1279 réponses à ce sujet

[foodstuffs]

yukidama wrote...
To be totally cliche, I prefer quality over quantity.

To be totally cliche, quality is subjective

[Monica83]

Deep storyline (can be static or dynamic)

Deep world information

Deep ineractive Dialogues

Deep Interaction with Companions

Character customization (if you have not a premated one)



Since from what i read Dragon age2 will have...

Sepmlyfied dialogues (pharaphrases sistem)

Lack of character roleplay customization compared with the first title...

(You can't select a race classes now are static)

Dialog wheel (if well implemented with a not semplyfied dialogues with pharafrases is a nice thing)



But if you say this thing: Dialog gets unwieldy [when you have to read more than three words at a time]



When you are making a roleplay game... well its like to tell a pizza man to don't use mozzarella

[soundchaser721]

These shifts in gameplay towards a more action-based style are grounded upon totally ridiculous reasons. When I was playing origins I never sat there and said: "Man those mage attack animations are lame, its like hes going 'pew pew pew' with his staff" or "Ugh alistair just sorta slinks over to the enemy and doesn't do what I say" I was focused on the fight it self, and setting up a good tactical offense to out maneuver my enemy and achieve victory. I didn't care about the animations looking cool, as far as I'm, concerned they were fine. Rather than tweak the animations and refine the combat system a little they seemed to just start over again- which seems to be a recurring theme about DA2. As for the lack of archery and dual-wielding among warriors, its a bit of a double edged sword, yes you'll have more focused talent trees but you also loose the option of having two swords if you wanted to. Bioware's catering to some people, but also angering their original DA fanbase.

Modifié par soundchaser721, 18 septembre 2010 - 06:29 .

[Monica83]

I agree with jon ofcourse but bioware seems want follow this way... Im not sure because they want it or EA want it....

We had times where true RPG make you happy after you puchased it...

Rpg like:

Baldour's gate, Baldour's gate 2, Icewind dale,icewind dale 2, Planescape torment,Neverwinter nights...



Now we have....things..... like...

Fable.....Blaah

Oblivion.. all graphic and freedom but weak story and too much semplyfied things...

Mass effect & Mass effect 2: Beatyfull games but far to be true rpg....

I want the old time back (

[ErichHartmann]

Doom and gloom! I'll reserve judgment for after I have played DA2 for 20 hours straight.

Modifié par ErichHartmann, 18 septembre 2010 - 07:09 .

[Wyndham711]

DA2 may well be an awesome game, but hyping it up by slandering Origins feels absolutely horrible. Origins was an awesome game and it really rubs me the wrong way when people say everything DA2 does differently is categorically an improvement over Origins' "outdated, unwieldly, overly pc-centric, clunky, geeky" systems.

[Amioran]

Merced256 wrote...

You're asking me to deconstruct your arugment? If i thought you made one worth breaking down perhaps i would.

Yes, how not.

Merced256 wrote...
But assuming things you can't possibly know doesn't lend you any credibility, in fact it detracts from whatever small amount you might have possessed to begin with.

Let me understand. I don't have credibility because I "assume" things, while you do because at the same time you *assume* some other things. Good logic sir, you should win a prize.

Merced256 wrote...
I also don't tend to read things that make such stupid assumptions because it leads me to make an assumption, though a informed one. But hey, maybe its not your fault.

Yes, yes, whatever. The old silly lie of "I have a good argument but I don't show it to you because I'm *purposedly* superior".

Modifié par Amioran, 18 septembre 2010 - 07:01 .

[Annie_Dear]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

This is outrageous.

[Amioran]

errant_knight wrote...

See, there's a reason I didn't address your points one by one. I got the impression from your earlier posts that it wouldn't be worth my time unless I was in a mood to toss unprovoked sarcasm, and likely feces, back and forth, and you've proved me right. You're expressing yourself in a way that is both condescending, and completely unaccepting of the possibility that one could disagree with you without being a whining fool. That's not a good way to encourage respectful dialogue, and I'm not going to bother to try.

Yes, yes, whatever.

I know I'm right, there's no point in you telling me. You just consider what you want, not the whole. This way it is too easy. There are so many things you don't consider in your rebukings, everyone having a bit of experience on what is being talked about can understand it.

Then pretending to be superior just because you want to be doesn't make you so. At last, no matter if you disagree with it, I put forth an argument and, be true or not your motivations doesn't care, you haven't being able to address it. The rest are only idle words.

