276 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Yeah, that. Also the fights with dragons and such -- staying in melee basically meant getting continually pushed back or be subject to strong attack. Heck they even put a "dragon" in the last DLC that's specifically designed to be beatable mostly from the range and supposed to screw melee over.

But with the right built, this is irrelevant. I solo'd the archdemon (in the sense that I kept the rest of the party tactics off and let them get murdered) with a warrior S&S on nightmare once. You just need to pump your stats and build the right way, because potion chugging + high defence/armour makes most of your problems go away.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

But with the right built, this is irrelevant. I solo'd the archdemon (in the sense that I kept the rest of the party tactics off and let them get murdered) with a warrior S&S on nightmare once. You just need to pump your stats and build the right way, because potion chugging + high defence/armour makes most of your problems go away.

If the character can only contribute to the fight at the cost of becoming a potion sponge and needs to be "built right" to boot (meaning limited freedom in how you shape your character) then i don't know if i would call it irrelevant. Not when the alternative is relatively free of these tradeoffs.

Also, that worked for your main DAO character. What if in DA2 the warrior companions don't get as good armour as your Warden could get, or are more limited in how you can configure their build?

Modifié par tmp7704, 09 novembre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Nighteye2]

Brockololly wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...
The
problem is, however, that once you've bought DA2, your opinion no longer
counts to Bioware, according to what they seem to be doing now.  I
*thought* that by buying DA:O on release day, as well as the expansion
and DLC, I was showing the developers that I enjoyed the game, and
wanted something similar in the sequel, even if it wasn't exactly the
same.

What I'm seeing now is developers who don't have anything
positive to say about DA:O, and knock all of the elements that they are
changing, even if some of us really liked those things in the first
game.  So apparently supporting them by buying their product means
nothing.  Bioware doesn't care about the current customer.  They want to
entice those who are potential customers.

So I'll be watching
and waiting, and probably buying this a year after release.  It's what I
did with Jade Empire and Mass Effect 1.  ME was a pleasant surprise,
while I wasn't enthralled by JE.  At the moment, I have no idea what to
think of DA2, and that's just sad.  They're treating it like a new IP,
and alienating fans like me.  Guess my money wasn't good enough to be
catered to.

Absolutely, completely agree.

I don't
want to support a game that *seems* to be trying to go a route I don't
care to follow. Some of the key reasons I enjoyed Origins- the Origins
stories, the silent PC with full text dialogue choices, the isometric
view, the toolset, the Warden and Morrigan, the nice 60+ hour length-
won't be in DA2, or at least not how they existed in Origins. Which for
the iso view might be good or not, we don't know yet- I'm willing to
wait and see. And then given how Awakening was rushed out and terribly
buggy as well as the relative quality of much of the DLC, I'm more than a
little weary of how quickly DA2 is being shoved out with so many
seemingly ME2 inspired changes.

I think their marketing has done
its job in showing everyone how different the game is. All its doing now
is running off people that liked the non "hot rod samurai" aspects of
Origins.

Unfortunately I have to agree. I enjoyed Origins very much, but many of the features I liked are being changed in the name of 'improvement' - while for us, those changes actually make the game worse.

JohnEpler wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

BioWare won't alter aspects of Dragon Age II at this point and they're not going to listen to our opinion of the game until it actually comes out.

That runs somewhat at odds with comments from BioWare's own folks, who do point out when things get criticized for their appearance and such that "the game isn't out yet we have X months before it ships to improve things". So while it'd be foolish to expect major changes at this point (not that they can't ever happen) still corrections, additions and fixes can --and have to, and will-- be done to game in its current state anyway. It's not yet complete nor fully polished after all.

Of course, it'd also be foolish to expect these corrections, additions and fixes to be affected to large degree by rabble on the forums, but it doesn't also mean external opinions can't have impact at all -- wasn't the speed of 2h animation tweaked in part as result of feedback they've gathered when the game was shown some time earlier?

