442 réponses à ce sujet

[Taritu]

Huh, outsold ME2. That made me laugh, since everyone thought the opposite and much as I like ME2, I thought DAO was the better game.

[Tiax Rules All]

Morroian wrote...
As for it being an action rpg well the PC will still have auto attack as well as pause and give orders so if that makes it an action rpg I guess it is one but then so was DAO.

just because it HAS pause and play doesn't mean the combat hasn't changed. What if the combat has changed soo much that you dont need it anymore? Then having it is pointless

[Lyssistr]

Morroian wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

They're not, the top down camera if implemented won't be like the previous one, it's going to be more restricted (dig the forums for the reference, I don't keep citations on endnote for Bio forums) and whenever someone from Bio was asked if its aRPG, (s)he turned the topic into a philosophical essay on what is RPG, sorry, I'll have to go with what I have seen so far and that's aRPG.

The tactical view could in fact end up being less restrictive than DAOs. No it won;t be as high but from what Mike Laidlaw has said we will be able to roam the entire battlefield, something that couldn't be done on DAO.

As for it being an action rpg well the PC will still have auto attack as well as pause and give orders so if that makes it an action rpg I guess it is one but then so was DAO.

Well, if it cant go as far up, it has to roam, else you won't be able to use that view at all for practical purposes.

At the end of the day if it's an aRPG is judged from how it plays, the sample we have is aRPG, also plenty of cases were they replied "it has a story" when asked if it's "h&s", leaving the hot potato (combat).

[slimgrin]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Keep popping in from time to time and now I understand why most people left the thread, hard to argue against people saying "THEY ARE LYING" or "I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT".

Dave, I checked your games profile and see you have Origins for both pc and console. Which do you like better?

[Dave of Canada]

slimgrin wrote...

Dave, I checked your games profile and see you have Origins for both pc and console. Which do you like better?

Played on the console first, the sheer difference between both left me in awe. Console Dragon Age lacks a lot of features, cannot be played tactically (well, at least not well) and pretty much requires you to sit there and watch your character auto-attack - using the occasional special ability that's mapped to the X / Y / B buttons.

When I went to the PC version and all my abilities were at the bottom, the codex entries were easy to access, you could view what items you recieved from pickpocketing (and ect), the ability to move individual characters when the game was paused, the extremely flexible camera (consoles are stuck with the camera behind their character's back with little to no control over it) and having the game appear a thousand times better on a medium PC that can't even run Starcraft 2 online? (AND MORE)

Well, it felt like a completely different game. Hands down, the PC version is leagues better than the console. Anybody who hasn't played the PC version is missing out greatly and anybody who only played the PC version should try the console version to compare.

This is why I'm excited for DA2, they aren't simply slapping a bandaid on the console version and appealing to it. The attack button should add at the very least add something more entertaining than counting the ceiling tiles while fighting.

Funny thing is? I enjoyed more the console version, though that's probably because I prefer controllers over mouse and keyboard (except for FPS games). Though that's personal preference and little to not bearing on the games themselves.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 novembre 2010 - 02:57 .

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Feeling like it doesn't have that structure is not the same as abandoning that structure.

Would argue though that trying to make game look/feel like it doesn't have the combat rolls when it does... isn't really very good approach. If just because it tends to ****** off people who fall for this impression and feel jarring disconnection when the characters don't perform as expected. "Why did my shot/swing miss, there's no way it couldn't land" tends to be common complaint and source of player frustration in games which use this method -- Alpha Protocol is probably the most recent example of that.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Feeling like it doesn't have that structure is not the same as abandoning that structure.

Would argue though that trying to make game look/feel like it doesn't have the combat rolls when it does... isn't really very good approach. If just because it tends to ****** off people who fall for this impression and feel jarring disconnection when the characters don't perform as expected. "Why did my shot/swing miss, there's no way it couldn't land" tends to be common complaint and source of player frustration in games which use this method -- Alpha Protocol is probably the most recent example of that.

And the veteran RPG fans who are complaining about it wouldn't, because we know there are dicerolls behind it.

I wasn't making a value judgment, simply making the logical statement that many of the assumptions made on the basis of Mike Laidlaw's statements are entirely speculative and rooted in confirmation bias.