Have I had the opportunity of showing the lack of your arguments I would have promptly done so, but, as always, you just want to talk of what you don't like and never of WHY you don't like it and what you would do taking all in consideraton on your part. It is easy this way, I know, you always win.

Modifié par Amioran, 18 septembre 2010 - 07:05 .

[Loc'n'lol]

So... What's new anyway ?

[Pritos]

Sure, screw the consoles, the aren't really videogames... Oh wait.

[Merced256]

So do you post from your iphone?

[Lord Gremlin]

jonv1234 wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

DA2 may well be an awesome game, but hyping it up by slandering Origins feels absolutely horrible. Origins was an awesome game and it really rubs me the wrong way when people say everything DA2 does differently is categorically an improvement over Origins' "outdated, unwieldly, overly pc-centric, clunky, geeky" systems.

I guess those people do not realize that making a game 'better' for console players is just as bad to those of us playing on the ultimate platform, the PC. Hmmmm maybe I should start a new topic...

The ultimate platform is actually Wii. Perhaps you've missed the part where combat controls are exactly same as in Origins, but now you can pause game, issue 4 commands, then a second later pause it again and issue 4 new commands. In Origins you'll have to settle for 3 commands at second attempt, because Alistair is still moving into position.
Combat on consoles in Origins could be just as good as on PC, but porting was done really badly. We're talking about broken things, like non-selectable pets.

The only thing console (assuming we're not talkinga bout keyboard and mouse support on PS3) can't do really well is RTS. It's not an issue in DAO - you can pause the game and take your time to select any ability(s) you want.

P.S. I hate RTS. Except for maybe DOW & expansions...

[Sable Phoenix]

Giltspur wrote...

All of the fears may prove to be right.  Bioware may have indeed lost their mind.  It seems unlikely given the writers being the same, but it's always a possibility.

I don't really panic when seeing these sorts of previews though.  Perception plays a big part in how people present things.  This guy seems to have the perspective of "YAR.  I hit things fast!  Now I don't have to read as much YAR!  MMMM GOOOD."  But that says as much about him as about the demo he's watching.  Some milquetoast bastard such as myself may still find character identification and immersion in a world of paraphrases, tone and voice over--that YARman game journalist may not see.  After all, he's viewing what's there differently than me because his focus is diffferent.

I've seen a lot of evolutions in DA2 that seem like good idea.  Instant action in combat.  Good.  Combos for non-mages: good.  The idea that it helps for players to feel like their party comp is part of a plan or approach to coming battles: good.  Spell customization: good.  Putting more distance between rogues and warriors: good.  A 10-year span so that you can have moments like were in DAO's ending cards play out in the game: good.  

Lines like “I still wanted to keep that element of RPG, that sense of exploration,
progression, sidequests, looting, all that stuff is key, and losing that
would be a shame. To me, this is really exciting because we can get
even less linear, and less predetermined.": good.

My hope is that the framed narrative will allow more branching in the middle of the game than Origins had--more variety in additonal playthroughs.  

At the end of the day, though, the heart and soul of Dragon Age, for me, was the immersion.  The identification with the Warden (or perhaps Hawke in DA2), camaraderie with party members (heightened by party banter and camp downtime), further character customization through choosing a romance.  Well, that's to be determined.  I like to think that Bioware's writers care about these things too and want them in their game and are trying to get those things into the game.  I suspect they can pull it off whatever the tools they're given to work with (dialogue wheel or not, voice over or not).  So for those reasons I tend not to read too much into the impressions of a game journalist.  Being addicted to the game, I'm prone to obsess over every little scrap that comes out.  But...experience also tells me that relying on the perceptions of others that are watching and playing demos...is an exercise in self-abuse that often ends up not having been informative as you thought it might have been.

This is one of the best-worded perspectives on DA2 that I've seen.  I really hope you're right.  There are a lot of things it sounds like they're doing right with the development, but... every time I read some new article or tidbit of information, it just makes me less excited about it.  I couldn't wait to play Dragon Age, I followed its development closely ever since they announced it while developing the first Mass Effect, I preordered it and everything.  This one?  My excitement is at zero, and dropping.

I hope I'm pleasantly surprised by the final product.

[Amioran]

yukidama wrote...

I pretty much agree with this. Why is it that people are acting like having too many choices isn't a potentially bad thing?

Because they look at the thing from another point of view. Many of these people are accustomed to a system as that (for example) of DnD. In that case customization of equipment not inherent on classes is everything. Being the system based more on not selectable abilities (apart mages), without a jack-of-all-trades approach for equipment etc. there would be no customization at all and all classes would just feel the same. What creates archetype is more the approach used "externally" than "internally".