To clarify this point a bit - we do read everything that people post, positive and negative. And while some points are so locked down that there's really nothing that'll change due to resources and time, some stuff -does- get adjusted because of fan reaction. We're not going to go in and start a massive overhaul of anything as a result of what we hear, but we do look to see if there's a way to please both groups without making some poor programmer work through Christmas.

I don't mind a delay of a few months if some of those things get fixed. Quality is more important than timeliness, within reasonable limits. Take 2 or 3 extra months if you need them to give us a better game. We'll wait patiently.

JohnEpler wrote...
The other thing is, we have a few people who spend a decent amount of time on the forums (occasionally, a little -too- much time, perhaps upsetting their significant others *cough*) and so we're pretty good at identifying what's a valid concern versus what's either a matter of opinion for a small percentage of our audience, or what's a result of not having enough information. And, of course, there are always future projects. Though opinions gain more weight when people have actually played the game, enough concern about something pre-release can have an effect on how we do things in whatever our next endeavour is.

In that case, the people who played origins and really liked a feature that now got changed carry a lot of weight, right? :innocent:

JohnEpler wrote...
Now, having said all this - we're a lot more likely to read someone's feedback when it's presented 'I don't like this change because of these reasons' than when it's presented 'Dragon Age 2? MORE LIKE GEARS OF AGE.. EFFECT. YEAH.'  Civility and common decency will get you everywhere in regards to us reading and possibly responding to your concerns. Throwing out vitriol and bile and talking about how much we, our game and the MLB all suck will quickly get you ignored or, if you start attacking other posters who have contrary opinions, banned.

So keep expressing your concerns! We like to read them, particularly when you back up why you're concerned. However, when you start in on the 'YOU GUYS ARE JERKS AND I HATE YOU' you're probably going to be ignored. Also, bear in mind that I am but a simple Cinematic Designer  So my decision-making power is limited to 'hey guys, nobody in the forums likes the hitchcock zoom'.

I agree. One of the good things about the old Dragon Age suggestions forum we spent years in before Origins came out was that everyone was always civil, discussing visions and features of an ideal RPG - as well as those bits that we were told about Origins.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
If the character can only contribute to the fight at the cost of becoming a potion sponge and needs to be "built right" to boot (meaning limited freedom in how you shape your character) then i don't know if i would call it irrelevant. Not when the alternative is relatively free of these tradeoffs.

That's a fair point. I forget not everyone defaults to powergaming, and so considers lots of builds viable (whereas I consider them gimped and pointless flavour additions).

An archer is in an equally poor state compared to the warrior. A solo archer still has to work like a potion sponge due to the largely equivalent damage potential. Especially since the dragon closes in, so to speak, so as to eliminate the advantage from range. Any fight with a dragon needs a potion sponge.

Also, that worked for your main DAO character. What if in DA2 the warrior companions don't get as good armour as your Warden could get, or are more limited in how you can configure their build?

Ah, right, the other flesh sacks. Even if they have less builds, what matters is whether or not the builds are gimped. If Sten could only be a two-handed warrior, that wouldn't be bad per se, because you can build a solid 2-hander. There's just only one good way to do it (pump STR to the exception of everything else).

[In Exile]

Nighteye2 wrote...

I agree. One of the good things about the old Dragon Age suggestions forum we spent years in before Origins came out was that everyone was always civil, discussing visions and features of an ideal RPG - as well as those bits that we were told about Origins.

And we got TheDAS out of it, which is just absolutely hilarious.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

An archer is in an equally poor state compared to the warrior. A solo archer still has to work like a potion sponge due to the largely equivalent damage potential. Especially since the dragon closes in, so to speak, so as to eliminate the advantage from range. Any fight with a dragon needs a potion sponge.

I'll agree a solo archer is in comparably poor position, but as long as you aren't imposing extra limits on yourself this is a party-based game   With team of 4, each using ranged weapons and/or attacks i find it perfectly possible to go through dragon fight on hard difficulty without any pot use -- healing of one mage backed up with bard regen bonus, combined with character who happens to have current target moving around to dodge the blows and otherwise impair the enemy (effectively trading aggro around as other ranged characters keep hitting it and do it more often, something which would also be difficult for the melee) ... works more than well. Even if i mess up and 1-2 characters fall to the jaw attack (the healer tends to suffer from that) the rest can still pull through in the end.

