179 réponses à ce sujet

[Aermas]

Beer with a head, bear without a head, what about lagers, dry or on the rocks?... This could go round & round

Modifié par Aermas, 07 novembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[upsettingshorts]

People drink beer on the rocks?

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

People drink beer on the rocks?

Some people thing Dragon Age 2 should be a open world sandbox, I'm presenting ideas, not judging.

[Xallah]

I really understand the author of the thread. The game is perfect to me. And i'd be feeling better if I got another DA:O with the same flaws, maybe, but if I was sure it'd be the same emotions i'd get.



But on the other hand the brilliant post of Dave makes sense too. Improvements are needed. And they're not evil.



But all improvements go with fear that something that was already perfect will be damaged. That's hard to endure sometimes.

[Leonia]

Aermas wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

People drink beer on the rocks?

Some people thing Dragon Age 2 should be a open world sandbox, I'm presenting ideas, not judging.

That's madness! Next you'll be telling me people drink beer warm or that they consider an alcohol content of 3% qualifies something as beer or that root beer should count.

[Aermas]

leonia42 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

People drink beer on the rocks?

Some people thing Dragon Age 2 should be a open world sandbox, I'm presenting ideas, not judging.

That's madness! Next you'll be telling me people drink beer warm or that they consider an alcohol content of 3% qualifies something as beer or that root beer should count.

& some think 90proof is weak:whistle:

[upsettingshorts]

Then there are people that hold the untrue-for-decades opinion that American beer sucks, and then have the ignorance to hold up Budweiser as an example.

Why don't those critics nationally prohibit beer in their country and see how long it takes their brewing industry to recover then come back and judge us!

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 01:36 .

[triggerhappy456]

Well either Bioware are going to keep on making changes, taking risks which will usually turn out to be good but sometimes not. Or they can do what the Mario people do, release the same game year after year after year.

Sorry if somebody already said this by the way

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

TL DR, but did read skim enough to taste the tears.  Thank you. 

Why streamline the mechanics of ME2 and DA2?  Progress.

RPG = Role playing a character in a story.  Making the choices during a window of their life.

The loot mechanics, the sifting through a dozen crap items to find the one ok item, the obesssing over where to but fractional points to min/max a character's stats.... boring.  And rightfully streamlined by BioWare.  It's called progress.

This discussion now bores me.  Bye.

[LTD]

triggerhappy456 wrote...

Well either Bioware are going to keep on making changes, taking risks which will usually turn out to be good but sometimes not. Or they can do what the Mario people do, release the same game year after year after year.
Sorry if somebody already said this by the way

Why yes, God knows world is suffering a massive drought of irritating button smasher action  RPGs with annoying wapanese main characters! Thank god Bioware has the courage to go where no Dev has gone before and boldly release a COOL action game where AMAZING stuff happens when you press your buttons.  Unless you decide to spend over 12 hours pressing these buttons, for it marks an end of the AMAZING stuff...and beginning of EDGY "MTV- Inspired" and DANGEROUS ending credit-experience.

But hay, at least the clothing WILL break the rules! (Assuming Bioware end up standing behind their words on this, it can only mean women who don't dress like sl**s and men who do. )

Modifié par LTD, 07 novembre 2010 - 02:17 .

[Aermas]

LTD wrote...

triggerhappy456 wrote...

Well either Bioware are going to keep on making changes, taking risks which will usually turn out to be good but sometimes not. Or they can do what the Mario people do, release the same game year after year after year.
Sorry if somebody already said this by the way

Why yes, God knows world is suffering a massive drought of irritating button smasher action  RPGs with annoying wapanese main characters! Thank god Bioware has the courage to go where no Dev has gone before and boldly release a COOL action game where AMAZING stuff happens when you press your buttons.

But hay, at least the clothing WILL break the rules! (Assuming Bioware end up standing behind their words on this, it can only mean women who don't dress like sl**s and men who do. )

Have you seen Isabela?

[Jimmy Fury]

Anarchosyn wrote...

You're missing something in your analysis:

ME 1: Bioware was independent.

DA:O development: Bioware was independent.

ME 2: Bioware was a subsidiary of EA.

DA 2: Bioware is a subsidiary of EA.

Now reflect on your initial question again and see if any new perspectives come to light.

Not entirely correct.
Bioware became a subsidiary of EA around October 2007. Origins was released in November of 2009.
Thus, the last 2 years of DA:O's development occured under EA rule.
2 years was plenty of time for EA to kick all the puppies and change everything about Origins.
They did not. Therefore there is no logical argument that supports the idea that changes are entirely EA's fault.

