131 réponses à ce sujet

[Nighteye2]

Hollingdale wrote...
You input regarding graphics are completely off, have you played many Bioware 3d rpg's? Their issues are basic, they are simply bad at graphics, and technology wont help them, in fact it tends to cripple them further because they become fixated with just the sort of things you mentioned rather than what really matters (creating an in all aspects immersive living breathing world).

I have played a few - but I never really care much about graphics. Other parts of the game are a lot more important, like story and gameplay mechanics. (I can still enjoy NES games, even with their blocky graphics).

That said, the premise given was that the graphics had to be improved. Higher-res textures and some DX11 effects is the quick-and-dirty way to do just that.

Hollingdale wrote...
A combat speed slider ruins immersion, the main issue with combat speed was the fact that you can't strike an enemy while moving or at anything but a very specific distance. For concoles the lack of a real pause button kinda sucked to though. Both theese issues will be fixed.

No more than having combat speed stuck at 'fast' without being able to drag it back down to normal, like it was in DA:O.

Hollingdale wrote...

You idea regarding lenght is basically to make a sandbox game instead, which first of all: Is obviously not going to happen, and second: would be a bad idea even if development on Dragon Age 2 hadn't even begun yet. Looking at Dragon Age 2 with it's voiced protagonist and action packed combat I'm very much inclined to think that it will be more similar to ME2 in lenght than it's predecessor. Which unfortunately sucks for most fans. Kudos for ranting about casuals or console kiddies and that their opinions ''shouldn't'' matter as if what a small group of hardcore fans deems ethically has any real effect on what more casual people want in a game.

As a matter of fact I prefer long games - but again the premise was to make it shorter, and in that case I'd rather make content optional than remove it from the game.

Hollingdale wrote...

The controls for consoles are only partly a hardware issue (if the lack of buttons on a controller can be called that). For example the lack of a genuine pause buttons on consoles (you have to hold down a button to pause because if you select click to pause then the game will unpause after every selected action losing you precious time unless you instantly reclick which is more frustrating than holding a button down in the first place anyway) is inexcusable and the result of sheer incompetence imo. As is the small number of hotkeys when the controllers do allow for at least twice the amount. The pausing issue will hopefully be fixed. As regards the hotkeys, I think not.

I think you onto something with the HP, despite the combat being pausable I think the issue for a lot of novices was that they died too quick; indeed incoming damage can sometimes be a little too uneven, especially on normal and easy. Another problem is that Bioware often tend to lead the player into a series of very easy fights only to suddenly have them encounter a very hard one. Theese two things seriously suck for those who are new to the genre and know not to expect them.
The issue with the higher difficulties is as usual that while enemies gain HP and DMG their AI remains pretty much the same (maybe there are differences, I didn't really feel them going from normal to nightmare though), this predictability in regards to enemy behaviour means that even on nightmare you rarely have to think twice about what to do, you just have to pull it off a bit tighter and if things start going bad you can resort to some cheap tactics to lure the enemy. Sadly you really do have to metagame or fail in order for the game to be challenging.

Yes, the individual fights would also need to be balanced better, to each provide a challenge.

[Hollingdale]

lol I forgot to add a ''not'' in front of ranting about casuals and console kiddies : ( Sorry about that Nighteye.

[Hollingdale]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...
You input regarding graphics are completely off, have you played many Bioware 3d rpg's? Their issues are basic, they are simply bad at graphics, and technology wont help them, in fact it tends to cripple them further because they become fixated with just the sort of things you mentioned rather than what really matters (creating an in all aspects immersive living breathing world).

I have played a few - but I never really care much about graphics. Other parts of the game are a lot more important, like story and gameplay mechanics. (I can still enjoy NES games, even with their blocky graphics).

That said, the premise given was that the graphics had to be improved. Higher-res textures and some DX11 effects is the quick-and-dirty way to do just that.