Modifié par tmp7704, 09 novembre 2010 - 05:43 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...

I'll agree a solo archer is in comparably poor position, but as long as you aren't imposing extra limits on yourself this is a party-based game   With team of 4, each using ranged weapons and/or attacks i find it perfectly possible to go through dragon fight on hard difficulty without any pot use -- healing of one mage backed up with bard regen bonus, combined with character who happens to have current target moving around to dodge the blows and otherwise impair the enemy (effectively trading aggro around as other ranged characters keep hitting it, something which would also be difficult for the melee) ... works more than well. Even if i mess up and 1-2 characters fall to the jaw attack (the healer tends to suffer from that) the rest can still pull through in the end.

Wait, I'm confused. The party you're talking about now is rogue, rogue, mage, warrior?

With a full party, a single warrior as a potion sponge + 3 mages is the best way to go against a dragon, IMO. Taunt draws in aggro, mages spam single damage spells and heal, you can use weakness to raise elemental spell damage, and can use paralyze or the glymph combo to imobilize the dragon.

Also, what difficulty? I think any party works on normal or easy, because of the low resistance and dodge.

[Ziggeh]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Unfortunately I have to agree. I enjoyed Origins very much, but many of the features I liked are being changed in the name of 'improvement' - while for us, those changes actually make the game worse.

Would you mind expanding on that?

"I dislike things" isn't doing anything other than letting you express discontent, if people were to explain the reasons, give examples, then it would I have no doubt add to Biowares own discussions. As it is, pretty much every will ignore what you've said.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Wait, I'm confused. The party you're talking about now is rogue, rogue, mage, warrior?

It depends, my parties tend to change around. Two rogues, warrior, mage, three rogues and mage, two warriors, rogue, mage, or rogue, warrior, mage and dog even. Though the last one technically didn't have all members ranged

With a full party, a single warrior as a potion sponge + 3 mages is the best way to go against a dragon, IMO. Taunt draws in aggro, mages spam single damage spells and heal, you can use weakness to raise elemental spell damage, and can use paralyze or the glymph combo to imobilize the dragon.

Well, as long as the potion spam is part of the strategy then i'm not sure if the warrior actually is that useful there, short of the fact that in regular game you simply can't have 4 mages instead. To put it differently, if the members role is stand there and be hit/healed then i think ultimately it's more useful to have 4th member of the group who can also contribute to damage without having to actually stay in the target's damage range. 3 mages + "kick me!" warrior definitely allows to get things done withh less micro-management, though.

Also, what difficulty? I think any party works on normal or easy, because of the low resistance and dodge.

On hard difficulty. I tend to find nightmare too boring --in the sense you spend too much time hitting things over and over-- and the easy/normal too easy. Hard feels about right although again that's without the pots. With the pots everything turns into cakewalk since you basically have unlimited health/mana while enemies don't.

Modifié par tmp7704, 09 novembre 2010 - 05:59 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
It depends, my parties tend to change around. Two rogues, warrior, mage, three rogues and mage, two warriors, rogue, mage, or rogue, warrior, mage and dog even. Though the last one technically didn't have all members ranged

No, I get that (I vary my party too) I just meant that in the specific example you use, I wasn't clear what the party make-up was. Was everyone attacking from range?

Well, as long as the potion spam is part of the strategy then i'm not sure if the warrior actually is that useful there, short of the fact that in regular game you simply can't have 4 mages instead.

Depending on the enemy and difficultly, potion spam becomes an inevitable part of the strategy, because of the amount of dmg an enemy can do and the cooldown on group heal + heal for mages.

The basic tactical issue (at least on nightmare) is that resistance is sufficient on paralysis for enemies that you want to have at least one character that can tolerate a significant amount of damage while dealing reasonable damage back.

To put it differently, if the members role is stand there and be hit/healed then i think ultimately it's more useful to have 4th member of the group who can also contribute to damage without having to actually stay in the target's damage range. 3 mages + "kick me!" warrior definitely allows to get things done withh less micro-management, though.

