608 réponses à ce sujet

[Dhanik]

David Gaider wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...
YOU PEOPLE?!?! Operation Righteous Indignation is... GO!

I'm neither righteous or indignant. I'm tired, and it's Sunday... and having a conversation where multiple people are going to twist my words to suit their own agenda is... well, that's a Monday conversation. Maybe a Tuesday.

Either way, my being here is not productive, and it's a good conversation. I suggest you continue it.

I'm broke, fat, ugly, and live with my mom and am married to my hand. I don't have an agenda.

[Xewaka]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

As far as affecting DA2 itself? It's a little late for that. Even on the off chance that we did go "OMG choice is in again? We need to change everything!" there'd be little we could do to change course without delaying the game and starting over on huge parts of it. And, to be frank, that'd be bad. If there's anything worse than being second-guessed by a bunch of fans, it's second-guessing yourself. If we weren't confident that what we were doing was good, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

The fact that Brent Knowles dropped from the DA 2 project seems to give weight to the highlighted part (just finished reading his ten years in Bioware blog summary).

One guy left after TEN YEARS! It's a mother****ing exodus!

Ah, overreacting over the internet, who would have guessed?

I'm not trying to call apocalypse or anything like that. I have happened to find a quote from Gaider with I wanted to emphasize. A key person in the coming to be of Dragon age left the team. Another didn't. Thus, one believes in the project, the other doesn't.
I, personally, share the concern that DA:2 will not be as good as it could be. Losing options in some of the points in behalf of "more uniqueness" feels like the wrong path. We lose the Origins to gain a protagonist with voice acting, we lose options in classes to "better" distinguish them, we lose options in companion configuration so they are more "unique". In my opinion, these changes are not equal worth. We lose something good for something meh on each of them.

[Nighteye2]

David Gaider wrote...
As far as affecting DA2 itself? It's a little late for that. Even on the off chance that we did go "OMG choice is in again? We need to change everything!" there'd be little we could do to change course without delaying the game and starting over on huge parts of it. And, to be frank, that'd be bad. If there's anything worse than being second-guessed by a bunch of fans, it's second-guessing yourself. If we weren't confident that what we were doing was good, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

But you can change the sequel - make DA3 more like DA:O again, and more like the RPGs of old. :innocent:

[mopotter]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Nothing for BioWare. Obsidian is superior in game mechanics, BioWare excels in storytelling.

New Vegas has a pretty good story, and perhaps more importantly it is very non-linear.  Bioware makes a better linear story though, yes.

Does it have as much interaction as the BioWare Games?  I enjoyed Fallout 3, once I got broken steel,  it's fun, but I've become spoiled with the quality of interaction with BioWare games.  Yes, including the romance.  BioWare is a true story telling game with everything a good book would have.  

If I had to choose between Obsidian and BioWare I'd pick BioWare 1st every time.  I'm picking up Fall out 3 tonight.

I played Fable 3, it was fun, but I kept thinking I would be glad when it was over so I could go back to ME1 and 2.   

[mopotter]

Luigitornado wrote...

I say we make The Sims in first person and add gun play.

You can get a mod for guns and shoot people in Sims 2 and 3.    I saw it.  My sims, of course, are hippy love children from the 60's.  Make love not war.

[AlanC9]

Xewaka wrote...

I, personally, share the concern that DA:2 will not be as good as it could be. Losing options in some of the points in behalf of "more uniqueness" feels like the wrong path. We lose the Origins to gain a protagonist with voice acting, we lose options in classes to "better" distinguish them, we lose options in companion configuration so they are more "unique". In my opinion, these changes are not equal worth. We lose something good for something meh on each of them.

I'm more in the "meh" camp. Those all strike me as being of approximately equal worth, though I'll have to reserve judgement on the VO protagonist until I see how it plays.. Others will find the DA2 choices superior.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:27 .

[mopotter]

Schwadragon wrote...

The thing is, I think New Vegas and Dragon Age 2 (and Bioware games in general) are completely different types of games. NV's story is good in the sense that it gives the player a lot of freedom and makes him or her feel like something is being accomplished, but in terms of the story in and of itself, NV is simplistic at best.
When I want a lot of exploration and atmosphere, I'll play Fallout. When I want a good story, I'll play a Bioware game.

Me too.  I still play Fallout 3 once in awhile and even Morrowind or Oblivion when i want to just wonder around pick flowers or shoot mutants.  When I want a game that pulls me into the story and has great NPC's that are well made and have great dialog, I go with any BioWare game in my stash of games.  

[DPB]

mopotter wrote...

