276 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Characters, I would say. I'm more interested in the story and decisions myself, and so have a hard time replaying any of this type of game if I'm being honest. But I played through all the origins, and was tempted each time to take this interesting character and place it in the same situations to see how I felt about them, whether they would act differently etc.

I guess that's still feasible, but in a less direct manner, you are not crafting a whole new person.

So it's not about playing the game? But what's the source of fun? If the content is the same, isn't the gameplay, i.e. the combat, fun?

[Revan312]

Exile, what is there to understand? I liked the origins as being a different race and or background helped roleplaying to me, I got enjoyment out of having a set background to flush my characters out with and the small amount of additional race specific dialogue that went along with them. The different endings, the little quips and jabs from NPC's, the appearance differences etc



I enjoyed that, you didn't much, there's not much to get, I hate main char VO because it decreases game length, you like it because it adds depth to the protagonist.. *shrug*



And the reason I implied that you disliked DA:O is because there hasn't been, minus your last post, much praising of the original game from you, at least that I've read. You mostly talk about what you didn't enjoy and the changes that you feel make DA2 better, so, I apologize if I said that bit not knowing fully well what you thought about it..

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...
If the content is the same, isn't the gameplay, i.e. the combat, fun?

Depends on your definition of the gameplay. Like I say, not the best person to comment, but I can understand approaching the same content from an altered perspective. Roleplaying would probably be the term.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

As in most things, I don't seem to think along the lines of others I've discovered. I went through maybe a stage and a half of DA 2 grief, and it lasted several months because I was being patient and waiting for new media releases to calm my suspicions. I'll either buy it or not buy it but the decision to pre-order has come and gone. It might still be a good game, Bioware has done well as a whole for making good games. I'm not an entitled gamer, but DA 2 has dropped a few things that I loved about DA:O. If more in-depth reviews in the months to come don't convince me otherwise, I won't buy it and I'll keep playing DA:O, not a big loss, in fact...it saves me money!

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 08 novembre 2010 - 11:52 .

[Ziggeh]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

but DA 2 has dropped a few things that I loved about DA:O

Would you mind expanding on that? (That's totally my new catchphrase)

[In Exile]

Revan312 wrote...

Exile, what is there to understand? I liked the origins as being a different race and or background helped roleplaying to me, I got enjoyment out of having a set background to flush my characters out with and the small amount of additional race specific dialogue that went along with them. The different endings, the little quips and jabs from NPC's, the appearance differences etc.

So the fun is in the internal experience for you as a player? Okay, I get that. I have a very different take on roleplaying, so maybe that's why I look at replayability a different way.

And the reason I implied that you disliked DA:O is because there hasn't been, minus your last post, much praising of the original game from you, at least that I've read. You mostly talk about what you didn't enjoy and the changes that you feel make DA2 better, so, I apologize if I said that bit not knowing fully well what you thought about it..

No, that's a fair point. It's just that often on this forum, there are direct attacks on my preferences. So I stand by what I like, and try to offer a reasoned defence.

It was like this on the old DA:O forum too, except there I was fighting BGII fans over DA:O. Hilariously, the thing I spent half my time defending was the origins. There was one thread, I recall, when one person proclaimed them the death of roleplaying because they destroyed character concepts (she wanted to RP a female human ranger who was shy and lived in forests, but clearly this was impossible).

My argument for Origins is the same I have for VO: they increase your connection to the world by integrating you into it, making it an external experience for the player instead of an internal experience. It's not my special mental state that affects the game for me, but visible in-game content. So weaving background into the game so heavily is several times over better than anything Bioware did previously (i.e. KoTOR, JE or BG/BGII).

The other big thing was the health/mana regen, and the strategy vs. tactics debate. I dislike inventory management, and strategy is just another form of inventory management (e.g. Vancian magic). Health and mana regens emphasize tactical per encounter thought, and that I like more.