Surely EA can make some calls, but it's silly to assume that Bioware wouldn't have made any changes at all on their own.

Dave of Canada wrote...
Less loot means that less loot is trash, you're given more choice on what is actually worth keeping and
using instead of ignoring looting altogether because you know there's nothing of use in that locked crate.

Indeed, after my second playthrough I gave up completely on locked chests and stopped bringing Low-level-death-prone-Leliana anywhere. Her lock picking skills did not make up for her habit of getting killed by a lone genlock.

Personally I'd prefer all the gold-fodder crap just be replaced with.. ya know... gold.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 07 novembre 2010 - 02:32 .

[Helena Tylena]

simfamSP wrote...

but they have not yes mentioned ANYTHING they have KEPT from the original,

Combat is pretty much the same, only without delay between the player issuing an action and the character carrying it out (THAT is what their 'press button, awesome happens' philosophy means) and the animations are more actiony-looking. It has been confirmed that the tactical pause-and-play style is still possible and, at higher difficulty levels, necessary.

The changes to dialogue aren't all that different. The conversation wheel is a UI change only. The only real difference is that the PC is voiced, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Hawke's inventory is still *exactly* like the Warden's was. Only your companions equipment works differently. And even so only their armour. Weapons, necklaces, rings and belts can still be swapped out as per usual.

The biggest change is their talent system, and from what I heard about it, it sounds really good.

[Aermas]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Anarchosyn wrote...

You're missing something in your analysis:

ME 1: Bioware was independent.

DA:O development: Bioware was independent.

ME 2: Bioware was a subsidiary of EA.

DA 2: Bioware is a subsidiary of EA.

Now reflect on your initial question again and see if any new perspectives come to light.

Not entirely correct.
Bioware became a subsidiary of EA around October 2007. Origins was released in November of 2009.
Thus, the last 2 years of DA:O's development occured under EA rule.
2 years was plenty of time for EA to kick all the puppies and change everything about Origins.
They did not. Therefore there is no logical argument that supports the idea that changes are entirely EA's fault.

Surely EA can make some calls, but it's silly to assume that Bioware wouldn't have made any changes at all on their own.

Dave of Canada wrote...
Less loot means that less loot is trash, you're given more choice on what is actually worth keeping and
using instead of ignoring looting altogether because you know there's nothing of use in that locked crate.

Indeed, after my second playthrough I gave up completely on locked chests and stopped bringing Low-level-death-prone-Leliana anywhere. Her lock picking skills did not make up for her habit of getting killed by a lone genlock.

Personally I'd prefer all the gold-fodder crap just be replaced with.. ya know... gold.

To be fair he said DA development

[Yrkoon]

triggerhappy456 wrote...

Well either Bioware are going to keep on making changes, taking risks which will usually turn out to be good but sometimes not. Or they can do what the Mario people do, release the same game year after year after year.
Sorry if somebody already said this by the way

Or they can do  what worked wonderfully for them in the past:  Improve the good thing, instead of Changing it, or leaving it as-is.   Take BG2, for example.  It was basically   BG1 on steroids.    And surprize surprize,... it was a resounding success for them - being both  well received with the fans, and a huge financial boon for the company.

And lets not kid ourselves.  Most of the changes they're making for Dragon Age are just as much motivated by "artistic direction" and "risk" as they are by financial/time limitations.    I imagine it's  a hell of alot easier/cheaper (for the purposes of cutscenes)  to make sure your companions gear is locked on them.     Oh, and while I'm sure they want to convince you that a shorter game = they just artistically decided to  cut out a bunch of redundant downtime (ie. fat), I'm fairly certain what we'll really discover is that Shorter = smaller game, less of a value.  Less Dragon Age goodness.  And the "risk" they're taking here is:  hey, lets see if we can get away with putting out a  sequal that contains half the content of the original. 

I hope I'm proven wrong.  (and yes, Despite all of the above, I  still pre-ordered this game.)

Modifié par Yrkoon, 07 novembre 2010 - 03:24 .

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...

Or they can do  what worked wonderfully for them in the past:  Improve the good thing, instead of Changing it, or leaving it as-is.   Take BG2, for example.  It was basically   BG1 on steroids.    And surprize surprize,... it was a resounding success for them - being both  well received with the fans, and a huge financial boon for the company.

They removed a lot of BG1 features for BG2. They removed a lot of the free choice, sandbox and open world aspects. they produced a highly linear story. They made it easier by adding non-spell/temple ressurection methods. They focused on the "story" presentation instead of the RPG elements.