Hollingdale wrote...
A combat speed slider ruins immersion, the main issue with combat speed was the fact that you can't strike an enemy while moving or at anything but a very specific distance. For concoles the lack of a real pause button kinda sucked to though. Both theese issues will be fixed.

No more than having combat speed stuck at 'fast' without being able to drag it back down to normal, like it was in DA:O.

Hollingdale wrote...

You idea regarding lenght is basically to make a sandbox game instead, which first of all: Is obviously not going to happen, and second: would be a bad idea even if development on Dragon Age 2 hadn't even begun yet. Looking at Dragon Age 2 with it's voiced protagonist and action packed combat I'm very much inclined to think that it will be more similar to ME2 in lenght than it's predecessor. Which unfortunately sucks for most fans. Kudos for ranting about casuals or console kiddies and that their opinions ''shouldn't'' matter as if what a small group of hardcore fans deems ethically has any real effect on what more casual people want in a game.

As a matter of fact I prefer long games - but again the premise was to make it shorter, and in that case I'd rather make content optional than remove it from the game.

Hollingdale wrote...

The controls for consoles are only partly a hardware issue (if the lack of buttons on a controller can be called that). For example the lack of a genuine pause buttons on consoles (you have to hold down a button to pause because if you select click to pause then the game will unpause after every selected action losing you precious time unless you instantly reclick which is more frustrating than holding a button down in the first place anyway) is inexcusable and the result of sheer incompetence imo. As is the small number of hotkeys when the controllers do allow for at least twice the amount. The pausing issue will hopefully be fixed. As regards the hotkeys, I think not.

I think you onto something with the HP, despite the combat being pausable I think the issue for a lot of novices was that they died too quick; indeed incoming damage can sometimes be a little too uneven, especially on normal and easy. Another problem is that Bioware often tend to lead the player into a series of very easy fights only to suddenly have them encounter a very hard one. Theese two things seriously suck for those who are new to the genre and know not to expect them.
The issue with the higher difficulties is as usual that while enemies gain HP and DMG their AI remains pretty much the same (maybe there are differences, I didn't really feel them going from normal to nightmare though), this predictability in regards to enemy behaviour means that even on nightmare you rarely have to think twice about what to do, you just have to pull it off a bit tighter and if things start going bad you can resort to some cheap tactics to lure the enemy. Sadly you really do have to metagame or fail in order for the game to be challenging.

Yes, the individual fights would also need to be balanced better, to each provide a challenge.

While I understand that they could slightly improve graphics by simply applying the latest technique I think It would be better if they simply changed their philosophy about graphics altogether and stopped trying to do something that they can't. If they would just go with simpler graphics then they wouldn't have to compromise so much of the essential stuff.

Also I do think that having a slightly to fast pace (although I didnt find it fast) would still be miles better than the player being able to control combat speed. Although this depends on how it is done, I guess you could shorten rounds and stuff without things getting to bad though. But just imagine if you could speed up the animations, it would look ridiculous yet one might feel inclined to do it anyway.

[Sir JK]

Ortaya: I hear you, but I think the analogy is a bit flawed. These aren't people standing outside the restaurant and deciding it's not for them. They're more the people going inside, sitting down, ordering food, having their appetizers and then the main course never shows up for them. Except they've already paid. That's a more appropriate analogy.

The question I do pose is what should be done? Should we accept that we cannot accomodate them? Okay. What do we do to compensate for the loss of them? Or should we look at the game and see if there's anything we can change there a bit to make them finish it? If yes, what and how?



A bit like a zero-sum game. For every field you make the game a little more niche, you should make it a little more mainstream in another. So I want people to think that through. What do you, the readers of this thread, want to see expanded and what are you ,the readers, willing to change to accomodate other preferences than your very own?