Does it have as much interaction as the BioWare Games?  I enjoyed Fallout 3, once I got broken steel,  it's fun, but I've become spoiled with the quality of interaction with BioWare games.  Yes, including the romance.  BioWare is a true story telling game with everything a good book would have.

There's plenty of interaction with NPCs and lots of dialogue (much more than Fallout 3), and although the companions are much improved from Fallout 3 they're still a bit limited. Once you've recruited them, quizzed them and completed their personal quest that's more or less it as far as it goes for interaction. The biggest improvement from Fallout 3 is that there are far more quests with non-combat solutions.

Modifié par dbankier, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:41 .

[maxernst]

dbankier wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Does it have as much interaction as the BioWare Games?  I enjoyed Fallout 3, once I got broken steel,  it's fun, but I've become spoiled with the quality of interaction with BioWare games.  Yes, including the romance.  BioWare is a true story telling game with everything a good book would have.

There's plenty of interaction with NPCs and lots of dialogue (much more than Fallout 3), and although the companions are much improved from Fallout 3 they're still a bit limited. Once you've recruited them, quizzed them and completed their personal quest that's more or less it as far as it goes for interaction. The biggest improvement from Fallout is that there are far more quests with non-combat solutions.

I haven't played Fallout:NV but I'm very intrigued by it because it sounds closer in style to the original Fallout games (though I wished they hadn't repeated the bug-infested release of Fallout 2). Fallout and Fallout 2 fell in between the Bethesda sandbox and the sometimes overbearing narrative drive of Bioware, and I appreciated that balance.  And I liked the fact that your PC didn't have to be a mass-murderer. 

[mopotter]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

You know I was gushing dramatically over Doom3 before it came out and I should have waited and seen because that game...

Conversely everything I heard about Mass Effect back in 2006 and 2007 made me roll my eyes but instead, but when I got that game I was completely wrong

Me too.  I knew I was going to hate ME1.  guns, shooters, space.  I wanted more JE or KOTOR.  I was also wrong.  I love ME1 and enjoy ME 2.  

[Addai]

mopotter wrote...
Does it have as much interaction as the BioWare Games?  I enjoyed Fallout 3, once I got broken steel,  it's fun, but I've become spoiled with the quality of interaction with BioWare games.  Yes, including the romance.  BioWare is a true story telling game with everything a good book would have.  
   

I'm spoiled now, too.  FNV felt less lonely than FO3, not as interactive as DA.  I thought the companion interaction worked out pretty well- I had something new with Boone spaced out over most of the game.  I also loved my little robot buddy even though he only chirped at me.  But involved interaction is obviously not the "point" of the Fallout games.

[Urazz]

Xewaka wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

As far as affecting DA2 itself? It's a little late for that. Even on the off chance that we did go "OMG choice is in again? We need to change everything!" there'd be little we could do to change course without delaying the game and starting over on huge parts of it. And, to be frank, that'd be bad. If there's anything worse than being second-guessed by a bunch of fans, it's second-guessing yourself. If we weren't confident that what we were doing was good, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

The fact that Brent Knowles dropped from the DA 2 project seems to give weight to the highlighted part (just finished reading his ten years in Bioware blog summary).

One guy left after TEN YEARS! It's a mother****ing exodus!

Ah, overreacting over the internet, who would have guessed?

I'm not trying to call apocalypse or anything like that. I have happened to find a quote from Gaider with I wanted to emphasize. A key person in the coming to be of Dragon age left the team. Another didn't. Thus, one believes in the project, the other doesn't.
I, personally, share the concern that DA:2 will not be as good as it could be. Losing options in some of the points in behalf of "more uniqueness" feels like the wrong path. We lose the Origins to gain a protagonist with voice acting, we lose options in classes to "better" distinguish them, we lose options in companion configuration so they are more "unique". In my opinion, these changes are not equal worth. We lose something good for something meh on each of them.

Yes but you don't think of what is gained do you?  Or feel the tradeoff is worth it.  Some people feel the tradeoff is worth it.

I feel the tradeoff of losing several origins for a single one with a voiced PC is definately worth it.

The multiple origins thing really wasn't all that great anyways as the only differences between them was more superficial only and it felt like the human noble origin was the default origin anyways with it being tied into the main plot of the story more when compared to the other origins.

I rather have one more fleshed out origin tied into the the main story than several that only superficially changes things.

[mopotter]

dbankier wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Does it have as much interaction as the BioWare Games?  I enjoyed Fallout 3, once I got broken steel,  it's fun, but I've become spoiled with the quality of interaction with BioWare games.  Yes, including the romance.  BioWare is a true story telling game with everything a good book would have.