But most of these features are now locked down, so the debate is over other new features added to DA2 over DA:O which I can champion.

I do have concerns over DA2 - the PC UI is a big part of that. The overhead camera is another. I didn't use the isometric camera because to me it was less tactical than over the shoulder (depth >> overhead) but at the same time I did not use the console over the shoulder view, so I'm very worried about the DA2 camera.

My absolutely biggest fear is party control. The only area I would say DA:O was several times over superior to ME/ME2 was combat. Pause & play tactical combat is awesome, especially when you disable all tactics and ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL. I'm terrified that we will have tactics forced enabled and that will hurt my experence very badly. It isn't a feature that would dampen by enthusiasim so much I'd cancel a pre-order, but it would hurt.

[Lyssistr]

Morroian wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

How about actually looking into the gameplay footage, instead of using some generic arguments that could be used even for claiming that bananas taste like oranges.

How about actually listening got what the devs are saying instead of going solely by brief unrepresentative footage.

Well sorry for trusting my eyes, keep your faith in whatever devs say  

So just to be clear you're accusing them of outright lying. When they talk about the game having auto attack and pause and give orders there's no room for them to be playing semantic games.

 you're not a dev's lawyer, are you? between faith and my eyes, I'll have to go with what I see, sorry for staying out of the "have faith" mantra.

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

My absolutely biggest fear is party control. The only area I would say DA:O was several times over superior to ME/ME2 was combat. Pause & play tactical combat is awesome, especially when you disable all tactics and ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL.

I was worried that would go too, but the gameplay footage had him switching between his two available party members seemingly at will.

[Da_Lion_Man]

I just wish Bojack, Naruto and Mike Tyson were in this game.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Revan312 wrote...

In defense of Lyssistr, ME2 also had a pause function that was completely unneeded, it was pretty much a relic from the first game. Not that I'm saying that DA2 won't be tactical, I have a hard time assuming it won't be at higher difficulty as 3 fully controllable companions would be a waste with anything less, but the possibility is there.

.

It absolutely needed a pause funciton in order to control your companions.

Not using that would make the game insanely tedious.

[In Exile]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
I was worried that would go too, but the gameplay footage had him switching between his two available party members seemingly at will.

But that doesn't mean we can disable tactics; it just means party control is enabled. I want 4 puppets who will not act without my prompt.

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

But that doesn't mean we can disable tactics; it just means party control is enabled. I want 4 puppets who will not act without my prompt.

Doesn't he do that in the one with the ogre? Hawke dies and he runs around as Bethany? I take your point though, yet to be officially confirmed.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

but DA 2 has dropped a few things that I loved about DA:O

Would you mind expanding on that? (That's totally my new catchphrase)

Sure, though keep in mind they might not be things you care about. It is, afterall, just my opinion on what I like in a game and it doesn't apply to everyone, nor should it. Also keep in mind that you asked and I took the time to respond so you are forewarned.

1.) Origins. I thought the concept of Origins was brilliant. It gave inciteful commentary on different social and ethnical backgrounds in a fantasy world. It also allowed for various replay options due to racial, gender and social class decisions. I played at least one character in every origin. Not being able to play as a dwarven or elven character is disappointing to me, especially since those cultures are an important part of the fantasy world from the lore in DA:O.

2.) Voice overs. As several other people mentioned, voice overs can make a game more cinematic, but also it can make for a far more limiting experience. This is based upon the person playing the game and how actively they engage their imaginations with the text. I prefer a non-voiced protagonist, it allows more dialogue options, which are restricted by time and money in the sound studio. Also voice actors have a range. The range is different for every actor, but options become limited in character choice when you are forced to settle on one actor to believably act for every type of character. I also prefer to see my character's dialogue responses word-for-word so I don't end up picking unpredictable abreviations as in Mass Effect. If I buy DA 2, I'll certainly miss options for creating a gruff sounding character, a sophistocated character, ect. I only played ME 1 and 2 twice all the way through. They were great games but once I played a male Shepard and a female Shepard, I felt I couldn't really get any more play out of the game other than a repeat experience, however fun.

