442 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Like I said, at worst it's ambiguous or uncertain.

[Brockololly]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Something to consider is that no one, even the profesional reviewers, has said that it doesn't play the same way that DA:O did. They've only said "faster" when they've said anything like that.

From Rock, Paper, Shotgun:

Kieron Gillen says:October 27, 2010 at 10:07 am

Playing the 360 version at the EG Expo, my only hope for it is if  the PC version really is completely different from the console one. On  the 360, it was sub-Golden Axe.
KG

And then another impression of the game at Gamescom at RPS:

Dragon Age 2

That noise you hear is me sucking air through my teeth. When I heard  Dragon Age’s combat was becoming more action-oriented with the addition  of a Mass Effect style third person camera and direct control (but  retaining the option of ordering and equipping your party), I was all  for it. I love Mass Effect’s combat, and figured that Bioware could do  something amazing with Dragon Age’s gory, visceral fighting.

I was disappointed. Turns out it plays more like Fable, with that  anime-style animation where your weapons is raised high above your  shoulder in one frame, and then in the next it’s at the end of the blow, with a glowing light indicating where it passed through. More than  that, 3rd person melee combat with no block or dodge button feels deeply wrong to me. As a warrior, you run up to enemies and hammer the attack  button, popping off special abilities as and when they’re ready. I guess you could play an archer, or a mage. But still. Air through teeth.

And I've read other impressions from convention goers that are less than glowing in terms of the combat, both from people hoping for more Origins tactical stuff and those hoping for more action hack and slash. I'll wait until we can see some "real" gameplay of the non-exaggerated stuff on the PC, but I just have the feeling DA2 is going to end up more like some Jade Empire/DA hybrid where its too actiony for BG style combat fans and not actiony enough for those expecting a straight up hack and slash.

Modifié par Brockololly, 02 novembre 2010 - 04:47 .

[Lyssistr]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i don't understand how you think having more action guarantees that it plays like an hack and slasher.

combat-wise there's not much separating aRPGs and h&s's. Anyhow, this is semantics, much that's been written points towards an aRPG, which the type of game I'm not keen to see as the next dragon age.

[Lyssistr]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

"I'm yet to see a game that plays equally well on PC & console when the its design is claimed to be universal, what I've seen is ****ty controls for the PC version"

implies something about DA2 in specific? it's rather a statement for most console-ports out there, read more clearly my friend.

Ah, I was skimming a little. But I see no reasons for the controls themselves to change on the PC. How good the tactical camera is remains to be seen though.

no worries, my point about controls is that games that play well are not designed around gamepads, e.g. that's why Blizzard doesn't port their games to consoles, they don't want to blow the gameplay.

 Now you may ask is then consoles wouldn't get any games etc. I'm not saying this for any game out there, but for a game that supposedly is a spiritual successor to old school RPGs, which pretty much beg for a PC-like UI.

[the_one_54321]

Brockololly wrote...
Dragon Age 2

That noise you hear is me sucking air through my teeth. When I heard  Dragon Age’s combat was becoming more action-oriented with the addition  of a Mass Effect style third person camera and direct control (but  retaining the option of ordering and equipping your party), I was all  for it. I love Mass Effect’s combat, and figured that Bioware could do  something amazing with Dragon Age’s gory, visceral fighting.

I was disappointed. Turns out it plays more like Fable, with that  anime-style animation where your weapons is raised high above your  shoulder in one frame, and then in the next it’s at the end of the blow, with a glowing light indicating where it passed through. More than  that, 3rd person melee combat with no block or dodge button feels deeply wrong to me. As a warrior, you run up to enemies and hammer the attack  button, popping off special abilities as and when they’re ready. I guess you could play an archer, or a mage. But still. Air through teeth.

1. This guy seems to be disappointed that it wasn't just a straight up hack 'n' slash game.
2. Comments from the devs have specified almost exactly the oposite of this. So either someone has lied to us or changes and further development have been made.

[Lyssistr]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Like I said, at worst it's ambiguous or uncertain.

 I found his wording pretty confident in that it's an aRPG, didn't see him express any uncertainty on if it's an aRPG.

[nightcobra]

Lyssistr wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

even the developers considered origins an action rpg, but discussing what separates a genre from another is something seldom people agree on.

 Do you have a link that they considered it an aRPG (pre DA2 circa, where they may say things to promote DA2) ?, I remember advertising it as a spiritual successor to BG, back to the roots of cRPGs etc, these things don't imply an aRPG.

david gaider wrote:

You know, I would have considered DAO an Action RPG in many respects.

