1279 réponses à ce sujet

[foodstuffs]

ArcanistLibram wrote...



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.

Unfortunately I have to agree with this assessment. Origins should have been about Allistair, the one in-party character that had any real reason/drive/motivation to unite Ferelden and take revenge, regardless of his lineage. All other party characters, and all origin stories, felt unnecessary in that regard. But so many people need X, Y, an Z features in order to be happy.

[mellifera]

Amioran wrote...

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.

True, in some ideal situation where giving the player seemingly unlimited choices could be implemented in a functional and meaningful way I'd be all for it. It's just not plausible though, since you're limited by so many factors that people aren't limited by in tabletop RPGs. Which is why I support streamlining some of the more redundant features or cutting back on certain things if it means that what is left over is more functional and reactive than just having a ton of stuff with little effect. I am not putting down DAO by saying there were things wrong with it. It's my favorite game, but deluding oneself into believing that it was utterly perfect and all changes are bad is kind of... eh.

[errant_knight]

Amioran wrote...

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.

You just keep telling yourself that. Fact is, I don't feel compelled to deal with obnoxious people like you. Well, maybe if they paid, but they don't, so....

Modifié par errant_knight, 18 septembre 2010 - 08:13 .

[Maverick827]

So is every doomsayer in this thread new to these forums? I had to do a double-take to make sure that this thread wasn't from a few months ago. How are you suddenly outraged by information that we already knew?

[Sable Phoenix]

foodstuffs wrote...

ArcanistLibram wrote...

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.

Unfortunately I have to agree with this assessment. Origins should have been about Allistair, the one in-party character that had any real reason/drive/motivation to unite Ferelden and take revenge, regardless of his lineage. All other party characters, and all origin stories, felt unnecessary in that regard. But so many people need X, Y, an Z features in order to be happy.

Okay, fine, for the sake of argument everything he said about the game's story is accurate.

What made me laugh was when he called Origins a failure.  Hyperbole much?

Origins was so obviously not a failure, either critically or commercially, that such a claim is ridiculous, and I fail to see how he drew that conclusion from a sense of dissatisfaction with the writing.

[Xewaka]

Maverick827 wrote...

So is every doomsayer in this thread new to these forums? I had to do a double-take to make sure that this thread wasn't from a few months ago. How are you suddenly outraged by information that we already knew?

Bad ortography and cluelessness on a proffessional journalist tends to build up rage.

[errant_knight]

Maverick827 wrote...

So is every doomsayer in this thread new to these forums? I had to do a double-take to make sure that this thread wasn't from a few months ago. How are you suddenly outraged by information that we already knew?

No. I made my points a few months ago, and didn't feel the need to keep saying the same thing. I'm expressing an opinion, not trying to spoil other people's enjoyment. And I'd started to feel like I might be assuming the worst more than was necessary after listening to the recent interviews with the writers. But this seems to confirm fears that had been partially allayed, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who found that.

[Tsuga C]

errant_knight wrote...
But this seems to confirm fears that had been partially allayed, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who found that.

QFT, big time. 

[Mike Laidlaw]

Maybe I could offer some perspective.

The writer of that article saw pretty much the same content that other people have seen. If you do a fact-by-fact check versus the known facts, you'll see that he's saying nothing particularly new. However, he is offering a new opinion. The opinion seems to be: "Hot damn, I was surprised and impressed by what I saw."

So, then, are you reacting to what the article said, or are you reacting to the way it was said? I'm guessing the latter. And I can see why, his language choice seems to hit the same chords that have made some people determine that DA2 is [insert prognostication here].

But here's the thing: you just saw someone write a very enthusiastic preview about the PC version. Not the console. The PC.

Some solace there, I would hope?

[Bryy_Miller]

Giltspur wrote...

All of the fears may prove to be right.

You mean that people who want to see bad thing will see bad things? Shocker. 

[David Gaider]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

All of the fears may prove to be right.

You mean that people who want to see bad thing will see bad things? Shocker. 

Expect this right up until release. As every preview comes out, people will either be ecstatic or dismayed based on whether what it says matches up with their personal hopes. It's a bit of a roller coaster, like living with a schizophrenic.

[Tsuga C]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Some solace there, I would hope?

If offered with a horn of mead, it might help a bit. 

[Bryy_Miller]

David Gaider wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

All of the fears may prove to be right.

You mean that people who want to see bad thing will see bad things? Shocker. 

Expect this right up until release. As every preview comes out, people will either be ecstatic or dismayed based on whether what it says matches up with their personal hopes. It's a bit of a roller coaster, like living with a schizophrenic.

One of my pet peeves is when people assume that one thing that they don't like about X means that every bad thing ever said about X is true. That's going a little overboard. I'm all for criticism, but not for Generalizing Justification.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 18 septembre 2010 - 08:45 .

