211 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerevar-as]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


DA2 only added an attack button, which isn't really twitch, to console versions because it was according to console players, rather needed.  A twitch melee game would be like... Mount & Blade. 

They´ve also changed misses to glancing hits, despite misses being something even Diablo-like RPGs players are used to. Don´t know if the player base they are targeting with that mechanic overlaps with average RPG players just with that, but as long as the enemy characters also get glancing hits on the player I don´t have many problems with that.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 03 novembre 2010 - 10:09 .

[cephasjames]

MisterMonkeyBanana wrote...
I can't say I'm certain DA2 will be an improvement over DA:O, but generally... if it wasn't called Dragon Age 2 and instead called something like Dragon Age: Rise to Power, I'd have less doubts in my mind about it. Mass Effect 2 for all it's changes still felt and looked like Mass Effect, DA2 doesn't look like how I picture Dragon Age. But generally... I think it will be fun game, it looks kind of like Jade Empire and really loved that game.

ME2 was supposed to look like ME because it's the same story. DA2 is not. If DA2 was a continuation of DAO then I'd be fully on page with you. Dragon Age is like the Forgotten Realms or Middle Earth. Big place, many stories to tell. Hmm, maybe ME will even change leads once the current trilogy is over.

[errant_knight]

Well, I didn't care for ME or ME2, but I did like DA:O. A lot. So there is a place where gaming tastes meet. I'm just afraid that, for me, we're moving away from that point, not closer to it.

[Joshd21]

I hope I am not stepping on anyones toes here or perhaps I misread the OP subject. But I hope Dragon Age 2 is nothing like Mass Effect 1 or 2. Why? because they are two seperate games. One Is done in the outer space while the other is done in a medieval times.

If you mean the voice overs. Yes it's a little similar to Mass Effect but Mass Effect 2 was also very limited. For example your companions had nothing new to say untill you completed a mission. Then you would go back to your ship and unlock a little more interaction.

You couldn't talk to your party members during a mission on mass effect unlike dragon age orgins where you could just turn to your right and chit chat. I.e. lieana who would tell you anything you wished to know. Also the mass effect 2 you usually only had about three choices very limited to usually dragon age response of 5 answers.

Maybe I am alone here. But I hope the only aspect that it's similar to Mass Effect is in the fact they have voice over companions. That is all.

[Nic-V]

Mass Effect was far superior to Mass Effect 2. I trust that Dragon Age II will stay hardcore in some ways, even if it does become more casual.

[ShadyKat]

Nic-V wrote...

Mass Effect was far superior to Mass Effect 2. I trust that Dragon Age II will stay hardcore in some ways, even if it does become more casual.

Funny because I felt like ME2 was far superior to ME1. Really ME1 is in my opinion the most overra game Bioware has made. Not abad game, but the people who claim it was the greatest game ever, need to really stop using whatever drugs they are on. Th story was the same run of te mill scifi stuff we have seen forever. The combat was no very good, an it was full of glitches bugs.

[Dave of Canada]

ShadyKat wrote...

Funny because I felt like ME2 was far superior to ME1. Really ME1 is in my opinion the most overra game Bioware has made..

I liked ME1 more than ME2 but that's not because of the gameplay itself, I'm currently unable to play ME1 because I'm too used to the improvement in ME2. Though I get more personal attachment to the characters in ME1 and feel more involved. Though when people going around parading that ME2 was simplified for FPS players, I love how they ignore how ME1 was simplified for RPG players.

[ShadyKat]

I loved both games, but imo, ME2 was just the better overall game. The story was the only ting in ME1 that I thought was better then the sequel. ME2 get's the nod pretty much in everything else. I also thought the cast in ME2 was far better, I just wish they had more time to shine.

