1080 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

JrayM16 wrote...

i commend you for saying this despite you
immenent death by mob because of it.  I'm with you in spirit.  Just not
when they come to you home with torches.../../../images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png

I chose my words carefully. Challenging implies overall difficulty but says nothing about mechanics, or depth, or how "complicated" something is. People who are going to dispute my assertion think all of those terms equal challenging, but they don't.

Twitch mechanics and human enemies add to the challenge, they don't detract from it. Such systems demand greater player input as a matter of objective fact. And if you're terrible at it, it doesn't matter if you understand what you're supposed to do. If you can't execute, you'll fail.  That concept is removed and abstracted in traditional RPGs, for obvious reasons.

The perception that twitch and/or multiplayer games are "dumb" has little to do with their level of relative difficulty, but the impression gamers who apply those criticisms have for the people who choose to play them. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 10:51 .

[Bullets McDeath]

The only sensible reaction to this will be to wait for more information or to see it in action.



Well, either that or make a bunch of assumptions and go on a nerd rampage....



...decisions, decisions.



That said, on the face of it, this does not please me. However, like herpes, it is probably not as bad as every one always thinks.

[JrayM16]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I chose my words carefully. Challenging implies overall difficulty but says nothing about mechanics, or depth, or how "complicated" something is. People who are going to dispute my assertion think all of those terms equal challenging, but they don't.

Twitch mechanics and human enemies add to the challenge, they don't detract from it. Such systems demand greater player input as a matter of objective fact. And if you're terrible at it, it doesn't matter if you understand what you're supposed to do. You'll fail.

Indeed.  Take Ninja Gaiden for example.  Many people here would look at it then quickly dismiss it as a dumb hack-and-slash game.  However, it requires an incredible amount of quick tactical thought to play, as you have to be aware of enemies and know who you;re going to hit next at all times.  You have to be playing atleast twenty moves ahead, much like chess, except a hundred times as fast.

[Zlarm]

And to think my day started out so well....



This really is a big downer. How is Dragon Age not getting Mass Effected? That's my question.



So I guess Isabella will be parading around the whole game providing everyone a nice view of her breasts and gluts, even when fighting against fully armoured opponents. How is this any different than a chainmail bikini (in fact I would argue it's worse)? This is Miranda and Jack all over again i.e. sex appeal>realism.



I guess it's pretty easy to see what happens next. A month to two months after the game is released we'll have the option of paying for more companion suits.



Long time fan here, but this might be the straw the breaks the camels back. Hell I never thought Sylvius would stick around longer than I did.

[SDNcN]

Addai67 wrote...

So you had a choice in how to build your companions and sometimes you exercised it?  Curious!  Why would you do that to poor Leliana?

Like I said, I wasn't roleplaying.

I've also downloaded mods for NwN2 to turn Neeshka into an assassin and Sand into a better Wizard. Shocking huh.

I primarly play RPGs to roleplay. If Bioware no longer supports screwing with the builds of other characters, it doesn't bother me in the least.

[Kileyan]

Addai67 wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Who says Leliana like bows and can't use a dagger?  Does she ever say that in her dialogue?  If she's not going to learn a new way to fight, then why are you in charge of leveling her?  You shouldn't get a say in what talents she learns.

100% agree. We shouldn't be in charge what talents Leliana picks up during leveling.

Ah, so you autoleveled your companions in DAO, right?

The play throughs in which I was roleplaying, yes.

The play throughs in which I was screwing around with various builds, no.

So you had a choice in how to build your companions and sometimes you exercised it?  Curious!  Why would you do that to poor Leliana?

Yeh, I think he just disgreed with himself. There is no upside with no choices. If you are a purist, you can CHOOSE to design Leliana as an archer with a phobia against daggers. Even though not a single conversation or codex entry ever mentions any such thing.

Yet if you like to mess around, you can choose to do other things.

I don't understand peoples thought process to demand less options in order to keep an npc "pure". This is an entirely single player campaign. While I'd never outfit Leliana in full plate armor nor turn Wynn into an arcane warrior, it would never bother me one bit if someone else did.

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

i commend you for saying this despite you
immenent death by mob because of it.  I'm with you in spirit.  Just not
when they come to you home with torches.../../../images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png

I chose my words carefully. Challenging implies overall difficulty but says nothing about mechanics, or depth, or how "complicated" something is. People who are going to dispute my assertion think all of those terms equal challenging, but they don't.

Twitch mechanics and human enemies add to the challenge, they don't detract from it. Such systems demand greater player input as a matter of objective fact. And if you're terrible at it, it doesn't matter if you understand what you're supposed to do. If you can't execute, you'll fail.  That concept is removed and abstracted in traditional RPGs, for obvious reasons.

