1080 réponses à ce sujet

[RifuloftheWest]

In Exile wrote...

Oh, I'm sure. It's just that we have this conflict on how we experience games. I've talked about this with others on the forum, and I think the concensus we reached was that part of it was my youth. I came in with 3D visuals and KoTOR, so for me it's natural to expect my content on-screen versus off-screen.

I wouldn't call it a conflict as I am not trying to deny your preferences nor how you have experienced DAO. It's simply a difference in our gaming experiences. While I tend to avoid commenting on age factors, I definitely think that one's expectations are molded by past experiences. I haven't played KoTOR (shame really as I think I would like it) so I do not know how reactive the world was in relation to DAO.

But this certainly adds context to your expectation to having content on-screen vs off-screen and even helps me understand why you find a PC voice over to be preferable.

Relative to most on this forum, I haven't played that many CRPGs. I did, however, spend 7 years on Ultima Online. Never even played a standalone Ultima game. But UO was as unlimiting as a game could get within the confines of its engine. There weren't any offical quests or goals. When I went dungeon crawling with my friends we imposed conditions, scenarios, and backgrounds on ourselves. In essence, we created our own content. The graphics compared to today's were horrendous and none of the NPCs were voiced. Ultimately, a lot of what I enjoyed about my UO experience was implementing my imagination within that world.

This may partly explain my "delusional" tendencies to infer certain aspects of DAO. I never really gave it much thought until now. Just that it doesn't bother me to do it since the instances when I do it are essentially trivial to the overall story in DAO.

I do think that content occurring on-screen is preferable to the alternative. So like I said, I can understand where you are coming from (except for the voice over part ).

I believe strongly in story/gameplay segregation. I want the story to simulate the PC as a person with a reactive world. But I want party-base combat for the gameplay. Hell, my ideal game would be turn-based hex combat like Heroes of Might and Magic.

Right. One of my biggest fears for DA2 will be that we cannot disable tactics. As much as out of combat I want characters to be their own person, in-combat I want souless puppets.

I think the reason for my initial impression was that you felt so strongly about the companions being their own person, it seemed reasonable to assume you felt the same during combat.

I enjoyed the turn-based hex combat of Heroes of Might and Magic too. Personally, turn-based hex wouldn't be my ideal but I quite enjoyed the combat system of DAO and would be content if it remained largely the same (which i understand it has for the most part). I certainly welcome tweaks here and there, and improvement to the party's reaction times.

If the choice to disable tactics is removed from DA2, I would be severely put out. Essentially, the core theme to my preferences is to give the player choices which is being lessened with the companion inventory design in DA2.

Modifié par RifuloftheWest, 07 novembre 2010 - 05:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Essentially, what Bioware is doing is fixing the appearance of armour.

And if that's all this is, that's at most a minor annoyance.

But if they're also forcing on us a specific stat-set based on that appearance, then we have a real problem.

That would be consistent with how armour worked in DAO (you got the performance along with the appearance), and it would suit DA2's character-specific talent trees and forced weapons.  This is why I ask,

Otherwise, all they've said is that the appearance is fixed, and that's not that big a deal.

I would think it was the former and not the latter, but we would need more information in how armour upgrades to reach any reasonable conclusion.

Hence me asking the question.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ensgnblack wrote...

Now, when I find tank armor and I am not a tank...I cant use it. Same with mage armor when I am melee. This means many items will go to vendors, instead of on companions. I do not like this change. I respect why Bioware thinks this is good from a RPG standpoint, or even some gameplay standpoints, but I see many things about it that I do not care for.

Or they'll have dynamic loot such that all the drops are things you can use.  If Hawke is a Rogue, you simply won't ever loot Mage Robes.

That would suck, but it seems like an obvious step to avoid the supposed monotony of finding unusable loot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Huh?  Jowan is going to attempt to escape, and you are going to "help," but the nature of your involvement can be fundamentally different.

But you can't outright refuse, you helping Jowan is a "but thou must" moment.

Note: I haven't followed the discussion, I just jumped in without knowing what I'm saying.

