391 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Addai67 wrote...
So, you autoleveled in Origins?  Because if you did... LOL.  Your team must have sucked rocks.

I also can't tell Ginger to go over and kill that darkspawn using X attack and then take a potion, and then go stand over there and don't move.

Whatever that RPG is you mentioned, it's not DA.  DA is a tactical team RPG.

The reason that you have to control the party in DA:O is that technology isn't good enough for you to not control it. The human player has to make up for the software's flaws. That's a meta-game issue though unless 'incompetent AI' is a defining part of what makes an RPG.

[Rawgrim]

Still, in P&P rpgs you can find an armour, and give it to another player, who will wear it, even if he is currently just wearing a shirt, and kind of needs an armour.

[pitchblaq]

tmp7704 wrote...

If you ever played PnP RPGs you'll remember the other characters have their own human controllers who make decisions for them.

Or DMs. (e.g. BioWare)

Modifié par pitchblaq, 05 novembre 2010 - 06:43 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...

Because it's a roleplaying game.  I should have some flexibility to set an NPC follower's looks and characteristics the same way I choose how to level them.  Or are you really going to argue that auto-level is the way to go?  The devs know better about the NPC, after all?

I think we need to distinguish between two things: gameplay and story. With regard to gameplay, I absolutely do not believe in auto-level, because it will automatically lead to gimped characters. I can appreciate the idea of characters having fixed starting abilities, but those abilities. I think for the same of a fun game, we should have full control over how a character levels. I do happen to think certain talent trees should be closed for characters (e.g Alistair should always be Sword & Board, Sten always 2-handed, etc.).

The problem, IMO, is down to appearance and personality. In an RPG, the role open to you is only yours, i.e. that of the PC. The NPCs are separate people; they have absolutely fixed personalities beyond your control. I prefer custom items for them, because that allows their personality to shine through.

I believe that certain specializations should never be open to characters (i.e. blood mage for Wynne).

[tmp7704]

Addai67 wrote...

So, you autoleveled in Origins?  Because if you did... LOL.  Your team must have sucked rocks.

I have let the characters auto-level through Origins, Awakening and the expansions. It's actually fun, and about right difficulty on Hard with no potions 

[bzombo]

Aigyl wrote...

In Exile wrote...

When they say that the inventory for the party members is ME2d, do you mean that we have no options to customize them, or that their armour is unique, and we can only swap the companion specific armour in and out? Because that was the system I expected us to get, so I'd like to see if that's the case.

You can't change their armour, but you can enchant them with runes.

The screenshots show that you can give them belts, neck-pieces, and rings just like DA:O.

They also each have their own unique talent trees.

Edit: Oh, and Hawke's inventory is pretty much identical to Origins's system.

part ok, part depressing. i liked changing everyone's armor around. now armor is static except for hawke. at least hawke can be customized. still kinda sucks, though. this is the first negative for me.

[Lord_Valandil]

Sauronych wrote...

So much for DA2 not being a fantasy version of ME.

*Sad face*



I like Hawke. But since I saw the famous "conversation wheel", the pre-determined PC and now the static outfits, yeah...I knew it was going to happen.
It's not exactly a copy-paste of ME, but it's certainly following its path.

Modifié par Lord_Valandil, 05 novembre 2010 - 06:47 .

[Rawgrim]

Looks to be an action game, with conversations.

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The reason that you have to control the party in DA:O is that technology isn't good enough for you to not control it. The human player has to make up for the software's flaws. That's a meta-game issue though unless 'incompetent AI' is a defining part of what makes an RPG.

The very same argument works for why the player is given ability to put gear on characters, too.

That said, i'm not looking forward to bickering with AI team on who gets to use the purple ring that dropped off the boss.

[Luigitornado]

Did anyone else catch that tidbit of upgrading the look of the character, and using different materials? So you are still able to customize the armor stats.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Isn't that enough of a reason to allow the player adjust NPCs to their liking?

Well, what do you mean? I think we should get freedom leveling. I think we should have no freedom altering their personality. The freedom to alter their personality means that it has to have blanks - that custom content for them that could be there shouldn't be, because otherwise it might conflict with the ability to fill-in-the-blank yourself.

It's why I think VO is superior to non-VO, because the loss of fill-in-the-blank content is reward a thousand times over by reactivity.

