fable games (in fact I am a huge fan), but they will never match up to what Dragon Age has offered thus far in terms of emotional investment.

I guess I just don't mind being hand-held through the plot to some degree. If the plot is as good as DA's, then I am in good hands and it will be an extremely satisfying experience.

[SirOccam]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

2. It still doesn't explain why they feel like they can't appreciate the other despite its flaws[/quote]
Because the other fundamentally breaks my playstyle.[/quote]
Not if you don't play on the other. Then it has no bearing on it.

[quote][quote]SirOccam wrote...

Both games might be made by BioWare, but the teams responsible for them are completely different. And I
doubt it's a BW company policy that paraphrases should be misleading.[/quote]
If there is a car that uses a reolutionary new braking system, and it crashes all the time, I would question the
wisdom of the design team that next chooses that same brake design.[/quote]
But if there's no underlying conceptual problem with the braking system, then they can just install it correctly and it can work brilliantly.

I think the analogy is getting stretched in ways that don't make sense. If a braking system was installed in a fleet of cars, and they ALL kept crashing, that would indeed seem to indicate a problem with the system itself. But what we have here is what is essentially a single instance of the system failing (and this is how the analogy was initially posed). It was "your car" that failed. In the analogy, this refers to "the Mass Effect team using paraphrasis in Mass Effect." Each single line that didn't match doesn't equate to another car failing.

For every example of a misleading paraphrase in Mass Effect, there's an alternative they could have chosen that would have been fine. And the system itself would not have to be changed.[/quote]

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

soundchaser721 wrote...
IMHO the dlc was pretty lackluster. Awakening had such promise when it was announced but it just didn't have the budget to follow through. Gaider even mentioned in one of the PAX interviews that he wanted to bring a lot of the characters from origins back specifically the romances but they just didn't have the budget for it. As for why they didn't have the budget, DA2 comes to mind but i doubt it had that much of an impact on awakenings budget. Its just a little disappointing that they reneged on their promise of dlc up until DA2 i guess because its coming together so well they feel the need to just stop making dlc. Which makes me wonder if they just winged witch hunt and have no grand scheme for morrigan.

Well from what David Gaider said they definitely do have plans for her. Plus they also said that Witch Hunt was always going to be the last DLC for DAO whether it was now or another year in the future.

I agree on the budget issue though hopefully it will be increased for DA2 DLC. As for the no 2 years of DLC well the point is we're getting a whole new game ahead of schedule.

Its actualy a shame then that WH ended up coming off much the same way Awakening did then, half baked and not really "done" feeling. I really really hope DA2 doesn't follow suit.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The lines in DAO (or any RPG without a voiced protagonist) aren't even necessarily the wrods your character utters.  They're an abstraction.  They're as much an abstraction as the single word lines you types in text-parsing games in the '80s, or the keywords you select in dialogue in the Elder Scrolls games.

Using this "logic" what you really want is not the DAO system where  someone tries to write dialog for you but instead you'd be better off with mood indicators right? If the tyranny of the writers bothers you so much then what you'd actually want to do is chuck out all that expensive writing that has been done in RPG's over the last 20-30 years and just roll with this sort of thing- sans any voicing:

"Our village is under attack, please help me".
1. :innocent:
2.
3.

Because now you've got the full on abstraction,. The game now knows your intent good, evil or confused and you can imagine any dialog you want without worrying about what someone else wanted you to say. Is this where you are going with your vison-thing?

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Not if you don't play on the other. Then it has no bearing on it.

True, but it looks very much like the other is all there's going to be for a while.

But if there's no underlying conceptual problem with the braking system, then they can just install it correctly and it can work brilliantly.

Absolutely.  But we have no evidence of that.  Every example we've yet seen of the system fails.

For every example of a misleading paraphrase in Mass Effect, there's an alternative they could have chosen that would have been fine. And the system itself would not have to be changed.

And every time, they didn't choose it.