DAO's strength was that the reason why you helped Jowan was entirely up to you.  Your PC could have literally any motive you could imagine.

I remains to be seen whether this will still be true in DA2.

[Ortaya Alevli]

I wonder if we'll ever be looting any armor at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aermas wrote...

Yeah if you don't help him, your not role-playing right, he is supposed to be your friend, & people help their friends

I disagree.  Jowan claims to be your friend, either because he thinks he is or he wants you to think he is.  Whether you agree is up to you.

[soteria]

That would be consistent with how armour worked in DAO (you got the performance along with the appearance), and it would suit DA2's character-specific talent trees and forced weapons. This is why I ask,

Otherwise, all they've said is that the appearance is fixed, and that's not that big a deal.

I got the strong impression from the podcast that only the appearance is fixed. Mr. Laidlaw said you can upgrade your companion's armor with runes, and that companions will upgrade their own armor/you can find upgrades. It sounded like we might see changes in armor in the gaps in the 10-year period, but I'm not sure if those are statistical or cosmetic.

Of course, only the actual armor is fixed in the first place. The belt, ring slots, and weapons are all variable as in Origins. What remains to be seen is whether we'll actually have options for companion armor or just upgrades a la Morrigan's Robes of Possession.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Oh, I'm sure. It's just that we have this conflict on how we experience games. I've talked about this with others on the forum, and I think the concensus we reached was that part of it was my youth. I came in with 3D visuals and KoTOR, so for me it's natural to expect my content on-screen versus off-screen.

Your gaming background is irrelevant.  You still chose to limit your interpretation of the game's implicit content.

Jumping to a conclusion is always jumping to a conclusion, regardless of how neatly packaged your incomplete information was.

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

I got the strong impression from the podcast that only the appearance is fixed. Mr. Laidlaw said you can upgrade your companion's armor with runes, and that companions will upgrade their own armor/you can find upgrades. It sounded like we might see changes in armor in the gaps in the 10-year period, but I'm not sure if those are statistical or cosmetic.

Of course, only the actual armor is fixed in the first place. The belt, ring slots, and weapons are all variable as in Origins. What remains to be seen is whether we'll actually have options for companion armor or just upgrades a la Morrigan's Robes of Possession.

But if you look at DAO, the statistical value of the accessories, and even the runes, was quite small relative to the armour itself.

You never saw a +16 armour rating on a belt, for example.

[soteria]

But if you look at DAO, the statistical value of the accessories, and even the runes, was quite small relative to the armour itself.

You never saw a +16 armour rating on a belt, for example.

That's true for armor rating, but not as much for stat bonuses, health/stamina regen, and other bonuses. Compare how a character performs with and without Andruil's Blessing, Key to the City, Lifegiver, and your choice of amulet. There's quite a large difference between the strength of mundane and exceptional accessories.

There's no getting around that we'll have fewer options for customizing a companion's gear, though. It will be hard to judge just how much that will actually affect me until I play.

[SilentK]

Hmmm... I like being able to change how my party looks, this might still be very well. As long as it doesn't turn out like ME2. I really really didn't like not being able to change the gear of my party. As long as it doesn't turn out as ME2, with just one outlook with different colours I'm just fine =)

[Addai]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

And when the NPC puts on armor you want your PC to wear?

Just ask.

Ok, so we get to do everything we can do now, but there has to be dialogue about it?  And when the NPC says no, that's it?  This is really a game you want to play?  Don't kid a kidder.

Here's a simple example: Order Garrus to switch to his assault rifle using the pause menu in ME2. Shepard yells "Switch weapons" and Garrus follows the order.

And yeah, ME2 is really a game I want to play.

What if he flips you the bird and says he wants to use the weapon he wants to use?

[Anarchosyn]

The Masked Rog wrote...
I see no reason for me to be able to decide what companions wear. If I was Morrigan and the player tried to put me in plate armor I'd tell him to shut up, or at least I'd need a lot of convincing. If they let us convince the characters to wear other things, I'd be all for it. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind more choice about my character (give me more armor types, more weapon types more hair styles, more everything) but it breaks the RPG a bit when my companions can't seem to make their own desicions.