But we started this debate with my claim that an S&S warrior could solo a dragon and melee is perfectly viable for damage; it just requires a deep healing sink.

Put another way, the dragon has to damage someone. If you have an all dps party, then you could end up with a hard fight just because you can't heal your party fast enough before knockdown. An S&S warrior, even with knockbacks and grabs from the dragon, can deal a reasonable amount of dmg while at the same type keeping the glass cannon mages safe.

On hard difficulty. I tend to find nightmare too boring --in the sense you spend too much time hitting things over and over-- and the easy/normal too easy. Hard feels about right although again that's without the pots. With the pots everything turns into cakewalk since you basically have unlimited health/mana while enemies don't.

I don't use lyrium pots. The lore says they're supposed to addict you, so on principle I refuse to use them. It's part of what makes bloodmagic so alluring. My bloodmage is essentially equipped with infinite mana anyway without pots. Use items for con (40+) along with a magic pump (~60) and with spell wisp and spell might you can have a spellpower of 130+ at level ~17 which leads to easily dealing 400+ dmg in seconds.

With the right build for S&S, nightmare is also not a chore.

I used a party with Alistair, Me, (HN S&S), Leliana & Wynne as a CC healer (no damage spells). Leliana served no real purpose beside unlocking chest & traps to farm for XP and her bard bonuses with Song of Valour (the third one in the tree). Alistair had the champion boosts, which brought attack & defence ratings for the party to silly high levels.

This was the build I used to solo the archdemon. With Knight Commander armour + other items that made by HN immune to magic and with a defence of ~130 and 45 dmg with a 33% critical rate, things went over just fine. though defence did fall sharply once Leliana was knocked out.

Modifié par In Exile, 09 novembre 2010 - 07:28 .

[DalishRanger]

Hrm. I wasn't aware I was in any stage of grief. I've seen a couple of features/changes that aren't my "ideal" I suppose, but overall I've enjoyed what I've heard. Then again, gameplay is secondary to character development and story to me; generally, if something feels like it works well when I play and doesn't take too long to get the hang of the basics, I'm happy. I may have nitpicks, but unless it makes a game unplayable for me, they're often just that - nitpicks.

[Nighteye2]

In Exile wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

I
agree. One of the good things about the old Dragon Age suggestions forum
we spent years in before Origins came out was that everyone was always
civil, discussing visions and features of an ideal RPG - as well as
those bits that we were told about Origins.

And we got TheDAS out of it, which is just absolutely hilarious.

And zombie kittens, let's not forget those.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Unfortunately I have to agree. I enjoyed Origins very much, but many of the features I liked are being changed in the name of 'improvement' - while for us, those changes actually make the game worse.

Would you mind expanding on that?

"I dislike things" isn't doing anything other than letting you express discontent, if people were to explain the reasons, give examples, then it would I have no doubt add to Biowares own discussions. As it is, pretty much every will ignore what you've said.

I've already explained several times which changes I don't like - at the moments each change was announced. Repeating my arguments endlessly isn't going to convince the devs.

But, since you seem to insist, I'll give a few examples:
- the animation: all that jumping around the rogues do looks very silly, which is not how combat should look.
- the dialogue wheel creates an artificial distance between me and my character. Without full-text, I no longer have the feeling of direct control over what my character will say - after selecting a paraphrased option, my own character is still able to suprise me by saying or doing things I did not intend.
- being unable to equip my main character's old armour on my followers feels like a very artificial limitation - not just because of the look, but also which stats I am able to give my followers.
- Special effects of rogues and warriors (like a kind of spherical shield seen in one of the videos) look far too much like magic - which feels like it breaks with the game lore since only mages are supposed to have magic.

There's more, but I'll leave it at those points for now.

[syllogi]

DalishRanger wrote...

Hrm. I wasn't aware I was in any stage of grief. I've seen a couple of features/changes that aren't my "ideal" I suppose, but overall I've enjoyed what I've heard. Then again, gameplay is secondary to character development and story to me; generally, if something feels like it works well when I play and doesn't take too long to get the hang of the basics, I'm happy. I may have nitpicks, but unless it makes a game unplayable for me, they're often just that - nitpicks.