The perception that twitch and/or multiplayer games are "dumb" has little to do with their level of relative difficulty, but the impression gamers who apply those criticisms have for the people who choose to play them. 

I've heard that word a lot but I don't know what it means, what is Twitch?

[upsettingshorts]

Aermas wrote...

I've heard that word a lot but I don't know what it means, what is Twitch?

Put simply, it means the player controls things directly.  Like, aiming the gun and shooting it with a mouse or gamepad.  Or determining how the character swings his sword based on various key inputs.  Examples of twitch are Mount & Blade and Mass Effect 2.  And every shooter ever made.  And most sports games.  Stuff like that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 11:05 .

[Meltemph]

I've heard that word a lot but I don't know what it means, what is Twitch?

Essentially, fast motor-skills.

[Wulfram]

Aermas wrote...

I've heard that word a lot but I don't know what it means, what is Twitch?

Test of reflexes, rather than tactics or strategy.

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

Test of reflexes, rather than often in addition to tactics or strategy.

While there are some purely twitch games out there, I imagine - like platformers maybe?  It's not an either-or thing.

Traditional RPGs don't use twitch, but abstract player success or failure based on statistics and dice rolls.  This has pros and cons, just as twitch does.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 11:06 .

[Ryzaki]

I'm not fond of Twitch. Sure some twitch has strategy but personally I rather just have a straight of strategy game.



And before it even comes I'm fully aware DA wasn't purely strategy.

[Aermas]

I guess I don't mind Twitch then, as long as I can have my tactics & eat it too.

[upsettingshorts]

Oh I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, that'd be nonsense. Only that twitch games are more challenging because they require physical player reflex in addition to understanding. RPGs, turn based strategy games - only really require understanding. Twitch games, RTS like Starcraft (which I despise) absolutely demand fast reflexes and economy of action in order to be effective.

Aermas wrote...

I guess I don't mind Twitch then, as long as I can have my tactics & eat it too.

Same here.  I don't have a preference per se, I like numerous games across numerous genres.  But twitch adds to the challenge whether people want to dispute it or not.  It's a matter of objective fact.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 11:10 .

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

While there are some purely twitch games out there, I imagine - like platformers maybe?  It's not an either-or thing.

Traditional RPGs don't use twitch, but abstract player success or failure based on statistics and dice rolls.  This has pros and cons, just as twitch does.

I guess if you're rubbish at that sort of thing like me, including some twitch gameplay would force you to get better at the strategy side of things

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Oh I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, that'd be nonsense. Only that twitch games are more challenging because they require physical player reflex in addition to understanding. RPGs, turn based strategy games - only really require understanding. Twitch games, RTS like Starcraft (which I despise) absolutely demand fast reflexes and economy of action in order to be effective.

Aermas wrote...

I guess I don't mind Twitch then, as long as I can have my tactics & eat it too.

Same here.  I don't have a preference per se, I like numerous games across numerous genres.  But twitch adds to the challenge whether people want to dispute it or not.  It's a matter of objective fact.

Yeah my reflexes such so such a game would just be frustrating and not at all fun to me. (Sort of like ME2 at times).

[tishyw]

So to sum up, the visuals of the companion armor remains the same throughout the game (for most of them), but the stats on that armor will magically upgrade at various points in the game, and we can give them necklaces, rings, etc, but it won't change their appearance. Is that about right?



Sucks to be a DA:O fan right now!



Do we have any idea why the DA:2 devs decided to adopt the most despised aspect of ME2, or are we just blaming casual gamers?

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...
Yeah my reflexes such so such a game would just be frustrating and not at all fun to me. (Sort of like ME2 at times).

Sounds like you're saying it's more challenging.  That's all I'm saying.

Wulfram wrote...
I guess if you're rubbish at that sort of thing like me, including some twitch gameplay would force you to get better at the strategy side of things

Oh absolutely.  If you're only a decent shot (me) you have to really up your game tactically in order to succeed in shooters or sports games that give you the chance to do so.  

Anyway, I've now fully derailed the thread and I won't follow up on this topic except in PMs.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 11:12 .

[GodWood]

Do not like.

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sounds like you're saying it's more challenging.  That's all I'm saying.

Its not challenging to me in a fun way. Its challenging in the way quantum mechanics would be for someone who has never studied it, and had no desire to study it. Why would I want to play something that is simply frustrating? And no I can't get much better at it because between my eyesight and the mild shocks I get (my body randomly jerks) it becomes irritaing frustrating and not fun. So yes its challenging but that's not necessarily a good thing.

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...
So yes its challenging but that's not necessarily a good thing.