I hate to point out the obvious but you're already projecting your interpretations onto the characters with the bit I highlighted. Why wouldn't Morrigan wear plate armor? Why would she gravitate towards fire over ice magic? Why [insert any preference]? Because you intuited something in her presentation which implicitly suggested this but never forget that such preferences are never directly stated. They exist in your head, as well they should. 

Perhaps Morrigan's experiences with the Warden have broadened her to the benefits of death dealing up close and personal with an axe. I wouldn't play her this way but nothing in her personality explicitly contradicts such growth. She existed in a very closed and voyeuristic existence before meeting the warden -- who's to say what kind of dynamic growth potential could be role played into her over the course of the adventure. 

Allowing the player the freedom to make these evolutions for not only themselves but their entire party is part of what makes these kind of games great. 

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's not that I assume that.  It's that I hate ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL systems even more.  I only got involved in the discussion because it was explicitly stated  that players who wanted NPCs with backbone didn't exist.

So, can I ask, why is it that you play tactical team RPGs exactly?

And tmp is exactly right.  I've seen the rage on the boards about the fact that Alistair can't be persuaded to stay in the party with Loghain or won't let a Warden he's been in love with take the final blow.  Players want to do what they want to do.  It's our game, I paid the 60 bucks, not Alistair.  LOL

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

So, can I ask, why is it that you play tactical team RPGs exactly?

Because on a sliding scale like this:

RAGE CRAP FEATURE --------------------------|------------------------ MY IDEAL PREFERENCES

Tactical team RPGs are somewhere in the middle, favoring the right hand side.  Unlike some people on these forums, I don't get upset or angry or fail to deal with features that aren't bumping right up against the "M" in "my."

On balance, the games Bioware make have more features I like, love, or downright worship than ones I hate, mildly dislike, and indifferently deal with.  But they're not perfect for me, no game would be unless I started developing my own.

Addai67 wrote...

And tmp is exactly right.  I've seen the rage on the boards about the fact that Alistair can't be persuaded to stay in the party with Loghain or won't let a Warden he's been in love with take the final blow.

Tmp's right in that the rage exists.  I'm right in that I don't care about it.  

Addai67 wrote...

Players want to do what they want to do.  It's our game, I paid the 60 bucks, not Alistair.  LOL

It's the writer's story, I paid $60 to experience it, not make up my own contradictory interpretation of the characters they came up with.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 09:12 .

[Addai]

Anarchosyn wrote...

Allowing the player the freedom to make these evolutions for not only themselves but their entire party is part of what makes these kind of games great. 

Yes, thank you.  I keep seeing these posts about how egregious it is to have Leliana use daggers or Morrigan wear armor.  Who says??  It's player interpretation of the character.  In this case people want to have one iteration of a character imposed on their game.  For whatever reason, I'll never understand.

I do like NPCs to have their own personality, but I want the freedom to be able to arrange the party as I see fit.  Me, the player, not necessarily Hawke the character.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...
Yes, thank you.  I keep seeing these posts about how egregious it is to have Leliana use daggers or Morrigan wear armor.  Who says??  It's player interpretation of the character.  In this case people want to have one iteration of a character imposed on their game.  For whatever reason, I'll never understand.

It's not that I think my preferences are better.  I'm just trying to explain that they exist.

[slimgrin]

Addai67 wrote...

Anarchosyn wrote...

Allowing the player the freedom to make these evolutions for not only themselves but their entire party is part of what makes these kind of games great. 

Yes, thank you.  I keep seeing these posts about how egregious it is to have Leliana use daggers or Morrigan wear armor.  Who says??  It's player interpretation of the character.  In this case people want to have one iteration of a character imposed on their game.  For whatever reason, I'll never understand.

I do like NPCs to have their own personality, but I want the freedom to be able to arrange the party as I see fit.  Me, the player, not necessarily Hawke the character.