3.) Emphasis on class Definition and class Balance. I am not sure why the classes need balancing. DA 2 isn't multiplayer. And when is life fair. It never has been, and in a fantasy environment with magic, I can see it being even less fair. Why should classes be defined through combat animations and fighting styles? It's not very logical. I was hoping for a less restrictive system than even DA:O with possibly even multi-classing, like in NWN. I am only going on leaked information now, but DA 2 doesn't seem to be moving in the direction I hoped. That's fine, others love this kind of stuff but it doesn't get me terribly excited. The lack of dual wielding warriors in particular raises an eyebrow. I never understood why a rogue/mage hybrid wasn't possible either, or a warrior couldn't develop a latent talent for manipulating the Fade. Making classes more restricted and less vague seems a step backwards to me. But I'm no game designer, so what do I know?

4.) Re-vamping of Art Direction. The game is still five months out, and this is one of the lesser concerns I have, but still I found it a little goofy. There are some things I do like and some I don't about the new art direction. The things I like would be giving characters more armor coverage (I'm looking at you female leather armor!) and fixing some of the proportions that were way out of whack (the hands, God, the hands and shoulders!). I may be in the extreme minority, but I liked the look of DA:O and didn't feel it looked like a copy of the Lord of the Rings movies (which were in turn heavily visually inspired by Ridley Scott's Legend, John Milius' Conan the Barbarian and John Boorman's Excalibur, ect, ect). The graphics released don't look bad, but I didn't think they were in need of a change. I prefer the old look honestly, the new darkspawn just look less threatening to me.

On the plus side, the story seems interesting and the new system of advancing skills/spells in different directions sounds promising but outside of this, I am going on very little. I thought DA:O was a great game, and Bioware does have a track record of producing some excellent games. DA 2 seems like a lesser product than it's predecessor to me from what has been leaked. I am not privy to the final product, so this is just my uninformed opinion. I'm sure someone will cut/paste that over an over As a whole, I just am not nearly as interested in DA 2 as I am still interested in DA:O. That's just me and I am offering my opinion because it was asked. Please don't spam me with PMs telling me I am stupid or taking quotes out of context. I'm sure DA 2 will appeal to the masses, but for now it isn't sounding spectacular to me. I hope I am wrong. Good day.


P.S. Pessimism is the ultimate Optimism.

[Ziggeh]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
Sure, though keep in mind they might not be things you care about. It is, afterall, just my opinion on what I like in a game and it doesn't apply to everyone, nor should it. Also keep in mind that you asked and I took the time to respond so you are forewarned.

Absolutely, and thanks for doing so. I know on a forum it must sound like "please give me things to attack you over" but I honestly think this is the most constructive thing we can be doing here, as it mirrors conversations the devs must be having/had.

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
1.) Origins.

I've been thinking about this one, as it's something I'll definitely miss too. I think it comes down to storytelling, once you'd actually left the origin story, it had to basically treat you as a generic warden. It couldn't touch on who you were in a way that I felt it should. How a "duster" dwarf related to the alienages should have been different from a noble and so on. As someone who buys Bioware games almost entirely for the story, I feel I should support anything that improves that area, but that is, we agree, a very high price. Too high? Hard to say till I've finished playing it.

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
2.) Voice overs.

Yeah, I can see how that one can be hugely divisive. I consider it more engaging and dramatic, but I really get that a lot of people would prefer to approach the game as a character they've developed themselves, and so something that increases characterisation is good for me, bad for them.

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
3.) Emphasis on class Definition and class Balance.

