539 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

MerinTB wrote...
I think this is the major problem with these discussions - one side has a problem and doesn't fully accept that others don't, and the other side has no problem and doesn't fully accept the the first side does.

How about, like taste in music or books or movies, you can just accept that some people don't enjoy all kinds of video games?
And then, when someone says they don't like something... yes, of course you can still say "well, that doesn't matter to me" or "I actually like that" but it's probably not the best to come back with "who cares" or the like..
since...
well, the person who just stated the problem they have is clearly at least one person who cares.

Ok?

Cool.

This was the relevant part of my post, what I really wanted to say, and it shouldn't be attached to nor directed at anyone individual.

I just honestly believe a lot of the hard feelings and frustration comes from people not accepting that others have different tastes.

[Meltemph]

And I think the main problem is people take themselves way to seriously on these boards. But I'm sure people claiming their tastes as the only good tastes probably has something to do with it, but I think it is more of the former, personally.



You can't get mad if you don't think you have a reason to get mad. For instance Silv says things all the time that I disagree with, but, it is not that big of a deal to me and is sometimes fun to argue with him, just to see where the conversation goes and I think it would be safe to say he thinks that way to(even if it is once in awhile).



If you can't accept that people will not accept your opinion on a matter and it just makes you more aggravated, I think that adds a lot more frustration.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...
And I think the main problem is people take themselves way to seriously on these boards. But I'm sure people claiming their tastes as the only good tastes probably has something to do with it, but I think it is more of the former, personally.

You can't get mad if you don't think you have a reason to get mad. For instance Silv says things all the time that I disagree with, but, it is not that big of a deal to me and is sometimes fun to argue with him, just to see where the conversation goes and I think it would be safe to say he thinks that way to(even if it is once in awhile).

If you can't accept that people will not accept your opinion on a matter and it just makes you more aggravated, I think that adds a lot more frustration.

I agree that what you say here is indeed part of it as well.  Though I don't think it's exactly "accept your opinion" as much as "agree with your opinion."

So many people state their opinion as if it is fact.

Example: "Good thing Bioshock Infinite is in Columbia in the sky.  Everyone's so sick of Rapture and being underwater.  That was just stupid."

That person probably means that is all in his or her opinion, but the way it's expressed is as if it's a general consensus.

(purposefully picked a non-BioWare topic as example to hopefully avoid a tangential arugment brewing)

I believe that we can all disagree about our interests and tastes, but when we dismiss the opinions or tastes of others as irrelevant or unimportant (whether they are truly unimportant to you or not) then you are being rude and you are causing others to react to you.

So I think we're pretty much at the same point here, more or less.

[soteria]

I was talking about the "who cares?" phrase itself though. THat by itself is rude and dismissive. Adding the That is how I look at it. Is clairifying his position and somewhat softening the whole "who cares?" dismissiveness. That doesn't stop the phrase from being dismissive.

Where I disagree is that saying "who cares" is rude in any context. I guess I should have quoted the_one_54321, though, since he was the one who made that claim.

What you highlighted? It's what I included. I knew it was relevant and said so.

So, see, I started this (apparently) and with the context you wanted.

Well, not quite. Thing is, if we really want to look at the context, he wasn't even addressing the post you quoted at you. Granted, it's an open forum and we're all free to respond to any post, but you can't make a stand based on "the reaction of the person you're talking to" when that person wasn't originally you. In fact, I don't think that person even reacted. Maybe they don't care.

In any event, wherever this started, it rapidly got wildly off track. Maybe we should try to talk about DA:2 instead of the appropriate use of idiom in America.

[Meltemph]

I believe that we can all disagree about our interests and tastes, but when we dismiss the opinions or tastes of others as irrelevant or unimportant (whether they are truly unimportant to you or not) then you are being rude and you are causing others to react to you.

And I don't think that is being rude, that is just a part of disagreeing. People have many reasons to disagree with something and thinking that an issue people are complaining about is a non-issue to you and not worth caring about(for you personally), why can't you voice that?



