1080 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

Or make a mod of EDF except with Bioware related skins

[HighMoon]

These threads always end up giving me headaches... *sigh* I don't like to get involved in this stuff. And yet, somehow, I am always eventually drawn towards them.

[Aermas]

Does anyone know if we at least have them start with two outfits so we have some form of control/customization?

[Meltemph]

errant_knight wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

It's a lot easier to dismiss people, or invalidate their opinions, if you lump them into a group, ignoring their differences, then try and make them look irrational.

Might have something to do with the people who typically disagree, do so quite aggressively(and more or less the same for people who agree, but I would venture to guess the motive is different).  Then you have the people who claim the game is not their cup of tea, but still show a rather remarkable continued interest(to me) in a game they have lost interest in.  And since, the people who are fine/happy with the changes and may be just as attached to their own opinions as the people who "hate and loath" the changes.

I dunno really.  I don't really get the... seemingly(to me) heavy attachment to having the game be what one envisions.  If I thought DA2 was going to be at the minimum, a disappointment, I wouldn't be, wasting my time, I guess I would call it, making my voice heard(after a certain point anywho).  

Some of the arguments almost seem like crusade like, to me, either as to why Bioware is doing the right or wrong thing.  I stick around forums like this though, honestly, because I find the dedication to a specific type of game type interesting, for the most part(Coming from someone who would be fine with either direction most of these arguments are about) simply because I don't feel strongly about issues like this.

Well, personally, I care because I've never played a game that I enjoyed  (and still enjoy) as much as I enjoyed Deagon Age, and was hoping to play a game that was so entirely what I enjoy more than once. And I know from experience with playing other games with similar styles to DA2, that I don't enjoy those as much. So for me, this is a real loss. I can also tell you why I'm still considering buying the game--the writers and the cameos. That's pretty much it, and since games cost close to eighty dollars in Canada, I go back and forth on whether that's enough. I keep hoping that read something here that will make me feel better about it, or get me excited for the game, but every new announcement just removes another aspect of the game that was a direct part of my enjoyment. I'm the 'never say die' type, so I keep hoping that something will change, or I'll hear something that I'll think is good news, but so far the cameos are pretty much it on that front. But you never know. Something good might happen.

Eh, fair enough... I understand what you are saying to a point, but I've never felt anything special from one genre/game to the next(same with movies also) if I was being perfectly honest.  My enjoyment is what it is I guess.  If I find it to be good, whatever that means to me for each game that is my enjoyment.  I really don't have a mechanic preference at all.

I mean, I may get engrossed in an idea for awhile, but only out of interest, who knows maybe I just can't get it, might be a bit dense in this department to be honest.

Might have something to do with me never being attached to much of anything... Dunno, I've been told I show a fairly large lack of empathy and the like, when it comes to much of anything , which I find a little odd because most find me very...social. I still find it(the attachment) very fascinating none the less and I do see where the enjoyment like you describes definitely adds that something to the feeling of playing/doing something you really enjoy.

Still though, it does seem like one is limiting their... enjoyment of things outside of their expectations with such a approach, to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You know very well what I meant.

I know what you said, and what you said didn't make any sense.

I suspect (given your reaction here) that you intended to express that the games that accommodate that playstyle are dying.

This I would also dispute.  DAO, after all, only came out last year, and it sold millions of copies.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Companions have open slots for weapons, belts, rings, and amulets.

If rings, belts, and amulets are now visible, I would care.

[Wyndham711]

Having slept overnight and given this a bit more thought, I still can't see any sensible 'design philosophy' behind this change. Offhand I can think of ways that would have actually improved the loot/gear system and still achieved their new goal of character distinctiveness. How about splitting the suits of armor into more parts, introducing blacksmithing as a profession, introducing a more involved and randomized loot system, etc, and in addition to those, add in NPC specific one chunk-suits as rewards for party member specific side quests?

You could have even made those character specific suits scale somewhat through time (as you are now) so that the party members would be wearing those by default when a time jump has occured, so there would also be no trouble with having them equipped in outdated gear if you don't use them regularly.

Yeah, that would have meant more work designing all the armors so that they fit every race, even races other than the PC race. But here it's hard to swallow this decision as made just because of resource constraints. If you have enough resources to hot rod the graphics, it's hard to think how you couldn't have enough to actually improve such a central gameplay and choice mechanic as loot/gear.