It's funny, at one time I would have had this outlook, but my experiences have been different.  With Jade Empire, I found the story and characters interesting, but not enough to keep me playing past a certain point, because of the horrible gameplay on PC.  With Mass Effect 2, I feel like there are giant, gaping holes in the main plot, and even the most interesting characters are inconsistent and in need of more development -- but the gameplay keeps me coming back, enough to forgive and ignore its flaws.

With DA2, I just keep waiting for good news, and it's worse and worse each time info comes out.  I've definitely become more picky over the years, because there really aren't any games being made for people like me anymore, DA:O was apparently one of the last.  I already saw one of my favorite genres, adventure games, disappear, and now RPGs as we knew them are being wiped out too.  IMO, that is something to be sad about.

[DalishRanger]

I found Jade Empire's PC interface just fine, though I'm sure it would've played better for the Xbox as that was its original environment. The only thing that bugged me much at all was the camera, and even that I adjusted to after a little while.

There are games I play more for the gameplay than story, but the ones I play the most and enjoy the best tend to be ones where I loved the story and/or characters a lot. Moreso the latter than the former. Good characters can carry a weak story better than a strong story carries weak characters, in my experience. Which is why I seem to be in the minority of people who loved ME2, even though I'd agree the story wasn't as solid as ME1. Granted, ME2 is also one of the games where I genuinely love the combat more than usual, so that's also a factor for my replays.

I can understand some of the concerns people are having, it's just yet to be an issue for me, as I can't usually say if I'll like a certain gameplay interface until I've actually tried it. Nothing I've heard from DA2's gameplay features is an issue for me thus far. I enjoy a very micromanaging heavy game as much as a streamlined one, depending on the game and my mood at the moment. Voiced PC? I'm happy with it. Silent PC? I'm happy with it. I like both being able to use my imagination and a more cinematic experience, so I still love playing games like Baldur's Gate II on the same level as I enjoy Mass Effect - just for different specific reasons.

That's not to say I love all the changes announced for DA2, but at worst I've been indifferent to some to where I know from past experience on how I tend to enjoy games, probably won't be a problem for me when playing. But I'm relatively easy to please when it comes to the kinds of games I go after. There's only a small select few I've found so bad or horridly designed that I couldn't finish them. Generally, when I play RPGs or action games, if my horribly fumbling fingers can manage the controls well enough to get through the game without too much stress, I'm a happy gamer.

Modifié par DalishRanger, 09 novembre 2010 - 09:23 .

[Ziggeh]

Nighteye2 wrote...
I've already explained several times which changes I don't like - at the moments each change was announced. Repeating my arguments endlessly isn't going to convince the devs.

But discussing them might, otherwise they'd have stopped reading and responding long ago.

Nighteye2 wrote...
- the animation: all that jumping around the rogues do looks very silly, which is not how combat should look.

I'd say that depends on the extent, especially if we're talking about non realistic combat to begin with. I agree, it could very quickly get annoying, but I would fully expect them to overexaggerate this aspect in their demo's and advertising, so saying combat will be like this or that is probably premature. Not that that stops people.

Nighteye2 wrote...
- the dialogue wheel creates an artificial distance between me and my character. Without full-text, I no longer have the feeling of direct control over what my character will say - after selecting a paraphrased option, my own character is still able to suprise me by saying or doing things I did not intend.

Funnily I think the opposite. There were a lot of sentences in Origins that I read with a different meaning to the NPC, a lot of what I thought were polite gestures that ended conversations accidently, a lot of horridly unsubtle lines I avoided locking me out of certain decisions. Actually choosing the intent rather than the content is something I see as less ambigous, meaning more control, as opposed to less. Plus, obviously, it's crucial to the voice over, whether you're keen on that or not is going to depend on how you approach rpg's generally.

Nighteye2 wrote...
- being unable to equip my main character's old armour on my followers feels like a very artificial limitation - not just because of the look, but also which stats I am able to give my followers.