Why do people have to get offended by that? People don't have to take what I say and think it is a good opinion and they don't even have to respect my opinion, and I don't think I should expect people to do so. To me, that is what is rude, to expect people to just "accept" my opinion whether they like it or not.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph, I guess the best I can do (after trying to be conciliatory and find common ground fails) is to accept we have vastly different world views.



And I apologize if my accepting of that fact is rude to you.



After all, as far as I'm concerned, being polite is not about "who's right" or "agreeing" - but it's about courtesy and respect of others regardless of their tastes and views.

If you don't think that's polite, and if you disagree that dismissing people is rude, then we are at an impasse as,

like I just said,

we have vastly different world views.

[Meltemph]

dismissing people

I don't think dismissing an opinion I care little for is the same is dismissing a person. And even if someone did just dismiss me personally, I would just consider that agreeing to disagree whether person actually does or not. It is only rude, to me, when it becomes personal. As in, you only think a certain way is because you are stupid.

I didn't qualify anyone as that, I did however think some people were more uptight in this topic to take offense to something so trivial, but that is another thing all together. My initial point that you and others are referencing to is what the complaints are about, and I find it down right silly.

Displaying my apathy toward an issue someone else has, to me, is far from rude.

Modifié par Meltemph, 04 novembre 2010 - 06:58 .

[Sharuko]

As most of you know, this was the same concern people had for Mass Effect 2. Although I preferred Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 was amazing wasn't it?



You have to admit, combat in DA:O was clunky and unresponsive at times. It grew on us because of the great story and other aspects but if they game did not have great story, dialogue etc we would have hated the game if combat was the focus.

[Big Blue Car]

Meltemph the best way to display your apathy toward an issue is actually to stop endlessly posting about it. We aren't interested.

Modifié par Big Blue Car, 04 novembre 2010 - 07:19 .

[the_one_54321]

Sharuko wrote...
You have to admit, combat in DA:O was clunky and unresponsive at times.

No, I don't have to admit it. Because I don't agree with that at all. Combat in DA:O was fantastic. Perhaps it can be improved upon. Perhaps getting it to move faster would be a good thing. But there is a very distinct border that should not be crossed. So far the devs have openly and loudly insisted that they have not crossed that border. We shall see.

[Big Blue Car]

'Fantastic'? No, not it was not. It was functional for sure, it got the job done, but it was unresponsive, too dependant on items, mages were overpowered and the endless trash mob fights were just tedious.



Plus you could just win any fight by chugging bright red healing potions, hardly the stuff of epic fantasy.

[the_one_54321]

It's tactical combat. It's about management and direction, not dramatics or cinematography. It's fantastic because it is functional. And I never once found it to be unresponsive.

[Ryzaki]

The only thing that was annoying was the overabundance of mooks. ...And looking at DA2's gameplay vids that doesn't seem to have changed. I rather 2 or 3 extremely strong enemies that take strategy to defeat than 30 that I just need to hack away at.

[Big Blue Car]

Exactly, even fights against basic enemies can be made interesting by making a sheer horde of them. I'd rather 3 interesting, tough fights per area rather than 9 boredom mobs.

[Aumata]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the combat work for the different system work like this

Console: Works similarly like fable, press button to attack, auto when wheel is out.

PC: Combat is the same to Origins, a change to the isometric view, big worries about game not being up to the standards of PC for it version.



I am a console gamer but I thought that was what Bioware was doing? I mean if it plays out like that, wouldn't that mean DA:O was action then?

[Big Blue Car]

No it was auto-attack, shuffle up to enemies before attacking stuff. On the PC you could zoom out to Baldur's Gate levels and I think they threw more enemies at you but it was the same combat basically.

[crimzontearz]

Have really to wonder about those who are saying that combat was not unresponsive in DAO. Responsiveness like almost every other non quantifyable aspect of the game is extremely subjective but.....come one, more often than not there was a certain delay between me commanding someone toattack and that someone actually doing so. Half the time they had to spend a good two or three seconds just shuffling to get into position...worse you were never able to stop someone who was trying to get past you (intercept) because no attck was ever fast enough...that is definitely not what the devs intended when they thought "responsive combat"

[the_one_54321]

Yeah, the characters had actual movement speeds. They didn't just warp to where they wanted to be, which is what they will effectively do now. The actions were based around timers and to get them to work right you had to get the timing right. It wasn't based on your speed like firing a gun in an FPS is based on your finger speed. That doesn't mean it's not responsive. That mean it responds within it's own timing.