However DA is more ability oriented. This means that abilities actually *shape* the class much more than equipment does. In DAO the approach was more "mixed" but for how I understand it they are going now for a more specific approach to this.

Sure, it would be good to have abilities working with many trees for every class but this is actually very difficult to do in practice. It would require a lot of time. Given the current approach, in fact, every class "general" abilities must follow a sort of trend working nicely with the style used to create archetypes, both from an animation and utility pow. Imagine this done with more than two trees and for every class. It would mean a LOT of work. More, you shoud add different behavior of all "general" abilities tied to specific "styles" (since archetypes by abilities works best, logically, by them). It is obvious that it would not be doable.

Customization and replayability comes from abilities this time. You can create different characters NOT by equipment but how you use the class and the abilities you select. Every style can have different archetypes (differently from, in example, the above mentioned DnD). In DAO, having a mixed approach, many "general" abiliities didn't work well with specific trees, or didn't work at all. The mixed approach filled the gap somewhat but IMO an ability oriented game should be more tied to abilities and this is the way they are going to.

As I said, yes, in a perfect world the best would be having both things, but there are limitations, both on budget and time.

Naturally everyone has his/her taste but at last many people should consider this A) It is not possible to have everything, and at last you should consider what the devs are trying to achieve before complaining and also if you cant not like it as the "equipment driven system", have an open mind about it and consider every aspect, not only what you "think" you don't like and what you "miss" about it. Look at the thing from a more ample prospective.

Modifié par Amioran, 18 septembre 2010 - 07:33 .

[ArcanistLibram]

Dragon Age Origins was a complete failure. Bioware tried to put a character-driven story into a plot-driven package and all they did was sideline the Blight for about 80% of the game and leave dozens of character-related plotlines unresolved.



I haven't read anything so far about DA2 that's not a massive improvement over the original.

[Sable Phoenix]

ArcanistLibram wrote...

Dragon Age Origins was a complete failure. Bioware tried to put a character-driven story into a plot-driven package and all they did was sideline the Blight for about 80% of the game and leave dozens of character-related plotlines unresolved.

I haven't read anything so far about DA2 that's not a massive improvement over the original.

... what?

>falls over laughing uncontrollably<

This is ridiculous on its face... unless you're being sarcastic, and then it's brilliant.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 18 septembre 2010 - 07:30 .

[Wyndham711]

Personally, everything about DA2's plot at this point seems much more exciting than the core plot of Origins. Origins nailed the characters, but the core plotline wasn't really anything special. It had it's moments, but it was all in all fairly predictable and disjointed. There's no reason why you couldn't have great characters with a fascinating plot, and I'm happy that's what BioWare is seemingly aiming at with DA2.

[Loc'n'lol]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

ArcanistLibram wrote...

Dragon Age Origins was a complete failure. Bioware tried to put a character-driven story into a plot-driven package and all they did was sideline the Blight for about 80% of the game and leave dozens of character-related plotlines unresolved.

I haven't read anything so far about DA2 that's not a massive improvement over the original.

... what?

>falls over laughing uncontrollably<

This is ridiculous on its face... unless you're being sarcastic, and then it's brilliant.

Laugh all you want, he's got a pretty good point.

[ArcanistLibram]

No, I'm quite serious. Origins was originally presented as a character-driven like Planescape: Torment. You make a character and he or she evolves through the story. Except the entire story hinges on the Blight and nothing the characters do affects the Blight. And the Blight only comes up at Ostagar in the beginning of the game and in Denerim at the end of the game.



So you have characters who spend most of their time ignoring the story's major conflict and a major conflict that barely affects the characters for most of the game.



Want to rule Ferelden as King or Queen? Become Arl of the Alienage? Go back to the Circle to help rebuild? Drive the Darkspawn out of the Deep Roads? Sorry, you can't. The game ends with the Blight and nothing your character has said or done matters outside the epilogue. It's just bits and pieces held together by very pretty and awesome duct tape, at least until Awakening comes out and starts cutting the duct tape and everything just falls apart.



If Hawke getting the Shepard treatment means I can get divergent storylines with proper resolution, I call that a bargain.

[foodstuffs]

One thing I liked about Origins is that all the evil in Ferelden seemed to be happening at the same time the Blight was gaining strength, showing a possible connection between the two. I wonder if it was intentional to make people wonder the relation between blights and humanity (ie how much does man's own evil drive the blight?)