Good news! You can re-equip your companions, it's just they won't change visually. How keen you are on that will depend on how much you liked the Dragon Age: Origins autumn collection of mookish hats and oddly shaped leather jerkins.

Nighteye2 wrote...
- Special effects of rogues and warriors (like a kind of spherical shield seen in one of the videos) look far too much like magic - which feels like it breaks with the game lore since only mages are supposed to have magic.

I'd say much the same as I did for the jumping about lark; It's dramatic license and I think depends on the extent. If they're running round looking like a fireworks show it'll be pretty unpleasant, but I don't think we've seen anything I trust to be representative on that point.

[Nighteye2]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
I've already explained several times which changes I don't like - at the moments each change was announced. Repeating my arguments endlessly isn't going to convince the devs.

But discussing them might, otherwise they'd have stopped reading and responding long ago.

True, but I can imagine they tire of it very quickly.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
- the animation: all that jumping around the rogues do looks very silly, which is not how combat should look.

I'd say that depends on the extent, especially if we're talking about non realistic combat to begin with. I agree, it could very quickly get annoying, but I would fully expect them to overexaggerate this aspect in their demo's and advertising, so saying combat will be like this or that is probably premature. Not that that stops people.

Even if overexaggerating it turns people off from the game? And I know and accept that the combat is non-realistic, but then there is still a difference between believable and unbelievable non-realistic. I think combat should be believable, to feel like real combat.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
- the dialogue wheel creates an artificial distance between me and my character. Without full-text, I no longer have the feeling of direct control over what my character will say - after selecting a paraphrased option, my own character is still able to suprise me by saying or doing things I did not intend.

Funnily I think the opposite. There were a lot of sentences in Origins that I read with a different meaning to the NPC, a lot of what I thought were polite gestures that ended conversations accidently, a lot of horridly unsubtle lines I avoided locking me out of certain decisions. Actually choosing the intent rather than the content is something I see as less ambigous, meaning more control, as opposed to less. Plus, obviously, it's crucial to the voice over, whether you're keen on that or not is going to depend on how you approach rpg's generally.

Intent icons can just as easily be added to the full-text option - that would have all the advantages you mention without any of the disadvantages from the paraphrases. Let the player choose the intent AND the content.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
- being unable to equip my main character's old armour on my followers feels like a very artificial limitation - not just because of the look, but also which stats I am able to give my followers.

Good news! You can re-equip your companions, it's just they won't change visually. How keen you are on that will depend on how much you liked the Dragon Age: Origins autumn collection of mookish hats and oddly shaped leather jerkins.

Not with your old equipment you can't. Did you see the companion inventory screen? They now get unique armour that only they can equip. That great set of Armour hawke had been wearing before he found something even better - they cannot equip it.
And if I want to equip Isabella with Massive armour to use her as a tank, I want to be able to see her wearing heavy armour - not her default light-armour look. <_<

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
- Special effects of rogues and warriors (like a kind of spherical shield seen in one of the videos) look far too much like magic - which feels like it breaks with the game lore since only mages are supposed to have magic.

I'd say much the same as I did for the jumping about lark; It's dramatic license and I think depends on the extent. If they're running round looking like a fireworks show it'll be pretty unpleasant, but I don't think we've seen anything I trust to be representative on that point.

Did you see the video where Aveline has the spherical shield around her? It's jarring.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
I don't use lyrium pots. The lore says they're supposed to addict you, so on principle I refuse to use them. It's part of what makes bloodmagic so alluring. My bloodmage is essentially equipped with infinite mana anyway without pots. Use items for con (40+) along with a magic pump (~60) and with spell wisp and spell might you can have a spellpower of 130+ at level ~17 which leads to easily dealing 400+ dmg in seconds.

IMHO blood magic specialization should be limited to a mage PC who makes a certain choice in Redcliffe. I can't stand the way specializations unlock across all playthroughs.