To throw the flipside on this, I don't know why anyone complains that a fighter has to shuffle over to his enemy before letting the attack fly. When was the last time you leaped to someones side across 8 feet and swung an attack at them at the same time?

That's not a criticism of the new system. What they have going now sounds fine to me as well. It's just that the whole "they don't respond when I give them commands" is bogus. They just didn't respond according to the standards of a hack 'n' slash game.

[Ryzaki]

So...someone actually moving to attack is unresponsive now?

[the_one_54321]

Well that's been the general complaint about the responsiveness of DA:O. They have to walk over to the enemy first, it takes too long! Or they have to finish their current action before staring the next one, it takes too long!

Either way is fine for me, I just think the complaints like the above are pretty ridiculous.

[Big Blue Car]

Ryzaki wrote...

So...someone actually moving to attack is unresponsive now?

You're a moron.

It's unresponsive because the characters all shuffle to exact right spot adjacent to the enemy before using a move, it takes ages. If you moved a character an inch to the side their attack cycle would stop. You constantly sheath and unsheath weapons to cast some spells. Character movement feels divorced from your input.

The devs have recognised this and talk about fixing it in DA2. If even the devs admit the problem is there then even you as an ur-fanboy should be able to.

[In Exile]

Martanek wrote...

Anyone still thinks DA2 is not being developed primarily on consoles? I thought so. Shame on you Bioware. Why have you been sacrificing so many old fans for a mass of new console-generation action-oriented gamers?

I appreciate that you are upset with the design decisions that Bioware is making; by all means, that is your entitled opinion. Still, this is one claim I cannot stand.

Who are the old fans, and who are the new fans? KoTOR was a simplified console game focused on a cinematic Star Wars presentation with a list inventory, no carry limit, limited party mechanic and no isometric control (and on the PC, no point and click even). Bioware followed that up with Jade Empire, which was another console game with beat-em-up combat and no inventory, and not even any barebones character statistics or even really any customization of appearance. Finally, after that came ME, and I'm sure we can both just guess your opinion on that.

So who exactly is Bioware sacrificing here? The people who bought KoTOR? The people who bought ME? The people who bought Jade Empire?

We're talking about seven years of development here. Whatever company Bioware was when they made NWN and BG/BGII, they stopped being that company almost a decade ago.

[soteria]

Well that's been the general complaint about the responsiveness of DA:O. They have to walk over to the enemy first, it takes too long! Or they have to finish their current action before staring the next one, it takes too long!

Either way is fine for me, I just think the complaints like the above are pretty ridiculous.

If you put it like that, sure. It's easy to make a complaint sound ridiculous, especially when you're not actually quoting someone, is it not? "I have to walk up to the enemy before I attack" sounds ridiculous," but "Why the heck does my character who is already in melee range, autoattacking, have to change position when I tell him to attack?" doesn't sound quite as ridiculous. That's where combat in DA:O starts to feel clunky. That, and ordering a warrior to shield bash an enemy who is running by them... and watching them stop, move to attack, and then chase the enemy until they stop moving (or actually execute the attack, but only after the enemy is 15 yards farther along).

[the_one_54321]

Starting a post with "you're a moron" is probably the easiest way to make certain the reader pays zero attention to what you have to say.

soteria wrote...
"Why the heck does my character who is already in melee range, autoattacking, have to change position when I tell him to attack?" doesn't sound quite as ridiculous.

Because he has a movement speed and an attack range. I mentioend those earlier as well. It's not any less ridiculous the way you put it. At least not in terms of saying "it's unresponsive." It's plenty responsive, it just doesn't respond the way you want it to respond.

Like I mentioned before as well, the system they are changing it to doesn't bother me either, but that doesn't make the "it's not responsive" comments any more true.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 04 novembre 2010 - 09:25 .