This is especially true with BioWare games, where I'd argue gameplay already competes more with the story/writing aspect of the package, than is in general the case with game design. If gameplay gets dwarfed by presentation, even in a relatively un-gamebreaking issue as this, I can't help but think something isn't right.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

People said adventure games were dead nearly 20 years ago... and yet we still get stuff like Still Life 2.  Go figure.

Yeah but they're not exactly being churned out like they used to, are they?

I insist that ME and ME2 are adventure games.

[upsettingshorts]

I based the conclusion on the position that DA:O represented the "spiritual successor" to the party based tactical RPG. Since so many people have now said that DA:2 has abandoned that concept, does it not follow that the genre is dying?

If I have misunderstood the position of those arguing in favor of a BG-like playstyle, I've said earlier that I'd be happy to re-examine my conclusion. It seems pretty clear to me though that if a particular game represents the last example of a link to what is considered the ideal of the genre has a sequel that is moving away from that history, than implying the genre is dead or dying isn't nonsensical.

You're right though, the explicit content of the post of mine you quoted said - upon reflection - exactly what your response said it did.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I insist that ME and ME2 are adventure games.

I label them as action RPGs because they're twitch games with RPG elements.  Adventure games, at least the ones I've played either don't have combat, aren't twitch, and/or don't really offer anything at all in the way of player choice.  Though ME1-2 certainly have less choice than a traditional RPG given the fixed protagonist.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I actually have a question about these companion armours.

There will be more than one per companion, yes? And we'll be able to choose which one the companion is wearing?

Will there be meaningful differences stat-wise between the sets beyond just one being better than the other one? For example, might a companion have one set of armour that is good at preventing damage, while another gives a bonus to strength? That way at least we'd still be making meaningful choices pursuant to our companions - they'd just have a unique appearance.

Was the goal here simply to give each companion a distinctive appearance? If so, then that would still allow different equipment that does different things without violating the design objective.

Or was the goal to eliminate the need to manage the armour of the companions at all?

[upsettingshorts]

I asked that back a bit myself. Mike's earlier answer that changes in armor would be an exception and not the rule leads me to guess that changes in armor will be for plot-based reasons and not any sort of loot and equipment management.

But I'd like to know the answer. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I based the conclusion on the position that DA:O represented the "spiritual successor" to the party based tactical RPG. Since so many people have now said that DA:2 has abandoned that concept, does it not follow that the genre is dying?

Only if DAO was the sole remaining example of the genre.

But it wasn't.  It was just one of the better examples.

If I have misunderstood the position of those arguing in favor of a BG-like playstyle, I've said earlier that I'd be happy to re-examine my position. It seems pretty clear to me though that if a particular game represents the last example of a link to what is considered the ideal of the genre has a sequel that is moving away from that history, than implying the genre is dead or dying isn't nonsensical.

There was a game that was great (DAO), and it was great because it exhibited the characteristics we like (being party-based RPG among them).  That its sequel is choosing to run away from those features as much as it can is really irritating, and seemingly pointless.

What's the point of it being a sequel to DAO at all if it's not going to resemble DAO?

If BioWare had made it clear that they were trying to create an ngoing franchinse and they intended to do a variety of games of different genres within it, then I suspect we'd be a lot less upset.  So if that's true, BioWare, you might  want to tell us.  And slap your marketing department for calling this a sequel.

[Sir JK]

If I understood correctly, they disassociated the stats and the visuals of the companion outfits. So that you as a player still have the opportunity to customise and optimise the stats and bonus part of equipment but the visual side only changes for plot reasons.

[AlanC9]

Aermas wrote...

Does anyone know if we at least have them start with two outfits so we have some form of control/customization?

I'd be shocked if it worked like that. It's much more likely that any new outfits will have to be achieved in some way.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What's the point of it being a sequel to DAO at all if it's not going to resemble DAO?

Narrative continuity?  In that it's still Thedas, and Hawke and the Warden are contemporaries and so on.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If BioWare had made it clear that they were trying to create an ngoing franchinse and they intended to do a variety of games of different genres within it, then I suspect we'd be a lot less upset.  So if that's true, BioWare, you might  want to tell us.

Well, I think their intent is pretty clear by now.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Only if DAO was the sole remaining example of the genre.

But it wasn't.  It was just one of the better examples.

Incidentally, which games are you referring to?  I should probably check them out.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:35 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I label them as action RPGs because they're twitch games with RPG elements.

I see no RPG elements in the Mass Effect games.  I see no player choice outside of a few specific plot points (some of which don't even make sense within the context of the rest of the game - specifically the Rachni Queen).