Hence Sylvius claiming it's not a party based rpg. He has a point.

[upsettingshorts]

slimgrin wrote...

Hence Sylvius claiming it's not a party based rpg. He has a point.

And I'm more or less totally on board with his notion - at least in concept - that a game either give you full control over your party or no control over NPCs at all.  That's what "NPC" means.

The only character I really want to be the PC is the protagonist, whether team exists or not.  And that's where I imagine Sylvius and I part ways on that particular issue.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 09:14 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

And tmp is exactly right.  I've seen the rage on the boards about the fact that Alistair can't be persuaded to stay in the party with Loghain or won't let a Warden he's been in love with take the final blow.

Tmp's right in that the rage exists.  I'm right in that I don't care about it.  

....

Okay.  You don't care about what you don't care about, but others do.  Fairly elementary ground here.

It's the writers story, I paid $60 to experience it, not make up my own contradictory interpretation of the characters they came up with.

Half the things people are offering as interpretations don't come from the writers but people here making it up, their own personal take on those NPCs.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Okay.  You don't care about what you don't care about, but others do.  Fairly elementary ground here.

It's very simple.  The reaction other players had to Alistair at the Landsmeet has nothing to do with me.  Why should I account for it?  It's a single player game.  Someone else's experience with it are not my problem.

Addai67 wrote...

Half the things people are offering as interpretations don't come from the writers but people here making it up, their own personal take on those NPCs.

And those folks are just as wrong.  You probably won't find me making too many of those arguments.  The only one I've been making this whole time has been conceptual.  I haven't explicitly "Morrigan would never do X"  But I'm not exactly a paragon of consistency, I do try to avoid such statements.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 09:17 .

[Maconbar]

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's not that I assume that.  It's that I hate ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL systems even more.  I only got involved in the discussion because it was explicitly stated  that players who wanted NPCs with backbone didn't exist.

So, can I ask, why is it that you play tactical team RPGs exactly?

And tmp is exactly right.  I've seen the rage on the boards about the fact that Alistair can't be persuaded to stay in the party with Loghain or won't let a Warden he's been in love with take the final blow.  Players want to do what they want to do.  It's our game, I paid the 60 bucks, not Alistair.  LOL

If controlling all the companions and having all of them do exactly what we want is so great why give the companions any independent personality at all. In what you are describing wouldn't it be better if we could name all the companions? We should be able to select what dialogue the companions use.

I think that many people play these games because the companions have their own personalities. I am glad that they do.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Okay.  You don't care about what you don't care about, but others do.  Fairly elementary ground here.

It's very simple.  The reaction other players had to Alistair at the Landsmeet has nothing to do with me.  Why should I account for it?  It's a single player game.  Someone else's experience with it are not my problem.

Because we're having a discussion and it's usual to try to understand other's viewpoints?  Usually you do better than this, AngryPants.

Addai67 wrote...

Half the things people are offering as interpretations don't come from the writers but people here making it up, their own personal take on those NPCs.

And those folks are just as wrong.  You probably won't find me making too many of those arguments.  The only one I've been making this whole time has been conceptual.  I haven't explicitly "Morrigan would never do X"  But I'm not exactly a paragon of consistency, I do try to avoid such statements.

And that same kind of person might look at Isabela and think "she should never be put in pants."  But unless it's written into Isabela's character somewhere "look, I just don't do my pants, it's not my thing," there is no reason to take that as a fixed characteristic.  So if I as a player don't want to stare at her ass cheeks and I put her in pirate pants, I'm still in the bounds the writers set.  If I put Morrigan in massive armor when she learns the arcane warrior spec, there's nothing in the game writing that says it's OOC.

[Addai]

Maconbar wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's not that I assume that.  It's that I hate ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL systems even more.  I only got involved in the discussion because it was explicitly stated  that players who wanted NPCs with backbone didn't exist.

So, can I ask, why is it that you play tactical team RPGs exactly?