There are people out there that think BG2 failed in dramatic fails to live up to BG1, which was the true herald of RPG greatness.

That you think otherwise is just your bias. Well, shockingly, you're now in the camp that thinks DA:O is perfect. Awesome for you. That doesn't mean that there isn't a contingent out there that thinks DA2 is going in a better direction, fixing the major flaws of DA:O like the absence of VO.

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...
There are people out there that think BG2 failed in dramatic fails to live up to BG1, which was the true herald of RPG greatness.

Reactionaries!

In Exile wrote...
Well, shockingly, you're now in the camp that thinks DA:O is perfect. Awesome for you.

Conservatives!

In Exile wrote...
That doesn't mean that there isn't a contingent out there that thinks DA2 is going in a better direction, fixing the major flaws of DA:O like the absence of VO.

Liberals!


...sorry, I have to get that out of my system every now and then...

[Sir JK]

Yrkoon wrote...
Or they can do  what worked wonderfully for them in the past:  Improve the good thing, instead of Changing it, or leaving it as-is.   Take BG2, for example.  It was basically   BG1 on steroids.    And surprize surprize,... it was a resounding success for them - being both  well received with the fans, and a huge financial boon for the company.

And lets not kid ourselves.  Most of the changes they're making for Dragon Age are just as much motivated by "artistic direction" as they are by financial/time limitations.    I imagine it's  a hell of alot easier/cheaper (for the purposes of cutscenes)  to make sure your companions gear is locked on them.     Oh, and while I'm sure they want to convince you that shorter game = they just artistically decided to  cut out a bunch of redundant down time (ie. fat), I'm fairly certain what we'll really discover is that Shorter = smaller game, less of a value.  Less Dragon Age goodness.

I hope I'm proven wrong.

The thing, Yrkoon, is that improving something is easier said than done. In a way the word improve doesn't exist, only change does. No matter what you do, to imporve you must change. Let's take your example... BG to BG2. They improved it. What did they change?
They removed free roaming only to replace it with fix quest areas (to cut down on the non-story related areas). They removed complete customisation of characters to give them personality (which is now more or less Bioware's trademark). They rebalanced some things. They introduced half-orcs, barbarians, monks, sorcerers and kits. All those were changes. You think they were for the better, but we got one member on this forum who'd diasgree (Sylvius the mad).

Same thing now applies with DAO. They have to improve on it. So they have to change it. So they plan out what they want to do and what DAO's strengths were.
They want to tell a personal story of changing the world (as opposed to the classic monomyth of returning it to status quo). They want to improve on the characterisation of the companions (DAO's greatest asset). They also want to fix issues certain indistinct art, aged graphics, clunky combat... things thta put people off DAO.

The personal story has a problem though. It needs characterisation. What does charactrisation need? Acting. What does acting need? A voice. Voiceless pc's have a trouble with characterisation in that they can't be (this is normally filled in by the players imagination). For all intents and purposes, in something prewritten, anything the player customises can't be used narratively. So a voice have to be in. The wheel comes with it because it's a good way to handle voice (assuming the paraphrases are good).

Then we have the strenght. The companions. They also need to improve. Which again means change. They need to become more memorable. Sooner or later that means one have to make them more iconic. With a customised outfit (which makes up for 80-90% of the visuals) this is almost impossible. Especially since DA's engine practically just places the head on a generic body. Generic body means generic body language... IRL body language is unique person to person. You'll never find anyone that's exactly the same as someone else. So generic bodies have to go... in comes the fixed outfits. With it Bioware can not just give them a iconic appearance and a unique body language. They can also now be poseable and used cinematically... which will improve how they interact with the pc a lot.

The art style was made more distinct so you at once should be able to recognice the setting if you're remotely familiar with it. Make it look like dragon age instead of just plain fantasy. This also ties in with iconic companions. This also side steppes the graphics problem, since it now looks distinct and not real an aging engine won't be as noticeable (and if you think these changes are major. Wait till you see what a engine change would mean).

Combat needed to be faster and smoother. It was slow and clunky and alienated many players from it. There's even tactics that don't work (or work reliably) because the combat system is so clunky. So they made it faster (and a bit spiffier, see art style). They're also upgrading tactics, making classes more distinct and adding skills to all. This should essentially make it more tactical than it was.

The shorter thing sounds bad, but it could have simply been a cut of dull, repetative areas such as pointless, mindless grind-parts of the deep roads, the fade and brecilian forest. Condensing the whole experience into a richer and less monotone experience. All the good parts are still there, the empty mindless filler is not.