The point of ME appeared to be to follow Shepard through his story, and win his fights for him.  That's not roleplaying.

I can't find my 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook right now, but there's a great passage near the beginning to explains to new players how to play.  It specifically says that there's no way to win, and the point of playing is to enjoy the play experience itself.

This is why I don't think RPGs are games.  Games have win conditions.  You either win or you lose (assuming you complete the game).  But that's not how RPGs are played.

So if you're taking about RPG elements, that's whayt I want to see.  I wan to core gameplay to be the experience of roleplaying, with all other gameplay objectives subservient to that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'd be shocked if it worked like that. It's much more likely that any new outfits will have to be achieved in some way.

If they magically apepar for no in-game reason (like ME2) I'm going to be very upset.

If we simply have to buy them, that would be much better.

[AlanC9]

Wyndham711 wrote...
Yeah, that would have meant more work designing all the armors so that they fit every race, even races other than the PC race. But here it's hard to swallow this decision as made just because of resource constraints. If you have enough resources to hot rod the graphics, it's hard to think how you couldn't have enough to actually improve such a central gameplay and choice mechanic as loot/gear. 

This implies that Bioware's designers simply don't like loot as a game mechanic.

I'm down with that, myself -- I'm on record as hoping that KotOR would have no inventory whatsoever. But I'm kind of shocked to find Bio agreeing with me after all these years.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Incidentally, which games are you referring to?  I should probably check them out.

The one that springs immediately to mind is Drakensang.  Its English-language release was also in 2009.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It specifically says that there's no way to win, and the point of playing is to enjoy the play experience itself.

This is why I don't think RPGs are games.  Games have win conditions.  You either win or you lose (assuming you complete the game). 

That doesn't strike me as a terribly useful point. The same description can and has been applied to Paradox Interactive strategy games on their own message boards by people who have been playing them since before I even heard of the company.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So if you're taking about RPG elements, that's whayt I want to see.  I wan to core gameplay to be the experience of roleplaying, with all other gameplay objectives subservient to that.

We clearly disagree on what RPG elements are, but we don't need to rehash precisely what those differences are again.  In any case, debating what to label ME1-2 is pretty off topic unless we can bring it back to companion equipment - which we probably can. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If they magically appear for no in-game reason (like ME2) I'm going to be very upset.

If we simply have to buy them, that would be much better.

My theory was that a possible example would be Carver getting some proper armor - somehow - once getting to Kirkwall.  He's wearing farming clothes in the prologue, and I wouldn't expect a 2H warrior to be stuck in that the whole game.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:45 .

[namedforthemoon]

Can we just completely remove the outfit and have our followers run around in their skivvies? Or are they permanently glued on?

[upsettingshorts]

namedforthemoon wrote...

Can we just completely remove the outfit and have our followers run around in their skivvies?

I wouldn't shed a single tear if they removed that option.

[Wyndham711]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...
Yeah, that would have meant more work designing all the armors so that they fit every race, even races other than the PC race. But here it's hard to swallow this decision as made just because of resource constraints. If you have enough resources to hot rod the graphics, it's hard to think how you couldn't have enough to actually improve such a central gameplay and choice mechanic as loot/gear. 

This implies that Bioware's designers simply don't like loot as a game mechanic.

I think if you take out some aspect of gameplay, you should endeavour in replacing it with something equally deep. But given that Origins was already fairly heavily involved in the loot department, as was its spiritual predecessor, as will DA2 to some extent (in terms of Hawke him/herself), I don't buy them misliking loot as an explanation. They may think it's a gameplay feature where corners can be cut without angering the whole playerbase, and there they are clearly right, but placing gameplay behind something as secondary as aesthetical flair is something I can't understand.

Especially when there would have been clear ways in improving the gameplay and at the same time satisfying their new goals. Given enough resources of course, which they apparently had, but decided to utilize in a somewhat warped way, in my opinion.

[Lukertin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

namedforthemoon wrote...
Can we just completely remove the outfit and have our followers run around in their skivvies?

I wouldn't shed a single tear if they removed that option.

That would be an outrage!  The highlight of every RPG ever made has been to run around with all equipment unequiped just to see how overpowered your character really is

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Incidentally, which games are you referring to?  I should probably check them out.

The one that springs immediately to mind is Drakensang.  Its English-language release was also in 2009.

The prequel to Drakensang is getting an English (US) release early next year.  So that would be another one.  I'm eagerly awaiting it.