[maxernst]

From my point of view, the main advantages of ME2 over ME1 had to do with improvement of its clunky interface. Since I don't have any major issues with the DA:O interface, I don't view DA2 as requiring those sorts of changes. And if they want to change the DA:O inventory system, give me customizable sorting options, don't make it practically disappear. I also don't want DA:O to go with the "mission format" or make its environments any more linear.

Oh, and no minigames, please.  Their fun factor runs out very quickly.

Modifié par maxernst, 03 novembre 2010 - 06:31 .

[Dave of Canada]

maxernst wrote...

Oh, and no minigames, please.  Their fun factor runs out very quickly.

I want to mine Thedas, though!

[Joshd21]

Okay now people are discussing I guess the ME1 or ME2 difference...in a Dragon Age Orgins 2 thread. Personally ME2 is a good game but not  superior to the Dragon Age 1 or 2 game. It's hard to place two good games side to side and say which is better. Which most likely end in a debate that solves nothing.

I'm just saying Mass Effect production company should have a small impact upon Dragon Age 2. I get it the entire "wheel choice" and understand. But it doesn't mean I like it

[errant_knight]

Joshd21 wrote...

Okay now people are discussing I guess the ME1 or ME2 difference...in a Dragon Age Orgins 2 thread. Personally ME2 is a good game but not  superior to the Dragon Age 1 or 2 game. It's hard to place two good games side to side and say which is better. Which most likely end in a debate that solves nothing.

I'm just saying Mass Effect production company should have a small impact upon Dragon Age 2. I get it the entire "wheel choice" and understand. But it doesn't mean I like it

I'm not giving up hope on a return to an unvoiced protagonist. I probably should, to avoid heartbreak, but I'm holding onto that last shred of hope. The voiced protagonist is just to disruptive to my gameplay to do otherwise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If DA2 is to DAO what ME2 is to ME then I'm ALL in

Aside from the loss of the ability to outfit companions, I'd actually agree with this. ME2 was overall a better game than ME was.

However, we already know this isn't true. DA2 is deviating from DAO far more than ME2 did from ME.

[Morroian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If DA2 is to DAO what ME2 is to ME then I'm ALL in

Aside from the loss of the ability to outfit companions, I'd actually agree with this. ME2 was overall a better game than ME was.
However, we already know this isn't true. DA2 is deviating from DAO far more than ME2 did from ME.

It is?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

It is?

Yes.  ME and ME2 used basically the same dialogue system.  They had the same basic structure.  They were both fully voiced.  They were remarkably similar games.

All of those things cease to be true when talking about DAO and DA2.

[upsettingshorts]

ME2 certainly changed far more technical gameplay elements than DA:2 seems to be. DA:2 is altering the presentation (voice, dialogue wheel, animation speed) not, it seems, how the game itself is actually played.

I mean, I get that the presentation in an RPG is part of gameplay, but I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of combat and inventory - something that ME2 definitively changed, and DA:2 doesn't appear to be doing.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 10:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ME2 certainly changed far more technical gameplay elements than DA:2 seems to be. DA:2 is altering the presentation (voice, dialogue wheel, animation speed) not, it seems, how the game itself is actually played.

The dialogue wheel dramatically changes how the game is played, if ME's wheel is anything to go by.  The player will no longer be able to choose what his character says or how he says it.

I mean, I get that the presentation in an RPG is part of gameplay, but I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of combat and inventory - something that ME2 definitively changed, and DA:2 doesn't appear to be doing.

I think non-combat gameplay is a vastly more importnat part of an RPG than combat gameplay is.

[Morroian]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ME2 certainly changed far more technical gameplay elements than DA:2 seems to be. DA:2 is altering the presentation (voice, dialogue wheel, animation speed) not, it seems, how the game itself is actually played.

I mean, I get that the presentation in an RPG is part of gameplay, but I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of combat and inventory - something that ME2 definitively changed, and DA:2 doesn't appear to be doing.

This.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think non-combat gameplay is a vastly more importnat part of an RPG than combat gameplay is.