And tmp is exactly right.  I've seen the rage on the boards about the fact that Alistair can't be persuaded to stay in the party with Loghain or won't let a Warden he's been in love with take the final blow.  Players want to do what they want to do.  It's our game, I paid the 60 bucks, not Alistair.  LOL

If controlling all the companions and having all of them do exactly what we want is so great why give the companions any independent personality at all. In what you are describing wouldn't it be better if we could name all the companions? We should be able to select what dialogue the companions use.

I think that many people play these games because the companions have their own personalities. I am glad that they do.

Do you ever set their tactics?  Change their weapons?  Level them yourself?  Pick their specializations?

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Because we're having a discussion and it's usual to try to understand other's viewpoints?  Usually you do better than this, AngryPants.

I understand the viewpoint.  But since the subject - correct me if I'm wrong - is what and why my preferences are, then involving the reaction of other people to things that happen in the game aren't strictly relevant are they?

I'm actually not in favor of the companion equipment change for example, as it seems an arbitrary choice with questionable benefits.  But it's still based on my position that control of your party should be an all or nothing kind of thing.  I prefer something closer to nothing to all.  It doesn't shock me that other people prefer all, and those are the folks youre talking about and representing.  

Addai67 wrote...

And that same kind of person might look at Isabela and think "she should never be put in pants." 

If she wants to put on pants, that's fine.  That's why I think simply removing aspects of inventory management from a party member but retaining the ability to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL and other parts of their inventory is arbitrary.  

Do you see what I mean though, about party control being all or nothing, and changes like the one this thread is about are arbirtary?

Addai67 wrote...

Do you ever set their tactics?  Change their weapons?  Level them yourself?  Pick their specializations?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.  Like I said, I have my preferences, but I'm not in denial about what kind of game DA:O is. 

In Upsettingshorts Age: The Never-Happening, the only thing from that list I'd be able to do is set Tactics as they would be an abstraction of tactical preplanning.  The number of slots available wouldn't be based on the companions' Cunning or Combat Tactics, but my protagonist's Leadership and Cunning.  The character's ability to consistently execute them would be based on their attributes.  If I made a Tactic to tell Bob the Mage he should get up close and hit enemies with his staff, he might try (if my leadership is high enough) but he'd be awful at it (attributes).

As such, the role of the protagonist in such a game would be closer to a player-coach in team sports than Harbinger.

Edit: Example of Upsettingshorts Age Tactics / Leadership as I'd do it.

(Leadership: Ability of protagonist to convince a companion to do something. Numbers are pulled out of my ass and would have to be balanced.)

Protagonist Leadership of 1:  Companions limited by whatever AI they are programmed to have.  No input.
Protagonist Leadership of 2:  Companions will use health or mana potions based on conditions set by Tactics
Protagonist Leadership of 3:  Companions will use abilities based on conditions set by Tactics
Protagonist Leadership of 4:  Companions will use abilities that border on suicidal or counter-intuitive to their preconceived roles in battle.

(Cunning: Ability of protagonist to come up with the idea for his companion to do something.  Numbers are pulled out of my ass and would have to be balanced.)

Protagonist Cunning of 10:  Limited number of basic options like "Drink potion when you have boo boo"
Protagonist Cunning of 15:  Basic instructions like "If you see an enemy with high armor, use an ability to do something about it"
Protagonist Cunning of 20:  Instructions based on the tactical situation, such as those that take into account groups of enemies, their rank (like Elite), etc.
Protagonist Cunning of 25:  More advanced instructions based on temporary conditions like "Groups of
enemies that are Sleeping should have Waking Nightmare cast on them"

...and so on and so forth.  I don't expect everyone would like that, nor do I think DA:# should necessarily adopt it.  But it would be something I'd like.

It would ideally (we're talking about a fictional, made up mechanic here) be totally viable to ignore it completely and have your companions act according to basic AI, and make your character into some kind of Fantasy Kobe Bryant with a Sword who can drop 50 points/Darkspawn a game on his own.  Or make a born leader who builds his team into a finely tooled death squad.  There'd still be player choice, but it would be focused on a single character.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 10:21 .