"I am worried that Dragon Age 2 is heading in direction X.  Therefore, all possible statements that might confirm that preconception definitely do and all information that contradicts that preconception is open to question and in need of validation." 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 novembre 2010 - 03:06 .

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...
Alpha Protocol is probably the most recent example of that.

Alpha Protocol was just broken. It's an excellent example of why mixing rulesets can create games that just don't work. ME1, arguably nearlly pulled that off as well.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Alpha Protocol was just broken. It's an excellent example of why mixing rulesets can create games that just don't work. ME1, arguably nearlly pulled that off as well.

Mass Effect 1 dumbed-down the shooter elements to appeal to the RPG crowd.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I wasn't making a value judgment, simply making the logical statement that many of the assumptions made on the basis of Mike Laidlaw's statements are entirely speculative and rooted in confirmation bias.

Then you quoted the wrong post because I didn't make any claim or speculation. I expressed a negative response to what he said. What he said was "feels like there's no dice rolls" or something to that effect. I don't want it to feel that way. I want to know that I'm playing a tactical game.

[Mike Laidlaw]

tmp7704 wrote...
Would argue though that trying to make game look/feel like it doesn't have the combat rolls when it does... isn't really very good approach. If just because it tends to ****** off people who fall for this impression and feel jarring disconnection when the characters don't perform as expected.

It's a very careful balance to strike, I agree. Still, I have always believed that computers (and consoles) are exceptionally good at calculating stats, and "looking up" results, so I see no reason we need to have particularly slow combat just to evoke the feeling of dice rolling.

Stats matter in DA II, as does your build, and equipment. But it doesn't have to feel slow for them to do so.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Alpha Protocol was just broken. It's an excellent example of why mixing rulesets can create games that just don't work. ME1, arguably nearlly pulled that off as well.

Mass Effect 1 dumbed-down the shooter elements to appeal to the RPG crowd.

And ME2 did a much better job at combat because it wasn't trying to pretend it gave you RPG combat. It was a 3rd Person Shooter almost 100%.

[the_one_54321]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Stats matter in DA II, as does your build, and equipment. But it doesn't have to feel slow for them to do so.

That was actually reassuring. I wish you'd said that in the interview instead.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

And ME2 did a much better job at combat because it wasn't trying to pretend it gave you RPG combat. It was a 3rd Person Shooter almost 100%.

Which, as long as they were going to stick with twitch mechanics, was always the better choice.  Shooter mechanics are very much rooted in twitch gameplay, and RPG mechanics are very much not.

the_one_54321 wrote...
That was actually reassuring. I wish you'd said that in the interview instead. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

That's always what I figured he meant anyway.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 novembre 2010 - 03:11 .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
And ME2 did a much better job at combat because it wasn't trying to pretend it gave you RPG combat. It was a 3rd Person Shooter almost 100%.

Which, as long as they were going to stick with twitch mechanics, was always the better choice.  Shooter mechanics are very much rooted in twitch gameplay, and RPG mechanics are very much not.

Soooooooooooo agreed. (though I would have much rather had 1st person than 3rd)

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Alpha Protocol was just broken. It's an excellent example of why mixing rulesets can create games that just don't work. ME1, arguably nearlly pulled that off as well.

Mass Effect 1 dumbed-down the shooter elements to appeal to the RPG crowd.

And ME2 did a much better job at combat because it wasn't trying to pretend it gave you RPG combat. It was a 3rd Person Shooter almost 100%.

Thats what ME was trying to be all along though, a 3rd person shooter. DA doesn't and shouldn't go that route of being a whiz bang  all out action game. I really don't have an issue with speeding up combat a tad. Just please please please don't over do it.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
Would argue though that trying to make game look/feel like it doesn't have the combat rolls when it does... isn't really very good approach. If just because it tends to ****** off people who fall for this impression and feel jarring disconnection when the characters don't perform as expected.

It's a very careful balance to strike, I agree. Still, I have always believed that computers (and consoles) are exceptionally good at calculating stats, and "looking up" results, so I see no reason we need to have particularly slow combat just to evoke the feeling of dice rolling.

Stats matter in DA II, as does your build, and equipment. But it doesn't have to feel slow for them to do so.

Good to hear, do my companions equipment also matter? Or have you adapted the ME2  path of one outfit for companions?

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 02 novembre 2010 - 03:14 .