We know that.  But you would understand why people would want to make the distinction, right?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I mean, I get that the presentation in an RPG is part of gameplay, but I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of combat and inventory - something that ME2 definitively changed, and DA:2 doesn't appear to be doing.

Come to think of it, I'm hard-pressed to see many changes to combat gameplay between the two.

They were both pause-and-play.  They both reduced player input to target selection.  The only real difference was that in ME2 Shepard couldn't miss (the loss of stat-driven aiming is perhaps ME2's greatest failing compared to ME).

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Come to think of it, I'm hard-pressed to see many changes to combat gameplay between the two.

They were both pause-and-play.  They both reduced player input to target selection.  The only real difference was that in ME2 Shepard couldn't miss (the loss of stat-driven aiming is perhaps ME2's greatest failing compared to ME).

Inventory changed rather dramatically.  Weapon performance between firearms of the same type - aside from non-Viper sniper rifles as we've discussed - changed.  Customization of squad equipment was removed.  The number of skills were streamlined rather significantly.  Paragon/Renegade dialogue checks were completed based on percentage of available points and not Charm/Intimidate.  Reload mechanics were introduced.  Heavy Weapons were introduced.  

And I think the loss of stat-driven aiming was probably ME2's greatest triumph compared to ME.  The fact my awesome, decorated space marine worthy of the Spectres from the very start of the game yet couldn't shoot was incredibly immersion killing to me.

It goes back to my theory that once Mass Effect was designed to be a twitch game, shooter mechanics were always going to be preferable to RPG mechanics in all cases where they conflict.  And skill based aiming was one of them.  Does that I mean I want Mass Effect to be more of a shooter with a story than it is?  Sure does.  But if they had made it a Fallout 2 turn-based combat RPG I woulda been fine with that too.  Twitch changes things.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 10:30 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I don't know that I would say "dumbed down" in specific. They didn't make it dumber, after all, they made it more complex. But complexity is not what makes shooters fun. The fast paced firefights are what make them fun.

They didn't dumb it down any more than the introduction of action elements to RPG games is "dumb."  The idea that one genre is inherently dumber than the other grates me. I just co-opt the language to turn the argument on its head. 

But I would dispute that complexity doesn't contribute to the enjoyment of a shooter.  The complexity of destructible terrain, vehicles, teamwork - etc, present in Bad Company 2 makes it more fun for me than say Gears of War.

Mindless click fest, ala diablo are exactly that, mindless.

[the_one_54321]

We were talking about a completely different type of game.... o.O

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Mindless click fest, ala diablo are exactly that, mindless.

I'll actually agree with that.  I also view Starcraft as fairly mindless when compared to say, Europa Universalis or Total War.  But I do view those as opinions, I'm sure fans of those games will be able to inform me of all the complexities I've missed out on.  Same way I do with people who mock shooters on these boards.

[maxernst]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Come to think of it, I'm hard-pressed to see many changes to combat gameplay between the two.

They were both pause-and-play.  They both reduced player input to target selection.  The only real difference was that in ME2 Shepard couldn't miss (the loss of stat-driven aiming is perhaps ME2's greatest failing compared to ME).

And I think the loss of stat-driven aiming was probably ME2's greatest triumph compared to ME.  The fact my awesome, decorated space marine worthy of the Spectres from the very start of the game yet couldn't shoot was incredibly immersion killing to me.

But applying that to DA2, where you start with a young Hawke and play over a 10-year period would be a bad design decision.  It only makes sense that early in Hawke's career he will not be particularly skilled.  Shepard's a peculiar RPG protagonist, in that he's a hero before the game starts.

Oddly enough, the classic RPG skill progression actually makes more sense for some pure shooters than it does for some RPG/Shooter Hybrids.  I mean, you would think JC Denton would come pre-loaded with plenty of skills to start, whereas it would actually make sense for Morgan Freeman's ability to shoot to improve during the game.  I mean, he's a physicist, not a professional soldier.