Mass Effect isn't one data point.  There are thousands of data points scattered throughout that one game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

Using this "logic" what you really want is not the DAO system where  someone tries to write dialog for you but instead you'd be better off with mood indicators right? If the tyranny of the writers bothers you so much then what you'd actually want to do is chuck out all that expensive writing that has been done in RPG's over the last 20-30 years and just roll with this sort of thing- sans any voicing:

"Our village is under attack, please help me".
1. :innocent:
2.
3.

Because now you've got the full on abstraction,. The game now knows your intent good, evil or confused and you can imagine any dialog you want without worrying about what someone else wanted you to say. Is this where you are going with your vison-thing?

You're incorrectly assuming that shorter inputs are better abstractions.

They're greater abstractions, which isn't necessarily better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

I don't see this as meaning your input isn't special. But by the same token, you're not a co-author.

Yes I am.  The story that is ultimately told by an RPG is a collaboration of the game's design and the game's player.

And each time a player plays the game, a new story is written.  A new collaboration each time.

But I don't necessarily think more freedom always means a better game. Look at Fable. There is an enormous amount of freedom there, but the main area where I feel it suffers is the lack of narrative drive. And that narrative drive, I feel, is nearly antithetical to the concept of freedom. For example, you have the freedom to marry and raise a family with almost anyone you wish, but there is no storyline there. They don't have a unique personality, and you'll never learn anything interesting about them or have any kind of compelling, emotional experience. You could make up a story in your head, but what's the point of that? It's like buying a novel only to find huge sections of blank sheets of paper. I don't dislike the Fable games (in fact I am a huge fan), but they will never match up to what Dragon Age has offered thus far in terms of emotional investment.

Because Fable features only flat characters.  It has nothing to do with the amount of freedom offered to the player; it's that Fable contains effectively no writing.

[Amioran]

foodstuffs wrote...

Are you trying to fail?

No. I'm just trying to make you understand that having an opinion doesn't make the same right at priori. It is this so difficult to understand?

Yet again you state your opinion and yet again you insist that anyone who disagrees is too simplistic to speak.

1. That's not "my" opinion.
2. Everyone that thinks that art is just taste simply doesn't have a clue on it, for lack of knowledge or otherwise. This doesn't concern disagreeing or agreeing.
3. "Try to talk sense on a fool and he will think you foolish". Discorides (75 AD). As you see, after all these years some things never changes.

  You've provided no factual bases to your arguments, yet you expect others to. 

What? I provided ALL factual bases. Want to read again? I quoted different examples, made factual (because they are written, and replicable) arguments. If you cannot see that it's not my problem. Everyone reading a bit of art's hystory will understand that art is not only "taste", as everybody reading (or studying a bit) the authors I mentioned will understand that your thesis is anything but a true one. You insist on not caring about it, but that's your problem, don't try to say I never proved you otherwise because I always did, thanks.

You, btw, on the contrary, have said anything at all of concrete about the argument apart the "I don't like it" representation of a whining child.

Modifié par Amioran, 21 septembre 2010 - 09:48 .

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They haven't really told us which we're getting in DA2.  They have said we'll get to decide how Hawke feels about things, or how Shepard was more constrained because he was a preset character, and that suggests Hawke isn't a pregenerated character.  The design goal appears to be to make Hawke as much our character as the Warden was.

No, it is different. Hawke already exists as a character. It already represents a character. You just direct his/her course. This is the CRUCIAL difference. In the case of the warden the character interprets you, in the case of Hawke you interpret him/her. Hawke already contains his/her character within him/herself. A total different point of start and a total different way to handle the situation and to interact with the same. It is not a case if "warden" is a title while Hawke is actually a name.

The fact that you can direct the life etc., change his/her course and direct how s/he approach things doesn't change that Hawke is already a predetermined character, differently from the Warden. So, having his/her particular voice and every other "external" characteristic, as a name etc. fits perfectly well. You are mixing the two as if they are the same, but they aren't. In this case I can understand your doubts and what you don't supposedly like but the point of start of these is faulted.

Modifié par Amioran, 21 septembre 2010 - 10:12 .