I don't view it as "slave to player" mentality. I see it rather as ability to make creative changes to the initial image of the NPC, and as such source of variety and creativity in the story. At the bottom of it the NPCs aren't "their own persons" but rather ideas of certain human being (their designer) rolled into a virtual figure. And i enjoy the ability to tweak these ideas to some degree and then treat that tweaked version as "their own person", one that may happen to be slightly different from the stock original, if just in appearance.

And I disagree that this should ever be allowed. The player ought not to have any creative input in any character but the PC.

The issue, as I stated above, is that my view is fundamentally at odds with yours. The features I want included neccesarily exclude features that you like (for example, this generic inventory for all characters).

edit: also, specifically on the topic of changing the followers' gear, i don't see why it's "absolutely inappropriate" for the player to do -- what if the player does it as form of role-playing for their followers, in attempt to make them more like real people who do make such decisions where it comes to picking equipment etc?

I do not believe a player can role-play for followers. This is only possible when followers are blank slates (i.e. IWD). Otherwise, you are just writing fan-fiction.

I do not think a game should ever be designed in a way that supports fan fiction. If it happens to, and people enjoy doing that, that's great. But if Bioware can invest zots in very unique NPC clothing, then should at the cost of destroying any ability to write fan-fiction. At least in my view.

This is why our positions are impossible to reconcille.

[Rawgrim]

What kind of different materials would you use to improve the armour on Isabella, luigitornado? A titanium bra? A veridium scarf maybe?

[Maria Caliban]

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Thank goodness for that. The inability to make Morrigan someone's dress up doll can only be a good thing.

She's still a dress-up doll. Except only one guy gets to pick what she wears.

Just because you see a character as being nothing more than a collection of stats, doesn't mean everyone else does.

relhart wrote...

I understand the viewpoint that the player shouldn't have controll over party members from an RP perspective, but at least persoanlly I care more about the game mechanics than I do the RP.  I'm not going to gripe if the RPers get something they want, cookies  for them, but it does lessen the game for people like me, especially the replay aspect of it.

I can respect that. RPGs came out of wargames and its defined large parts of them. What bothers me is when people claim that game elements that have nothing to do with role-playing are elements all good RPGs have.

I get that some people like moving NPCs around like pieces on a chessboard during combat. However, when I want that sort of tactical gameplay, I'll pick up a strategy game. For an RPG, my goal is to immerse myself inside the character and the world as best I can.

Fiddling with NPC armor doesn't make me feel that way.

[pitchblaq]

tmp7704 wrote...

That said, i'm not looking forward to bickering with AI team on who gets to use the purple ring that dropped off the boss.

Not that it's likely for this or any other Dragon Age game, but that sounds like an amazing mechanic, having to decide between taking the ring or being in favor with a teammate. You actually have to establish yourself as a leader and a dominant personality, rather than it being granted by the nature of the game.

It'd fit in well with the rivalry system, I suspect.

[nightcobra]

bzombo wrote...

Aigyl wrote...

In Exile wrote...

When they say that the inventory for the party members is ME2d, do you mean that we have no options to customize them, or that their armour is unique, and we can only swap the companion specific armour in and out? Because that was the system I expected us to get, so I'd like to see if that's the case.

You can't change their armour, but you can enchant them with runes.

The screenshots show that you can give them belts, neck-pieces, and rings just like DA:O.

They also each have their own unique talent trees.

Edit: Oh, and Hawke's inventory is pretty much identical to Origins's system.

part ok, part depressing. i liked changing everyone's armor around. now armor is static except for hawke. at least hawke can be customized. still kinda sucks, though. this is the first negative for me.

bethany shows in at least 2 different outfits as far as we know, and people say it's because of the exaggerated sections, i'd like to for you to see the sections of the rise to power trailer where isabela shows, whe she is on screen you can also see hawke sporting his spiky armor, this would mean that:

the current isabela outfit we've seen is the exaggerated one

or

there are at least 2 different outfits for each follower.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 05 novembre 2010 - 06:51 .

[SpiderFan1217]

This system is pretty much exactly what I wanted.

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...
I think we need to distinguish between two things: gameplay and story. With regard to gameplay, I absolutely do not believe in auto-level, because it will automatically lead to gimped characters.

That's a fairly arbitrary distinction to make.  They aren't your characters after all, right?  Why should you get to decide what skills Isabella will take or what weapon Oghren uses?   

In fact why should we even be able to tell them how to act or fight?  Lets get rid of tactics and being able to "control" them in combat.  In fact, the Warden and Hawke aren't really our characters either.  Why should we get to decide how they fight or when to swing their weapon?  Lets just get rid of combat all together and replace it all with pre-rendered cut scenes. 

