238 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

crimzontearz wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

So having to actually negotiate with companions to select their equipment makes it simpler? I'd say it makes it more deep, because it adds another dimension to the NPC companions' personality. But now they are appeasing one entire section of the fanbase? I thought I was alone in this. Oh well, it's good to have company.

Except you're not getting that, you have one set outfit that you can add runes to to maybe change a stat here or there. Yay so deep and engaging!  Theres no negotiation involved.

you are assuming that  the enhancing items and runes will be shallow and nearly useless

you do not know that, if they are akin to the items in  PST they will be more than usefu

Perhaps but honestly, my gut is saying that won't happen and it will indeed be pretty shallow, much like crafting/imbuing in DA:O/Awakening was pretty shallow.

[Dave of Canada]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

LOL right, Oh goody I can change a ring! OH WOW! **** AWESOME! yeah sorry not buying it.

You lose out on three pieces to please people who want unique looks but you still get a large part of customization. Sorry if you're "not buying it" but if you're just going to keep saying how everything isn't working in your favor, and anything that does you're "not buying it", why bother coming on these forums?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 novembre 2010 - 11:58 .

[crimzontearz]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

So having to actually negotiate with companions to select their equipment makes it simpler? I'd say it makes it more deep, because it adds another dimension to the NPC companions' personality. But now they are appeasing one entire section of the fanbase? I thought I was alone in this. Oh well, it's good to have company.

Except you're not getting that, you have one set outfit that you can add runes to to maybe change a stat here or there. Yay so deep and engaging!  Theres no negotiation involved.

you are assuming that  the enhancing items and runes will be shallow and nearly useless

you do not know that, if they are akin to the items in  PST they will be more than usefu

Perhaps but honestly, my gut is saying that won't happen and it will indeed be pretty shallow, much like crafting/imbuing in DA:O/Awakening was pretty shallow.

totally different  scenario....crafting HAD to be limited in order to not totally break the game (which it nearly did anyways....still)


the point remains, you do not know how that will be handled and are assuming it will be awful.....which is why so many are often dismissiong your claims without even wondering if, that time, you have a valid point....which only infuriates you more

may I suggest to wait and see?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

The Masked Rog wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Piecake wrote...

How are you any different?  Your views and opinions of the game also make up one section of the fanbase.  It seems you are basically saying that Bioware should appease you.

I've said many many times they could try and find a middle ground to appease everyone. reading comprehension ftw!

They did! You still can change weapons and other trinkets as if you actually controlled that party member.

LOL right, Oh goody I can change a ring! OH WOW! **** AWESOME! yeah sorry not buying it.

Frankly it sucks that I get to select what a companion that totally dislikes me wears in his fingers. I don't buy it either. Isn't it just amazing we have something in common?

They have taken a step in the right direction by removing some of our control from companions while they allow them to express their personality through their outfits. Call it simplification, but I don't think every siplification is bad.

Why not just play a single person RPG then? Or are you trolling for the sake of it at this point?

[The Masked Rog]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Piecake wrote...

How are you any different?  Your views and opinions of the game also make up one section of the fanbase.  It seems you are basically saying that Bioware should appease you.

I've said many many times they could try and find a middle ground to appease everyone. reading comprehension ftw!

They did! You still can change weapons and other trinkets as if you actually controlled that party member.

LOL right, Oh goody I can change a ring! OH WOW! **** AWESOME! yeah sorry not buying it.

Frankly it sucks that I get to select what a companion that totally dislikes me wears in his fingers. I don't buy it either. Isn't it just amazing we have something in common?

They have taken a step in the right direction by removing some of our control from companions while they allow them to express their personality through their outfits. Call it simplification, but I don't think every siplification is bad.

Why not just play a single person RPG then? Or are you trolling for the sake of it at this point?

I find it mildly amusing you suggest I am trolling.

Anyway I like having a party behind me. That's a party based game. What degree of control you have over said party is open to discussion. I've given a suggestion about how I feel this should be handled. Feel free to disagree but please don't try to pretend my opinion is invalid. It is just as valid as yoursl. Just because you have a certain opinon that doesn't mean everyone else wants a dumbed down game, simplification, lack of customization or whatever other terms you use in your absolutely politically incorrect generalizations.

[Maria Caliban]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Why not just play a single person RPG then? Or are you trolling for the sake of it at this point?

If someone says they want unique companions who have personality, desires, and actions separate from the PC, I don't understand the logic of suggesting a game with no companions whatsoever.

It's a bit like someone expressing a desire for chicken friend steak and you asking them why they don't go to the salad bar down the street.

[Ryzaki]

...I'm sorry but are you guys suggesting a party based game where you don't control your party members? No offense but that sounds retarded.

What you want is a single player game with companions like ME. ME isn't party based so you don't control your companions. You do have people with you though.

I play DA2 to play the sequel to dragon age not ME with swords.

Gah. I never thought I'd say something that retarded.

Anyways. Full party control please. Even if I can't control their outfits the last thing I want to do is facepalm  while Miranda decides to stand on top of a crate and get ripped to shreads by gunfire.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 14 novembre 2010 - 12:17 .