[slimgrin]

I can't remember if it was said or not, will there be difficulty levels? I know some of the issues that have been debated here would be solved with varying difficulty levels.

[Dave of Canada]

slimgrin wrote...

I can't remember if it was said or not, will there be difficulty levels? I know some of the issues that have been debated here would be solved with varying difficulty levels.

In the gameplay thread a while back, it's been said there's difficulty levels and Nightmare is the only one with FF.

[Brockololly]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Good to hear, do my companions equipment also matter? Or have you adapted the ME2  path of one outfit for companions?

Me thinks we have to wait until the podcast this Thursday before they divulge any inventory/companion information:unsure:

[ENolan]

Dave of Canada wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Dave, I checked your games profile and see you have Origins for both pc and console. Which do you like better?

Played on the console first, the sheer difference between both left me in awe. Console Dragon Age lacks a lot of features, cannot be played tactically (well, at least not well) and pretty much requires you to sit there and watch your character auto-attack - using the occasional special ability that's mapped to the X / Y / B buttons.

When I went to the PC version and all my abilities were at the bottom, the codex entries were easy to access, you could view what items you recieved from pickpocketing (and ect), the ability to move individual characters when the game was paused, the extremely flexible camera (consoles are stuck with the camera behind their character's back with little to no control over it) and having the game appear a thousand times better on a medium PC that can't even run Starcraft 2 online? (AND MORE)

Well, it felt like a completely different game. Hands down, the PC version is leagues better than the console. Anybody who hasn't played the PC version is missing out greatly and anybody who only played the PC version should try the console version to compare.

This is why I'm excited for DA2, they aren't simply slapping a bandaid on the console version and appealing to it. The attack button should add at the very least add something more entertaining than counting the ceiling tiles while fighting.

Funny thing is? I enjoyed more the console version, though that's probably because I prefer controllers over mouse and keyboard (except for FPS games). Though that's personal preference and little to not bearing on the games themselves.

A very good assessment, pretty fair and objective. Which is one reason I do wish I got DAO for the PC. I really would love to mess around on the toolset when I had free time, but I no longer have that or the money for the PC version. However, I managed to get DA:O when it just came out and another new game for literally half-off. [I forgot how I turned a $130 value into a $65 value besides the fact I worked there once.] I had heard very little about it, but decided to try it (especially with the discount thing). Best investment I made in trust when it came to gaming. Now I'm hooked to DA.

Whoa, I just realized I had a point to make but reminiscing derailed it completely. Pity too; I knew I was going to go somewhere with that.

[tmp7704]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

 Still, I have always believed that computers (and consoles) are exceptionally good at calculating stats, and "looking up" results, so I see no reason we need to have particularly slow combat just to evoke the feeling of dice rolling.

Oh definitely, i certainly don't mind if character actions are more responsive (ok i do mind when NPC opponents are at the same time forced to play by different rules but that's another story)  I think i'd just be wary about the mindset it's somehow "moving the game from dice rolling to fast paced combat" because that can be easily misread and wind up in a disappointment?

(afraid i can't word what i'm getting at very well, sorry about it)

[UberDuber]

Haha! Seriously am I seeing things right? Did DA sell more than ME? What! WTF why is BioWare Mass Effecting the god damn game then! All We needed was updated graphics and better combat! Not freaking voiced PCs and shiz. Agh!



They better not screw up DA3, and there better be old companions gosh dang it!

[Mike Laidlaw]

UberDuber wrote...

Haha! Seriously am I seeing things right? Did DA sell more than ME? What! WTF why is BioWare Mass Effecting the god damn game then! All We needed was updated graphics and better combat! Not freaking voiced PCs and shiz. Agh!

Personally, I tend to look at Mass Effect as consisting of more than just a decision to voice the protagonist. When I was at GamesCom, I got asked whether we were "making Dragon Age like Mass Effect?" a lot, and I totally understand why, but my default answer, delivered with a grin, became:

"Nope! Dragon Age II is not a cover-based third-person shooter set in an extrapolation of the real world in which humanity discovered FTL travel."

It does, however, have a main character who talks.

[Dave of Canada]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

"Nope! Dragon Age II is not a cover-based third-person shooter set in an extrapolation of the real world in which humanity discovered FTL travel."

Damn, here I was ready to preorder with my Blood Dragon Assault Rifle and everything.