It'll be just like watching a movie, then no one will have to think at all about what they want to do.  It will forever remain a pristine example of the developer's flawless vision of how "the game should be played".

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 05 novembre 2010 - 06:54 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Because it's a roleplaying game.  I should have some flexibility to set an NPC follower's looks and characteristics the same way I choose how to level them.  Or are you really going to argue that auto-level is the way to go?  The devs know better about the NPC, after all?

I think we need to distinguish between two things: gameplay and story. With regard to gameplay, I absolutely do not believe in auto-level, because it will automatically lead to gimped characters. I can appreciate the idea of characters having fixed starting abilities, but those abilities. I think for the same of a fun game, we should have full control over how a character levels. I do happen to think certain talent trees should be closed for characters (e.g Alistair should always be Sword & Board, Sten always 2-handed, etc.).

The problem, IMO, is down to appearance and personality. In an RPG, the role open to you is only yours, i.e. that of the PC. The NPCs are separate people; they have absolutely fixed personalities beyond your control. I prefer custom items for them, because that allows their personality to shine through.

I believe that certain specializations should never be open to characters (i.e. blood mage for Wynne).

For one thing, DA2 is also cutting down the openness of the PC role, as well.  Significantly.

Secondly, it doesn't allow the NPC's personality to shine through.  It just decides who gets to limit it- the game AI, or the player's own sense of their follower's character.  I usually kept Sten 2H and I never made Wynne a blood mage.  But there's nothing in Alistair's character that says he's a sword and shield wielder only.  There's no character reason why he should be.  If he announced "I only wear metal armor, I'm allergic to leather," then putting him in leather armor would be breaking the story.  I still think a player should have the freedom to do it, but it would be in support of your point that the game should determine how our NPC followers look and act rather than player agency.  And I'll say again, you could already impose those limitations on your Origins game if you chose.  What you really want is that everyone should have the same game as you did.

[Rawgrim]

2 different outfits is alot less than say...20 in the previous game.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
And no one ever bothers to even consider the hair thing. My genes render me incapable of growing facial hair that looks more than what a highschooler trying to grow his first mustache could grow. It's just not in my family. I can never grow a beard no matter how hard I try.

I can't grow facial hair properly. I just get proggresively longer scruff. Basicaly, right around the soul patch area hair does not grow.

http://www.pollsb.co...ckham_beard.jpg

My facial hair grows in like that, which frankly I think makes me look like ridiculous. 

Addai67 wrote...
The difference is that the idealized male
figure in the game looks like he actually can do what the PC is supposed
to do- run, fight, kill stuff.  The idealized female figure in the game
looks like she can realistically do nothing but stand around and be
ogled.  Or lie around and be ogled.

I don't want couch potato
males or ugly females.  I want a PC that I can look at without bursting
into laughter or thinking I've stumbled into a porn flick.

Yeah, I can appreciate the distinction and how the female model looks sillier than the male. The thing is, the male idealization (so to speak) is basically a hyperathletic beefcake.  So it goes without saying that our hyperathletic beefcake looks okay being athletic (or a beefcake).

[Ryzaki]

Nozybidaj wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I think we need to distinguish between two things: gameplay and story. With regard to gameplay, I absolutely do not believe in auto-level, because it will automatically lead to gimped characters.

That's a fairly arbitrary distinction to make.  They aren't your characters after all, right?  Why should you get to decide what skills Isabella will take or what weapon Oghren uses?   

In fact why should we even be able to tell them how to act or fight?  Lets get rid of tactics and being able to "control" them in combat.  In fact, the Warden and Hawke aren't really our characters either.  Why shoulud we get to decide how they fight or when to swing their weapon?  Lets just get rid of combat all together and replace it all with pre-rendered cut scenes. 

It'll be just like watching a movie, then no one will have to think at all about what they want to do.  It will forever remain a pristine example of the developer's flawless vision of how "the game should be played".

I heard the last bit in a narrator's voice and now I have a fit of the giggles. Thank you for that.

[TheConfidenceMan]

Terrible. From classes to clothing, seems everything's getting a pass of the ol' dumb-it-down.

[mellifera]

Rawgrim wrote...

2 different outfits is alot less than say...20 in the previous game.

Two unique outfits is a lot more than say... one in the previous game.

[ErichHartmann]

Rawgrim wrote...

2 different outfits is alot less than say...20 in the previous game.

2 distinct outfits versus 20 generic pieces?  I use armor mods with DAO to add more variety.