Clearly some people have this aversion built into how their precious RPG's are labeled, but DA2 wasn't struck by lightning the moment this phrase was mentioned-- it's still the same game it was yesterday. Just sayin'.


http://social.biowar...index/4581871/6

[the_one_54321]

nightcobra8928 wrote...
You know, I would have considered DAO an Action RPG in many respects.

Clearly some people have this aversion built into how their precious RPG's are labeled, but DA2 wasn't struck by lightning the moment this phrase was mentioned-- it's still the same game it was yesterday. Just sayin'.

Yeah I remember that exact post. It was after Ray uttered the ARPG phrase. And it was after a couple hours of angry responses. My guess is that was about as much as he was allowed to say short of getting angry with his boss or insisting that his boss was wrong, confused, or saying something that the folks working in the trenches don't agree with at all.
My personal suspicioun is that a great deal of anger was created by that statement, not just among the forum posters, but among the BioWare employees that had to deal with that statement.

[Lyssistr]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

even the developers considered origins an action rpg, but discussing what separates a genre from another is something seldom people agree on.

 Do you have a link that they considered it an aRPG (pre DA2 circa, where they may say things to promote DA2) ?, I remember advertising it as a spiritual successor to BG, back to the roots of cRPGs etc, these things don't imply an aRPG.

david gaider wrote:

You know, I would have considered DAO an Action RPG in many respects.

Clearly some people have this aversion built into how their precious RPG's are labeled, but DA2 wasn't struck by lightning the moment this phrase was mentioned-- it's still the same game it was yesterday. Just sayin'.


http://social.biowar...index/4581871/6

That's after DA2 was announced, I asked specifically for their opinions on DA:O pre-DA2 because at this moment, DA:O is rather stale as a product and after DA2's announcement, whatever they say about DA:O is really about selling DA2.

[nightcobra]

Lyssistr wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

even the developers considered origins an action rpg, but discussing what separates a genre from another is something seldom people agree on.

 Do you have a link that they considered it an aRPG (pre DA2 circa, where they may say things to promote DA2) ?, I remember advertising it as a spiritual successor to BG, back to the roots of cRPGs etc, these things don't imply an aRPG.

david gaider wrote:

You know, I would have considered DAO an Action RPG in many respects.

Clearly some people have this aversion built into how their precious RPG's are labeled, but DA2 wasn't struck by lightning the moment this phrase was mentioned-- it's still the same game it was yesterday. Just sayin'.


http://social.biowar...index/4581871/6

That's after DA2 was announced, I asked specifically for their opinions on DA:O pre-DA2 because at this moment, DA:O is rather stale as a product and after DA2's announcement, whatever they say about DA:O is really about selling DA2.

well forgive me for i am not going to scour the origins forums for that info, i've things to do after all and my free time is almost over.

[Lyssistr]

The real issue here is not trying out new things, it's this, ****ing the reasons people like an IP.



Imagine if Blizzard made Diablo III turn-based or removed raids from WoW. They will be trying new things in their new MMO IP, they don't screw the elements people like in their existing IPs, they keep their fanbase per IP happy. They try new things which may well not be to everyone's taste but they do so without royally ****ing Diablo.



I had hoped that the same policy would be applied by Bioware to the spiritual successor of BG.

[the_one_54321]

But the developers have here insisted over and over that there is tactical play, pausing and the overhead camera.

So what's still missing from the reasons people liked it?

[Lyssistr]

nightcobra8928 wrote...
well forgive me for i am not going to scour the origins forums for that info, i've things to do after all and my free time is almost over.

Well you don't have to do it, what I'm trying to say, is that pre-DA2, DA:O was mainly the "return to their roots", even though there were indeed a couple of references to action (usually not by Bio itself). After DA2's announcement, any new statement about DA:O is really to sell DA2.

Before DA2, DA:O was about returning to the roots of cRPGs, albeit with a couple of action references, but mostly it was an "old school" RPG.

[Lyssistr]

the_one_54321 wrote...

But the developers have here insisted over and over that there is tactical play, pausing and the overhead camera.
So what's still missing from the reasons people liked it?

The Devs say it, but it's not seen as such by anyone who tried it, even outside professional reviewers, in the link I provided above FredericoV says it's clearly not intended to be played tactically, even if it can be paused etc.

 Saying that there is tactical play can be interpreted in a very broad way, they never answered if that's the default way, the game is supposed to be played (I had asked specifically this on many occasions). There is tactical play, could be interpreted as, "you can still pause if you like", even if you'll almost never do so.