I used a party with Alistair, Me, (HN S&S), Leliana & Wynne as a CC healer (no damage spells). Leliana served no real purpose beside unlocking chest & traps to farm for XP and her bard bonuses with Song of Valour (the third one in the tree). Alistair had the champion boosts, which brought attack & defence ratings for the party to silly high levels.

Leliana wasn't doing plenty of damage too?

This was the build I used to solo the archdemon. With Knight Commander armour + other items that made by HN immune to magic and with a defence of ~130 and 45 dmg with a 33% critical rate, things went over just fine. though defence did fall sharply once Leliana was knocked out.

I used to dislike the way D&D 3.0/3.5 handled item property stacking, but the DAO system always feels like an exploit to me. OTOH, wasn't Calenhad magic-immune according to the lore?

[AlanC9]

Nighteye2 wrote...

And if I want to equip Isabella with Massive armour to use her as a tank, I want to be able to see her wearing heavy armour - not her default light-armour look. <_<

Fortunately for you, they won't let you equip her with heavy armor in the first place.

STR-heavy rogue tanks don't work well in DAO anyway.

[Ziggeh]

Nighteye2 wrote...

True, but I can imagine they tire of it very quickly.

I dunno, it's not something I've seen a lot of in the week or so I've been hanging around here. Maybe everyone got it out of the way early and now everyones jaded.

Nighteye2 wrote...
Even if overexaggerating it turns people off from the game?

Look at it this way. If you're advertising the game you have one goal: sales. While most people fall somewhere in between, you basically have two areas to cover. People who want to see exploding heads and people who would probably quite like to see the actual dice rolling in the corner of the screen. Or to put it another way; people who want flashy combat and people who don't.  They know there are a lot more of the former, and they know the latter are more likely to buy regardless of what they do than the former. Once you add in trying to regain interest from people who hated the clumsy console version, it makes more sense, from a sales perspective, to make it look cool, fast and flashy, whether it is or not. They might try and win anyone they lost with that stategy over the next few months, they might not, but personally I think everything we're shown needs to be looked at in context. And people who despise the games call themselves cynical!

ziggehunderslash wrote...
And I know and accept that the combat is non-realistic, but then there is still a difference between believable and unbelievable non-realistic. I think combat should be believable, to feel like real combat.

I agree, but I still think it's an issue of extent. I liked the kill animations you got in Origins some times, it was rewarding and emphatic, but if it went off while things were still wailing on you, it was pretty annoying, so I'd prefer a balance, all things considered.

Nighteye2 wrote...
Intent icons can just as easily be added to the full-text option - that would have all the advantages you mention without any of the disadvantages from the paraphrases. Let the player choose the intent AND the content.

True, true, I'd say that causes an issue with the voice over mind, having the character read back to yout the sentence you just read.

Nighteye2 wrote...
Not with your old equipment you can't. Did you see the companion inventory screen? They now get unique armour that only they can equip. That great set of Armour hawke had been wearing before he found something even better - they cannot equip it.

Ah, I see what you mean now. That is inefficient. I suppose the argument could be made that some characters might not be wicked keen on wearing the sweaty armour you've been wearing without a bath for 6 weeks, but I have to say, thats the first change I've heard of that I can't think of a reasonable gaming justification for.

Nighteye2 wrote...
Did you see the video where Aveline has the spherical shield around her? It's jarring.

Can't say I have, I'll poke about and see if I can find it.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 09 novembre 2010 - 10:26 .

[Ziggeh]

AlanC9 wrote...

Leliana wasn't doing plenty of damage too?

Before the archery patch she was a bit wet. The bard thing made it tolerable though.

[Nighteye2]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

And if I want to equip Isabella with Massive armour to use her as a tank, I want to be able to see her wearing heavy armour - not her default light-armour look. <_<

Fortunately for you, they won't let you equip her with heavy armor in the first place.

STR-heavy rogue tanks don't work well in DAO anyway.

Not true - in DA:O, rogues even have a special skill to mitigate penalties from wearing heavy armour. (I think it's called master archer). And it really does work well - better than you seem to think, in any case.

I really liked that flexibility in DA:O, being able to switch my rogues between Light and Heavy armour depending on the situation. It's really sad not to have that freedom in DA2.