I dislike uniformed decisions, with a passion, and Origins asked you to make quite a few of them in the skills and spec system, I've not really seen the changes they're making in this area, but I believe changes of some sort needed to be made. Balance is a wierd one, I liked to think of it as a kind of difficulty setting, but it always gave me the impression that output was rather uncontrolled. Maybe Bioware carefully balanced damage across the board, but the vast differences in balance didn't give me confidence in that. I know thats something I would want to fix.

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
4.) Re-vamping of Art Direction.

I think I agree there. I'll probably reserve judgement until I see some of the locations, because they're what really sold Origins too me visually, but they do seem to going in a slightly brighter, more cartoony direction. Maybe they can balance that, but it does "feel" odd, as poor a description as that is.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 09 novembre 2010 - 02:24 .

[Revan312]

Oh, and one more thing about a voiced main char, why, if they're making a predefined character with little customization in background, if any, and a static last name do they not just give that character a first name? I hated that everyone called Shepard Shepard, I would have much preferred to just have a set first name and have people refer to the character by either or as the singular last name reference is simply annoying..



Now I'm not sure if DA2 is going to be the same, but I hope not.. It's way to late now either way but I'm praying, if anyone has incite into that please tell me..

[In Exile]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Doesn't he do that in the one with the ogre? Hawke dies and he runs around as Bethany? I take your point though, yet to be officially confirmed.

I'm not talking about party control. I did see that in the video, and I do believe it's in. On the PC, you can disable tactics so the other characters you don't control cannot move or act unless you select them and choose an action. This is what I meant. I like to play with all the tactics disabled, and I'm worried this won't be an option.

[In Exile]

Revan312 wrote...

Oh, and one more thing about a voiced main char, why, if they're making a predefined character with little customization in background, if any, and a static last name do they not just give that character a first name? I hated that everyone called Shepard Shepard, I would have much preferred to just have a set first name and have people refer to the character by either or as the singular last name reference is simply annoying..

Now I'm not sure if DA2 is going to be the same, but I hope not.. It's way to late now either way but I'm praying, if anyone has incite into that please tell me..

The answer is onwership. If you have a set first name, it just feels even more like a predefined character for some people. It's a psychological threshold.

[upsettingshorts]

The most consistent objection to a fixed first name I heard when it was brought up - and I wholeheartedly endorsed it for VO reasons - is that it would be hard to differentiate savegames.

Then people suggested that they be allowed to pick middle names or nicknames or something else that would identify their saves but not necessarily be used by characters ingame as much as a first name would be.

To me giving a VO character a fixed first name is a slam dunk.   But then, I have opinions like that about a lot of things people object to.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 novembre 2010 - 03:15 .

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
To me giving a VO character a fixed first name is a slam dunk.   But then, I have opinions like that about a lot of things people object to.

No, to me a first name is the straw that breaks the camel's customizable back, so to speak.

[upsettingshorts]

Right, but the fact "In Exile on the Bioware Social website doesn't like it" really doesn't alter my preferences, does it?

I'd jump for joy if my characters had full names and VO referred to them with contextually appropriate first and last names.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 novembre 2010 - 03:32 .

[slimgrin]

I'm late to the party. I didn't know we had a fixed first name.

[upsettingshorts]

slimgrin wrote...

I'm late to the party. I didn't know we had a fixed first name.

We don't, it was a sidetrack.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Right, but the fact "In Exile on the Bioware Social website doesn't like it" really doesn't alter my preferences, does it?

Wait, you mean I'm not the central defining person of value in your life who you use as a template to organize all your beliefs around?

....


.....

I'd jump for joy if my characters had full names and VO referred to them with contextually appropriate first and last names.

But that could lead to horrible instances of Mike Thorton instead of Michael Thorton.

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...

But that could lead to horrible instances of Mike Thorton instead of Michael Thorton.

The horror! 

In Exile wrote...

Wait, you mean I'm not the central defining person of value in your life who you use as a template to organize all your beliefs around?

I do sometimes get the impression here - not from you - that some people genuinely believe their preferences should influence other people.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 novembre 2010 - 03:45 .