Nighteye2:

Hmm, interesting suggestion. If what I know about game engines however, which admittedly is very little, is that making use of new technological upgrades often means you have to remake parts of or the entire engine. So if you suggest that keeping the old engine for consoles and then making a new directx11 capable one for the PC then you'd have two of them. Which means twice the amount of work for everything (not to mention they'd look nothing alike). I'm sorry to say, but it sounds very impractical.

The sliders also sounds like one of those in theory ideas. If you keep a slider in that allows you to alternate between the slower older combat and the newer faster one... how do you keep the other from just being an adjusted form of the other. If the older combat is the base, then the faster will just be sped up. Everything clunky will still be there, now just moving at 150% instead of 100%. Or the other way around, the attack on contact and the fast animations are still there. Just moving in slow motion. Unless you mean having two combat systems in place... which means twice the work, twice the planning, twice the animations, four times the physical resources, eight times the testing and sixteen times the heachaches (yes, I'm just making the numbers up). As much as accomodating different playstyles is preferable, there are some things that simply cannot be done practically I think.

I also wonder: What would you like to see improved yourself? Anything you had problems with you'd like to see changed? Anything you think could use some more time and resources to be expanded on so there's more of it to experience? And how would you like to see it changed?

[Nighteye2]

Sir JK wrote...
Nighteye2:
Hmm, interesting suggestion. If what I know about game engines however, which admittedly is very little, is that making use of new technological upgrades often means you have to remake parts of or the entire engine. So if you suggest that keeping the old engine for consoles and then making a new directx11 capable one for the PC then you'd have two of them. Which means twice the amount of work for everything (not to mention they'd look nothing alike). I'm sorry to say, but it sounds very impractical.

That depends on how efficient you want it to run - you only need a new engine if you want a lot of efficiency - just adding one or 2 effects won't be requiring an entire new engine.

Sir JK wrote...
The sliders also sounds like one of those in theory ideas. If you keep a slider in that allows you to alternate between the slower older combat and the newer faster one... how do you keep the other from just being an adjusted form of the other. If the older combat is the base, then the faster will just be sped up. Everything clunky will still be there, now just moving at 150% instead of 100%. Or the other way around, the attack on contact and the fast animations are still there. Just moving in slow motion. Unless you mean having two combat systems in place... which means twice the work, twice the planning, twice the animations, four times the physical resources, eight times the testing and sixteen times the heachaches (yes, I'm just making the numbers up). As much as accomodating different playstyles is preferable, there are some things that simply cannot be done practically I think.

Well, there is an alternative - keep the old animations for the normal option. That way you only need to develop one set of new animations for the 'fast' option, which is something they're already doing anyway.

Sir JK wrote...
I also wonder: What would you like to see improved yourself? Anything you had problems with you'd like to see changed? Anything you think could use some more time and resources to be expanded on so there's more of it to experience? And how would you like to see it changed?

There wasn't much I didn't like about origins. Just the aggro system that was a bit off at times (enemies either not responding when you killed one of their group or too many enemies responding, including those in other rooms behind closed doors) - and the lip synch, which was particularly obvious in Leliana's singing scene.
Also, I'd appreciate full nudity and hollywood-like sex scenes. It's a mature game, no need for censorship.
And perhaps more fast-travel options. For example, if you're in a dungeon but have a clear path back towards the exit, you should be able to access and use the world map.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Sir JK wrote...

Ortaya: I hear you, but I think the analogy is a bit flawed. These aren't people standing outside the restaurant and deciding it's not for them. They're more the people going inside, sitting down, ordering food, having their appetizers and then the main course never shows up for them. Except they've already paid. That's a more appropriate analogy.

And I argue they *should* be standing outside the restaurant and deciding it's not for them. That's what marketing is for. We have online review sites, magazines, demo versions, etc. Not that it really matters. As long as I know grilled whiting is what I want, whether the restaurant lets me know they serve grilled whiting is beyond the scope of my analogy.

[upsettingshorts]

edit nm

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 novembre 2010 - 10:35 .