That's my thoughts, speculation and explanation anyways. Hope it answers some of your questions, helps with some concerns or is just an enjoyable read if nothing else.

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Or they can do  what worked wonderfully for them in the past:  Improve the good thing, instead of Changing it, or leaving it as-is.   Take BG2, for example.  It was basically   BG1 on steroids.    And surprize surprize,... it was a resounding success for them - being both  well received with the fans, and a huge financial boon for the company.

They removed a lot of BG1 features for BG2. They removed a lot of the free choice, sandbox and open world aspects. they produced a highly linear story. They made it easier by adding non-spell/temple ressurection methods. They focused on the "story" presentation instead of the RPG elements.

What?

No they didn't.

There's  virtually nothing in BG1 that wasn't expanded on in bg2.

Lets see...

More class choices:  Check
More spell choices - Check
More weapon choices -check
More weapon styles:  Check
Strongholds -Check
More cities- check
More environments-check
Bigger variety of enemies- check
Longer game- check
More dialogue- check
More companion banter/dialogue -check, check
Romances- check
More loot AND  more creative loot- check, check
More ACTUAL open endedness  (even in the main plot path) - Check  (choice of faction siding; skipping the underwater city if you want to)

[Lord Gremlin]

You loved DAO UI on console? Where vast majority of players played it? Scrolling interface is the disgrace of the decade. You're mad.

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote..

No they didn't.

There's  virtually nothing in BG1 that wasn't expanded on in bg2.

There were lots of features removed.

More companion banter/dialogue -check, check

Some people think this is a terrible move. BGII pushed even further away from the IWD create-your-own party principle that was a staple of some cRPGs and that BG did allow you to do. Now we have predefined companions, and some of them are even important to the story!

This makes the game about you, the player character, instead of the party experiencing the game. This is a worrying trend. Sure, you love it, but this isn't universal.

Romances- check

Waste of resources. Bioware shouldn't waste time producing companion NPCs. They should focus on quests and writing for non party NPCs and let us create and RP our own party.

More ACTUAL open endedness  (even in the main plot path) - Check  (choice of faction siding; skipping the underwater city if you want to)

We lost free roam. We were forced to move along a linear path of chapters instead of just going around and doing our own thing. This dramatically reduced what some people see as RP.

I mean, I believe none of this. I think what BGII cut was an improvement. Just like I think what DA:O cut was an improvement.

But the fact that you can't see it doesn't mean BGII was objectively better, it just means you're biased.

[Behindyounow]

etherhonky wrote...

why start everything off as a hard core RPG and then water both of them down?

So you're implying Mass Effect was a hardcore RPG to begin with?

Yeah. I stopped reading there.

[AlanC9]

Yrkoon wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Or they can do  what worked wonderfully for them in the past:  Improve the good thing, instead of Changing it, or leaving it as-is.   Take BG2, for example.  It was basically   BG1 on steroids.    And surprize surprize,... it was a resounding success for them - being both  well received with the fans, and a huge financial boon for the company.

They removed a lot of BG1 features for BG2. They removed a lot of the free choice, sandbox and open world aspects. they produced a highly linear story. They made it easier by adding non-spell/temple ressurection methods. They focused on the "story" presentation instead of the RPG elements.

What?

No they didn't.

There's  virtually nothing in BG1 that wasn't expanded on in bg2.

Lets see...

More class choices:  Check
More spell choices - Check
More weapon choices -check
More weapon styles:  Check
Strongholds -Check
More cities- check
More environments-check
Bigger variety of enemies- check
Longer game- check
More dialogue- check
More companion banter/dialogue -check, check
Romances- check
More loot AND  more creative loot- check, check
More ACTUAL open endedness  (even in the main plot path) - Check  (choice of faction siding; skipping the underwater city if you want to)

What's remarkable about this post is its near-complete failure to engage with In Exile's evidence, particularly concerning the sandbox and open world aspects.

As for more cities, each game had one big one, with Baldur's Gate much larger than Amn. If we're counting smaller  towns too, BG1 has Beregost, Candlekeep, Nashkel, Gullykin, and Ulgoth's Beard. BG2 adds Trademeet, Ust Natha, Imnesvale, Saradush, and Amkethran. That's a tie in outright numbers, with BG1 ahead on town size, and by a very large margin.

[Helena Tylena]

Yrkoon wrote...

Or they can do  what worked wonderfully for them in the past:  Improve the good thing, instead of Changing it, or leaving it as-is.   Take BG2, for example.  It was basically   BG1 on steroids.

And how, exactly, is DA2 NOT DA:O on steroids?