[the_one_54321]

Lyssistr wrote...
The Devs say it, but it's not seen as such by anyone who tried it, even outside professional reviewers, in the link I provided above FredericoV says it's clearly not intended to be played tactically, even if it can be paused etc.

You're... he... no. Just no. That's not what he said. You're spinning his words with your own interpretation. It's hard to find a lot of fault in that since he did it himself with his opening lines, but his description of actually playing the game was thouroughly ambiguous. What you have said above is thoroughly inaccurate.

And before you qoute his first two or three sentences in that paragraph again, yes I know he said that. Again, he goes on to give a relatively contradictory (very ambiguous) explanation.

[Lyssistr]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
The Devs say it, but it's not seen as such by anyone who tried it, even outside professional reviewers, in the link I provided above FredericoV says it's clearly not intended to be played tactically, even if it can be paused etc.

You're... he... no. Just no. That's not what he said. You're spinning his words with your own interpretation. It's hard to find a lot of fault in that since he did it himself with his opening lines, but his description of actually playing the game was thouroughly ambiguous. What you have said above is thoroughly inaccurate.

And before you qoute his first two or three sentences in that paragraph again, yes I know he said that. Again, he goes on to give a relatively contradictory (very ambiguous) explanation.

I don't think I'm spinning anything, nor what I have said is inaccurate. You don't want quotes but when you say I'm inaccurate, that's begging for quotes,

both

 DA2 is an action RPG. No doubt about that

 

and

it is clearly designed to be more actiony than DA:O 

and

 There is still room for tactics but they seem to be designed in a different way

and

 Honestly, I must say that I hope that there will be more need of party tactics in the rest of the game than the demo.  

and

 For sure, DA2 has not a lot to do with going "back to the roots" and it's not another "spiritual successor" to BG if not for being what seems a very good fantasy RPG designed by Bioware 

are pretty clear, I don't find what he says contradictory by any means.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

The implementation of that main character who talks was the primary thing that ws wrong with the game.

Hence our concern.

If Mass Effect used DAO's dialogue system with an unvoiced protagonist, and everything else was left the same, I suspect I would have enjoyed the game quite a bit.  As it was, however, I found playing it a uniformly unfun experience.

[the_one_54321]

Lyssistr wrote...
it is clearly designed to be more actiony than DA:O

Like I said about quoting his first couple of sentences..

Lyssistr wrote...
There is still room for tactics but they seem to be designed in a different way

And here's ambiguity I was pointing out. 

Lyssistr wrote...
Honestly, I must say that I hope that there will be more need of party tactics in the rest of the game than the demo.

More ambiguity. Note how he mentions it being a demo and notion of things being different in the rest of the game. Couple this with statements made by Mike in this very thread and it's not any harder to think that the game starts with a simple opening and gives you more to work with later. Actually, that's pretty much exactly what Mike said.

Lyssistr wrote...
For sure, DA2 has not a lot to do with going "back to the roots" and it's not another "spiritual successor" to BG if not for being what seems a very good fantasy RPG designed by Bioware

This isn't even really related. No one ever said DA][ was going to continue the "BG spriritual successor" thing. We've already been over this in discussing the marketing.

[Lyssistr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

The implementation of that main character who talks was the primary thing that ws wrong with the game.

Hence our concern.

If Mass Effect used DAO's dialogue system with an unvoiced protagonist, and everything else was left the same, I suspect I would have enjoyed the game quite a bit.  As it was, however, I found playing it a uniformly unfun experience.

Personally I don't find VO'd protagonist restricting me, I like that. However, I find RPGs as good as their combat systems and I won't buy DA2 if it's an aRPG, it's the franchise I got into because of a totally different type of combat that I enjoy allot and is quite rare these days.

For action, I'll be getting Torchilight II and after that, Diablo III.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Article wrote...


We understand that Origins is actually BioWare’s best selling game to date. Does it annoy you then that many still refer to it as a ‘niche’ game?

Not really, since I think that Origins was a bit niche in its overall presentation. You were hit pretty early on with a lot of statistics, and I think there were number of people who were a little turned off by that element of the game. Trying to figure out if you need a high dexterity or not is a little daunting when you’ve seen nothing of the game so far.

I disagree entirely.  The problem with all those stats in Origins was that they hadn't been documented.  There was no way to know how important dexterity was because you didn't bother to document the game mechanics.

Yes, most players won't read the documentation, so there needs to be some means for them to make these decisions without having done so, and I suspect DA2's changes are intended to address that.