[crimzontearz]

Ryzaki wrote...

...I'm sorry but are you guys suggesting a party based game where you don't control your party members? No offense but that sounds retarded.

What you want is a single player game with companions like ME. ME isn't party based so you don't control your companions. You do have people with you though.

uhhh....las ttime I checked you can tell them exactly where to go, who to attack, what ability to use and on whom.......you just do not take direct control of them so.......your argument is  slightly faulty

[The Masked Rog]

Ryzaki wrote...

...I'm sorry but are you guys suggesting a party based game where you don't control your party members? No offense but that sounds retarded.

What you want is a single player game with companions like ME. ME isn't party based so you don't control your companions. You do have people with you though.

You don't fully control your party in Origins. They have their own opinons and dialogue and you have zero control over that. That suddenly they are willing to obey your every wish is jarring.

Anyway, I don't care what label you give to the kind of party control scheme I want. I have no problem calling it a single player RPG then. Or a lorem ipsun RPG. Or a hot rod samurai RPG. Whatever. I do take offense you call it retarded though. No offense, but saying "no offense" to insult someone's ideas while trying not to sound like you are insulting their ideas is dumb and mildly retarded.

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

...I'm sorry but are you guys suggesting a party based game where you don't control your party members? No offense but that sounds retarded.

Actually here's what I'd want, even if you weren't referring to me.  (Linky).  I tolerate party mechanics in Bioware games because I like everything else they have to offer. 

[Ryzaki]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...I'm sorry but are you guys suggesting a party based game where you don't control your party members? No offense but that sounds retarded.

What you want is a single player game with companions like ME. ME isn't party based so you don't control your companions. You do have people with you though.

You don't fully control your party in Origins. They have their own opinons and dialogue and you have zero control over that. That suddenly they are willing to obey your every wish is jarring.

Anyway, I don't care what label you give to the kind of party control scheme I want. I have no problem calling it a single player RPG then. Or a lorem ipsun RPG. Or a hot rod samurai RPG. Whatever. I do take offense you call it retarded though. No offense, but saying "no offense" to insult someone's ideas while trying not to sound like you are insulting their ideas is dumb and mildly retarded.

I'm talking about combat. And yes a party based rpg where you only control your main PC in combat is retarded. It's not a party based RPG anymore.
The idea isn't what's retarded. Calling it a party based RPG is.

Please stop jumping the shark. I said nothing about the companions in Origins not having their own dialogue and opinions. Frankly I care less as long as they do as I say in combat.

Also...hot rod samurai and obeying my every wish? Where the hell did you get that bull**** from? 

Also them obeying your commands could be just as jarring too! Why would certain characters listen to a refugee on how to fight? They wouldn't! Them traveling with you could be jarring! What if they don't agree? What if they don't like your PC? What if they see something better? Should they just wander off leaving you and Bethany and (perhaps) Carver all alone? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 14 novembre 2010 - 01:06 .

[Ryzaki]

crimzontearz wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...I'm sorry but are you guys suggesting a party based game where you don't control your party members? No offense but that sounds retarded.

What you want is a single player game with companions like ME. ME isn't party based so you don't control your companions. You do have people with you though.

uhhh....las ttime I checked you can tell them exactly where to go, who to attack, what ability to use and on whom.......you just do not take direct control of them so.......your argument is  slightly faulty

Uh...no you can't. You can tell them where to go but you can't move them. You can't play as them. You can direct Miranda someplace but you can't tell her how she gets there.

[Meltemph]

It's not a party based RPG anymore.

Why? You are still in a party, either way... I mean, not that I have a horse in this argument, just generally curious why the definition would change.

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...



...I'm sorry but are you guys suggesting a party based game where you don't control your party members? No offense but that sounds retarded.

Actually here's what I'd want, even if you weren't referring to me. (Linky). I tolerate party mechanics in Bioware games because I like everything else they have to offer.

Yeah but you wouldn't call it a party based game would you?

[Ryzaki]

Meltemph wrote...

It's not a party based RPG anymore.

Why? You are still in a party, either way... I mean, not that I have a horse in this argument, just generally curious why the definition would change.

Is ME a party based RPG? I don't consider it one. Once you play as only one character (and what happens when Hawke falls then? You can't seize control of anyone else's body and Hawke can no longer give orders).

I wouldn't consider it a party based because you're not playing the whole party anymore. You're just Hawke.

[Meltemph]

Is ME a party based RPG? I don't consider it one.

I'd call it squad based... but even I will admit I am splitting hairs, so ya, I guess I would(Only need 3 for a party right?) call it a party RPG.

Once you play as only one character (and what happens when Hawke falls then? You can't seize control of anyone else's body and Hawke can no longer give orders).



I wouldn't consider it a party based because you're not playing the whole party anymore. You're just Hawke.

But if the gameplay is based on a party, whether you control them all or not, would still be a party, would it not? Just a different flavor.

[crimzontearz]

Ryzaki wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...I'm sorry but are you guys suggesting a party based game where you don't control your party members? No offense but that sounds retarded.