[Talogrungi]

I'm looking forward to a more action-oriented game. I enjoyed ME1, but found ME2 to be infinately better a game experience. I felt that Bioware learned from the less-appealing aspects of the original game and were able to improve on it massively.

What I've read about DA2 has me hopeful that lightning will strike twice.

[AtreiyaN7]

Uh-oh this is turning into one of those threads replete with flaming, console-bashing and EA bashing, plus arguments over DA being Mass Effectified. Everything you want all in one thread - awesome! The errors with Hawke's name and Varric's suddenly being crowned king aside, the article was an interesting read.

The only thing I'm interested in addressing is this belief that DA:O's original system was getting "bashed." The fact that they said it was clunky was an accurate assessment as far as I'm concerned. They weren't slamming the system, just critiquing it. I LIKED the original system and do play tactically in major battles. I've had mages, a rogue AND warriors.

If you're a mage, you don't have a lot of problems. However, if you're melee you usually end up waiting half a lifetime for your character to move into position and then strike (or chase people down OR circle around opponents awkwardly), so yes, I believe it was clunky for both melee classes. The only thing they've done as far as combat goes is to make things more fluid and visceral - the original system is still basically intact as stated in the article and elsewhere. We still get to pause with our spacebars, we still have our hotbars, we still have a camera (albeit they haven't nailed that one down yet), etc.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 18 septembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[Giltspur]

David Gaider wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

All of the fears may prove to be right.

You mean that people who want to see bad thing will see bad things? Shocker. 

Expect this right up until release. As every preview comes out, people will either be ecstatic or dismayed based on whether what it says matches up with their personal hopes. It's a bit of a roller coaster, like living with a schizophrenic.

Eesh at selective quoting.  Reading my line buried in this exchange and then reading my original post on page 1 is a lot like visiting the Twilight Zone. Oh well, Internet life, I suppose.

[Nighteye2]

I was surprised that the reviewer thought normal on DA:O was difficult. O.o



I would expect reviewers to be a bit more skilled at playing games than that...

[zahra]

I'm staying away from these previews like they're multi-level marketing agents.

[AtreiyaN7]

Nighteye2 wrote...

I was surprised that the reviewer thought normal on DA:O was difficult. O.o

I would expect reviewers to be a bit more skilled at playing games than that...

It was harder at first, then the patches made things easier supposedly. I don't really recall the changes (other than something about dagger damage and rogues), but then I'm lazy about reading patch notes.

[Bryy_Miller]

Giltspur wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

All of the fears may prove to be right.

You mean that people who want to see bad thing will see bad things? Shocker. 

Expect this right up until release. As every preview comes out, people will either be ecstatic or dismayed based on whether what it says matches up with their personal hopes. It's a bit of a roller coaster, like living with a schizophrenic.

Eesh at selective quoting.  Reading my line buried in this exchange and then reading my original post on page 1 is a lot like visiting the Twilight Zone. Oh well, Internet life, I suppose.

The fact that you phrased it in such a way as to imply that you speak for everybody that has any problem - real or hyper - with the development of DA2 was more than enough for me to reply to. The truth is that if people want to see bad things in DA2, they will - regardless of how bad it actually is. Same goes for those that want to see good. There are as many people on these forums that are objective as there are subjective, on both sides. 

Lumping everyone together is a sure-fire way to be taken seriously.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 18 septembre 2010 - 09:10 .

[SirOccam]

The author was clearly learning this information for the first time, and therefore he made a lot of the same connections as many on the forums did upon learning these things. Things like how the dialogue wheel and the voiced protagonist are like Mass Effect. And that's true, obviously.

But it's no reason to jump right back into the wild overreaction stage that honestly I feel we've been coming out of, finally. "OMG he said Mass Effect therefore DA2 is Dragon Effect!" The fact that he's a writer for a gaming magazine does not imbue him with any sort of clairvoyance (which should be obvious from his references to "Hawk" and "the dwarf king Varric," among others). He's just jumping to the same conclusions a lot of us did. It doesn't mean he's any less wrong than we were.

As Mike Laidlaw said, look at the actual facts that he wrote. There is nothing new there. All we are getting is one more person's fallible impressions of what they saw. And even those are nothing we haven't heard before.

[Brockololly]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

But here's the thing: you just saw someone write a very enthusiastic preview about the PC version. Not the console. The PC.

Some solace there, I would hope?

Except for the fact that the guy barely mentions anything specific about DA2 on PC compared to Origins on PC...just vague geenralized statements that could be copy/pasted from any other "DA2 NAO WITH MORE ME2!" preview out there. Not a criticism of the game, just the fact that most gaming sites never delve into meaningful details, just marketing catch phrases and hype.

slimgrin wrote...
Gameplay footage would allay/confirm many fears. Right now, its all speculation.

Bingo.