But that doesn't solve the documentation problem.  Please document DA2 better so those of us who want to read a manual (and a PDF manual would be fine - just write down how the game works somewhere) can learn about the stats and whatnot before we ever start.

For many of us, character design happens before we "press the start button", and we can't do it if we don't have any useful information.  As DA2 is described in this article, combined with a DAO-style lack of documentation, would mean that we'd have to start the game, fplay enough to figure out the mechanics, and then stop, design our characters, and then start over having already spoiled the game's opening.

I don't think that's what you want.  So please document DA2 better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lyssistr wrote...

Personally I don't find VO'd protagonist restricting me, I like that. However, I find RPGs as good as their combat systems and I won't buy DA2 if it's an aRPG, it's the franchise I got into because of a totally different type of combat that I enjoy allot and is quite rare these days.

For action, I'll be getting Torchilight II and after that, Diablo III.

I don't consider the combat system terribly relevant as long as it's stat-driven (as ME's was), though I do steadfastly refuse to play Diablo-style clickfests.

All I want is the ability to roleplay a character, and so far that has proved impossible using the ME dialgoue wheel and PC VO.

[Lyssistr]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
it is clearly designed to be more actiony than DA:O

Like I said about quoting his first couple of sentences..

Lyssistr wrote...
There is still room for tactics but they seem to be designed in a different way

And here's ambiguity I was pointing out. 

Lyssistr wrote...
Honestly, I must say that I hope that there will be more need of party tactics in the rest of the game than the demo.

More ambiguity. Note how he mentions it being a demo and notion of things being different in the rest of the game. Couple this with statements made by Mike in this very thread and it's not any harder to think that the game starts with a simple opening and gives you more to work with later. Actually, that's pretty much exactly what Mike said.

Lyssistr wrote...
For sure, DA2 has not a lot to do with going "back to the roots" and it's not another "spiritual successor" to BG if not for being what seems a very good fantasy RPG designed by Bioware

This isn't even really related. No one ever said DA][ was going to continue the "BG spriritual successor" thing. We've already been over this in discussing the marketing.

Well he's not writing a report for the government, still, he's pretty thorough. He's pretty clear he saw an aRPG (which he liked btw) but its clearly not an old-school RPG and its about action.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
As DA2 is described in this article, combined with a DAO-style lack of documentation, would mean that we'd have to start the game, fplay enough to figure out the mechanics, and then stop, design our characters, and then start over having already spoiled the game's opening.

Chances are that a lot of people are going to do that anyway, though. But giving us enough prompting to design the character would be much appreciated. Mike said that you're going to get something like a "Varric interpretation" and then be told that he's lying and then be given the chance to "correct" him with the accurate information.

[Lyssistr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Personally I don't find VO'd protagonist restricting me, I like that. However, I find RPGs as good as their combat systems and I won't buy DA2 if it's an aRPG, it's the franchise I got into because of a totally different type of combat that I enjoy allot and is quite rare these days.

For action, I'll be getting Torchilight II and after that, Diablo III.

I don't consider the combat system terribly relevant as long as it's stat-driven (as ME's was), though I do steadfastly refuse to play Diablo-style clickfests.

All I want is the ability to roleplay a character, and so far that has proved impossible using the ME dialgoue wheel and PC VO.

Imo it is relevant, the difference being that I like "strategic" combat and it was, along with others, the element I missed from BG.

In Blizzard's h&s, everything is stat driven+some RNG, hence the min-maxing that happens in WoW. The only difference is that it's not only stats+tactics, it's allot about action & gameplay skills. While I love this type of gameplay, it's simply not why I got into DA:O, I got into DA:O because I wanted to play *this game*, like I played BG, with a breadth of strategic tactics, a breadth of different "niche" enemies and *only* that in my mind, no action considerations at all. While DA:O didn't have all of this (I was hoping for more variety in niche tactics for "special" mobs), it was very good, now with DA2, this combat style will be gone and tbh for me there's not much left in the franchise. 

Modifié par Lyssistr, 02 novembre 2010 - 05:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Chances are that a lot of people are going to do that anyway, though. But giving us enough prompting to design the character would be much appreciated. Mike said that you're going to get something like a "Varric interpretation" and then be told that he's lying and then be given the chance to "correct" him with the accurate information.

Sure.  This isn't unlike how ME and ME2 tried to make character creation feel like more a part of the game rather than part of the preparation before the game.

But, I would really like it if I knew who my character was and what he could do before I ever saw him do exaggerated things in Varric's description.  Even if teh game doesn't know yet, I should.

So I'm asking for vastly superior documentation than DAO provided.

I'm still angry at Dan Lazin.