I'm going back on my PM promise but this seems close to resolution.

That's why I wasn't making a value judgment, simply demonstrating that an increased challenge exists to refute the notion that traditional RPGs represent a difficult genre.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 11:19 .

[Lurklen]

Well Im not as much of afan of this style. It always bugged me back when I played JRPGs that when I got new armor there was no visual change to my party. If they do the one outfits I just hope that when you do upgrade their armors it at least changes some of the look. An example of this would be the armours of Assassins creed 2. Which while not being an RPG per say, did allow you to change your armours which would change your look with out changing your outfit in an extreme way.

[Kileyan]

tishyw wrote...

Do we have any idea why the DA:2 devs decided to adopt the most despised aspect of ME2, or are we just blaming casual gamers?

I would have liked the ability to fully use my inventory and found items to customize my group, but I'll live with it.

It will not be as bad as ME2, if only because at least the immersion isn't quite as destroyed. ME2 killed me, here was my character in full articulated metal armor and enclosed breathing systems, exploring vacuum areas, zero g, harsh planetary environments, and my party was wearing spandex excercise wear and underwear.

In DA2, I am perfectly able to imagine that the dextrous blinding fast pirate is fighting in her element, and would only be hampered by me forcing her to wear heavier armor and weapons.

As for who to blame, I doubt it has much to do with those evil lazy casual gamers. The game is likely much easier to balance with much less itemization. They will balance the game knowing exactly what each npc will be using, they won't have to take into account choices of the player.

Also they didn't want to deal with gamers complaining about lazy writing and why their npcs came back 7 years later with the exact same helmet they had when they left. Easiest way to deal with that, was to remove the option to equip them.

Modifié par Kileyan, 05 novembre 2010 - 11:44 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...
But if one wants to endeavour in a comparatively easy genre, one doesn't pick RPGs.

Um , I do.  RPGs are dirt simple, even the supposedly "complicated and challenging" ones.  Even sports games and multiplayer shooters are immensely more challenging than RPGs.

And there's goes whatever respect I did have for your opinion.

How did this go in that other thread - when it comes to your opinion on this matter, "who cares?"


EDIT - I don't find reflex skills "challenging" or "difficult" just tedious and boring.

What genre of games is more or less challenging is also subjective.  You may find the greater challenge in how quick you hit buttons or reactive fast you can react.  I find greater challenge in tactical combat, in turn-based games where I have plenty of time to make a choice so reaction speed is not the skill being "challenged".

Which is "more challenging" - basketball or chess?

Modifié par MerinTB, 05 novembre 2010 - 11:56 .

[RifuloftheWest]

I'm normally a lurker on these boards but I found this particular topic important enough to leave my feedback - especially in light of the new information from the recent podcast.

I can't say that I have extensive experience with CRPGs - Planescape:Torment, Fable, and HeroesV being the only single player games I've finished prior to playing DAO. The one I enjoyed the most was of course Planescape with its amazing story and party based system that introduced me to a tactical form of combat. However, if there was one thing that I wish that was different for that game, it would be the ability to equip different forms of armor for followers.

Having said that, it really didn't bother me too much and definitely did not adversely affect the overall story and experience. Simply put: I still immensely enjoyed Planescape. I think that those of us that do not welcome this change to DA2 with respect to the followers should keep in mind that the game may still be very much enjoyable.

Ironically, after having finished a repeated playthrough of Planescape last Christmas - I had a longing to play a fantasy RPG that would allow me varitions in armor and classes. It was then I discovered DAO and after looking through reviews and such decided to try it out. I absolutely loved DAO. I haven't come to love a game so much for its story, customization, and replayability factor since - well since Planescape. I suspect that back in the day, I would have loved the BG series as much if not more so. Alas, I was caught up in MMO's for a lot my gaming time back then - Ultima Online and later FF Online.

I can understand and in some cases, even appreciate the reasoning behind the announced changes in DA2 compared to DAO. From the explanation in the podcast, it certainly seems like they attempted to balance the unique look of the followers, while still retaining some level of customization. Personally, I would rather have the full control over the follower's armor like in DAO and I hope that the future Dragon Age games will bring this feature back. If one would like to retain unique follower looks, there are other ways of achieving this while still providing the option of variations in armor.

Despite my disappointment in the lack of armor choices for followers, I am interested and willing give this feature a try - afterall, it didn't bother me in Planescape. Plus there are still some customization involved.

Ultimately, I would like the devs to note that this particular fan of the Dragon Age franchise would rather have more choices than less. My followers in DAO are all unique looking thanks to the ability to change out their armor, the toolset, and the many talented fans that create mods. 

Modifié par RifuloftheWest, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:41 .