What you want is a single player game with companions like ME. ME isn't party based so you don't control your companions. You do have people with you though.

uhhh....las ttime I checked you can tell them exactly where to go, who to attack, what ability to use and on whom.......you just do not take direct control of them so.......your argument is  slightly faulty

Uh...no you can't. You can tell them where to go but you can't move them. You can't play as them. You can direct Miranda someplace but you can't tell her how she gets there.

correct but you make is sound like you totally can't tell them do so squat

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...
Yeah but you wouldn't call it a party based game would you?

Nope, can't say I would.  Not sure what I'd call it, actually.  A single-player RPG with party elements?  The gameplay would continue (albeit hands off) if the protagonist fell, relying on Tactics and AI.  If the party was victorious, they'd revive the protagonist and move on.  So it wouldn't be exactly like ME for example.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 novembre 2010 - 12:42 .

[Piecake]

Ryzaki wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...I'm sorry but are you guys suggesting a party based game where you don't control your party members? No offense but that sounds retarded.

Actually here's what I'd want, even if you weren't referring to me. (Linky). I tolerate party mechanics in Bioware games because I like everything else they have to offer.

Yeah but you wouldn't call it a party based game would you?

Who cares what its called?  that's what he wants and prefers.

It hasnt been fortold sicne the dawn of time that all future dragon age games must be party based games, based on your definition of what a party based game is.

Personally, I like controlling my party members and giving them orders so I'd prefer that not change.  But i think saying something like, DA2,3,4,5 cant do this because thats not what DA series is about is pretty silly

[Ryzaki]

Meltemph wrote...

Is ME a party based RPG? I don't consider it one.

I'd call it squad based... but even I will admit I am splitting hairs, so ya, I guess I would(Only need 3 for a party right?) call it a party RPG.

Once you play as only one character (and what happens when Hawke falls then? You can't seize control of anyone else's body and Hawke can no longer give orders).

I wouldn't consider it a party based because you're not playing the whole party anymore. You're just Hawke.

But if the gameplay is based on a party, whether you control them all or not, would still be a party, would it not? Just a different flavor.

I don't think so. Everytime I've seen a party based RPG you've always been able to control everyone in the group. just having a bunch of people fighting with you (though usually you can control them) doesn't make it party based.

But everytime I hear someone say assuming direct control is stupid I can't help but think them listening to the PC is pretty damn stupid too.

[Ryzaki]

crimzontearz wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...I'm sorry but are you guys suggesting a party based game where you don't control your party members? No offense but that sounds retarded.

What you want is a single player game with companions like ME. ME isn't party based so you don't control your companions. You do have people with you though.

uhhh....las ttime I checked you can tell them exactly where to go, who to attack, what ability to use and on whom.......you just do not take direct control of them so.......your argument is  slightly faulty

Uh...no you can't. You can tell them where to go but you can't move them. You can't play as them. You can direct Miranda someplace but you can't tell her how she gets there.

correct but you make is sound like you totally can't tell them do so squat

Didn't say you couldn't. But it's not party based. It's squad based. Splitting hairs I know but I don't see it as a party based RPG.

[Ryzaki]

Piecake wrote...
Who cares what its called? that's what he wants and prefers.

It hasnt been fortold sicne the dawn of time that all future dragon age games must be party based games, based on your definition of what a party based game is.

Personally, I like controlling my party members and giving them orders so I'd prefer that not change. But i think saying something like, DA2,3,4,5 cant do this because thats not what DA series is about is pretty silly

I didn't say it didn't matter what it was called or said anything about his preferences. Just my preference.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 14 novembre 2010 - 12:45 .

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Yeah but you wouldn't call it a party based game would you?

Nope, can't say I would.  Not sure what I'd call it, actually.  A single-player RPG with party elements?  The gameplay would continue (albeit hands off) if the protagonist fell, relying on Tactics and AI.  If the party was victorious, they'd revive the protagonist and move on.  So it wouldn't be exactly like ME for example.

That could get extremely annoying with dumb AI. *sighs at the thought of P3* So many deaths because my Allies wouldn't heal me. So many...

Not to mention boring. Hawke falls so you sit there watching the game play itself.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 14 novembre 2010 - 12:47 .

[crimzontearz]

Ryzaki wrote...

Piecake wrote...
Who cares what its called? that's what he wants and prefers.

It hasnt been fortold sicne the dawn of time that all future dragon age games must be party based games, based on your definition of what a party based game is.

Personally, I like controlling my party members and giving them orders so I'd prefer that not change. But i think saying something like, DA2,3,4,5 cant do this because thats not what DA series is about is pretty silly

I didn't say it didn't matter what it was called or said anything about his preferences. Just my preference.

yes....yes you are but it's ok

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...
That could get extremely annoying with dumb AI. *sighs at the thought of P3* So many deaths because my Allies wouldn't heal me. So many...

Not to mention boring. Hawke falls so you sit there watching the game play itself.

Well, if you built your character so that he could come up with some in-depth tactics that covered a variety of scenarios, it'd be kinda interesting - at least to me - to see how it works out without your help.  If you made your character into a Fantasy Kobe Bryant with a Sword (as per the example in my original post) then guess what, your party is probably boned without you. 

That being said, I never claimed it was gonna be anyone's ideal game other than my own.