[Nighteye2]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
True, but I can imagine they tire of it very quickly.

I dunno, it's not something I've seen a lot of in the week or so I've been hanging around here. Maybe everyone got it out of the way early and now everyones jaded.

Nighteye2 wrote...
Even if overexaggerating it turns people off from the game?

Look at it this way. If you're advertising the game you have one goal: sales. While most people fall somewhere in between, you basically have two areas to cover. People who want to see exploding heads and people who would probably quite like to see the actual dice rolling in the corner of the screen. Or to put it another way; people who want flashy combat and people who don't.  They know there are a lot more of the former, and they know the latter are more likely to buy regardless of what they do than the former. Once you add in trying to regain interest from people who hated the clumsy console version, it makes more sense, from a sales perspective, to make it look cool, fast and flashy, whether it is or not. They might try and win anyone they lost with that stategy over the next few months, they might not, but personally I think everything we're shown needs to be looked at in context. And people who despise the games call themselves cynical!

Even those who like it flashy have their limits, though.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
And I know and accept that the combat is non-realistic, but then there is still a difference between believable and unbelievable non-realistic. I think combat should be believable, to feel like real combat.

I agree, but I still think it's an issue of extent. I liked the kill animations you got in Origins some times, it was rewarding and emphatic, but if it went off while things were still wailing on you, it was pretty annoying, so I'd prefer a balance, all things considered.

As do I. But at least in origins, those finishing animations were rare enough that they didn't ever get really annoying.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Intent icons can just as easily be added to the full-text option - that would have all the advantages you mention without any of the disadvantages from the paraphrases. Let the player choose the intent AND the content.

True, true, I'd say that causes an issue with the voice over mind, having the character read back to yout the sentence you just read.

I really have no problem with that - it's not much different from getting the subtitles a little early. Would it really bother you if the character read the full line of text you just selected?
Btw, JRPGs have had that system for a long time, selecting full lines of text and having them read aloud. It works there, too.

Also, if I had to choose, I'd prefer full-text with a silent PC over paraphrases with VO. I'm old-school like that (and likely many gamers of my age and older with me).

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Not with your old equipment you can't. Did you see the companion inventory screen? They now get unique armour that only they can equip. That great set of Armour hawke had been wearing before he found something even better - they cannot equip it.

Ah, I see what you mean now. That is inefficient. I suppose the argument could be made that some characters might not be wicked keen on wearing the sweaty armour you've been wearing without a bath for 6 weeks, but I have to say, thats the first change I've heard of that I can't think of a reasonable gaming justification for.

I would say that the artistic changes have no gaming justification, either. Things like the excessive jumping animations, the silly combat stance assumed by rogues between attacks (in the videos I've seen) and how large swords are swung about like they're made of paper instead of steel. <_<

[Morroian]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Did you see the video where Aveline has the spherical shield around her? It's jarring.

Awakenings had those kind of effects for warriors.

[AlanC9]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Intent icons can just as easily be added to the full-text option - that would have all the advantages you mention without any of the disadvantages from the paraphrases. Let the player choose the intent AND the content.

True, true, I'd say that causes an issue with the voice over mind, having the character read back to yout the sentence you just read.

You still do have the disadvantage of having to fit all of Hawke's lines on one line of text. This is a real constraint  on how the character is written; it worked for Geralt because he's pretty laconic anyway.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

IMHO blood magic specialization should be limited to a mage PC who makes a certain choice in Redcliffe. I can't stand the way specializations unlock across all playthroughs.

I agree. I don't use a specialization in any playthrough until I've unlocked it via the story.

Leliana wasn't doing plenty of damage too?

As an archer, she does less damage. But that may be my fault because I keep forgetting that shortbows use pure dex.

I used to dislike the way D&D 3.0/3.5 handled item property stacking, but the DAO system always feels like an exploit to me. OTOH, wasn't Calenhad magic-immune according to the lore?

Allegedly his armour had 100% spell resistance. But I agree that stacking resistances up to close to 100% is silly.