There's plenty of interaction with NPCs and lots of dialogue (much more than Fallout 3), and although the companions are much improved from Fallout 3 they're still a bit limited. Once you've recruited them, quizzed them and completed their personal quest that's more or less it as far as it goes for interaction. The biggest improvement from Fallout 3 is that there are far more quests with non-combat solutions.

I'm sure I'll have fun, but really - I've never found any developer as good as BioWare with NPC's making me feel like they could be real.  sort of.

[mopotter]

Addai67 wrote...

mopotter wrote...
Does it have as much interaction as the BioWare Games?  I enjoyed Fallout 3, once I got broken steel,  it's fun, but I've become spoiled with the quality of interaction with BioWare games.  Yes, including the romance.  BioWare is a true story telling game with everything a good book would have.  
   

I'm spoiled now, too.  FNV felt less lonely than FO3, not as interactive as DA.  I thought the companion interaction worked out pretty well- I had something new with Boone spaced out over most of the game.  I also loved my little robot buddy even though he only chirped at me.  But involved interaction is obviously not the "point" of the Fallout games.

 

Your right.  I don't buy FallOut for the same reason as I buy one of BioWare games.  But I do like them both for different reasons.    And really, if they both had a game coming out at the same time, I'd pick BioWare first.  Robot's?  cool.  I do like robots.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

mopotter wrote...

Your right.  I don't buy FallOut for the same reason as I buy one of BioWare games. 

Whereas, I buy all games for basically the same reason.  There's one thing I want from games, and I judge solely on their ability to provide that one thing.

[Koralis]

Saibh wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Nothing for BioWare. Obsidian is superior in game mechanics, BioWare excels in storytelling.

NWN2, KotOR2, F: NV all use an engine previously developed. If they don't need to make an engine, they can spend more time improving it.

EDIT: And Alpha Protocol is, I think, the only game they made by themselves...and it didn't do that well.

Actually, I'm playing it now.  It's quite a good game in my opinion.  Great single-player storyline.   The controls are slightly cumbersome, with many submenus, etc, but workable.  The camera occasionally flakes out, which is annoying.

I think Alpha Protocol's big problem was negative press from Sega, etc.  If the publisher is unhappy, not many customers are going to give it a shot.  Also, I was getting it confused with several other game out there... title could have been better as it didn't scream "spy rpg."  I know initially I thought it was a sci-fi shootemup.

Modifié par Koralis, 15 novembre 2010 - 09:55 .

[Xewaka]

Urazz wrote...

Or feel the tradeoff is worth it.  Some people feel the tradeoff is worth it.

I feel the tradeoff of losing several origins for a single one with a voiced PC is definately worth it.

The multiple origins thing really wasn't all that great anyways as the only differences between them was more superficial only and it felt like the human noble origin was the default origin anyways with it being tied into the main plot of the story more when compared to the other origins.

I rather have one more fleshed out origin tied into the the main story than several that only superficially changes things.

As you may notice by my avatar, I'd rather have dwarves as a player option back. I also noticed that you haven't commented on the gameplay issues I raised (the loss of choice on character building and companion configuration).
It is true that we have yet to see the skill trees for warrior, rogue, and mage. We already know that the warrior at least, and most likely the mage as well, have been lessened in options. Let's see if the new options make up for it, but somehow I doubt it. So far the player input (that is, choices in character and party building) has been sacrificed in the name of... what, exactly? Setting? Dialoge? DA:O wasn't exactly lacking in that regard.

Modifié par Xewaka, 15 novembre 2010 - 10:14 .

[Fishy]

The day i see

Modern Bioware Warfare 4 .. That the day i'm giving up on rpg and single player depth.
Now excuse me i need to level up my AK 47 online.

Modifié par Suprez30, 15 novembre 2010 - 10:43 .

[The Masked Rog]

Entire post is IMO.



RPGs shouldn't strive to add complexity as in more numbers and stats. Those quickly grow confusing and often more stats mean each stat is less relevant. When people can't see a direct impact from raising certain stats, they tend to attach less importance to them. If you have few stats but have them play a big part on character effectiveness, then players will be more interested in said stats and pay attention to their allocation.



Complexity should be added in the RP and storytelling mechanisms, which is where Vegas did magnificiently well, and received solid praise for it. Dragon Age II picked a similar road (framed narrative, voiced hero, single origin, story spawns ten years). Should be interesting to see how it will be received, giving the similarity with vegas in its approach to a sequel. Of course Vegas is a much more streamlined title (it did put more emphasys in FPS but nerfing VATS) coming from a iconic franchise so it will always sell more anyway.

[The Masked Rog]

Xewaka wrote...

Urazz wrote...

Or feel the tradeoff is worth it.  Some people feel the tradeoff is worth it.

I feel the tradeoff of losing several origins for a single one with a voiced PC is definately worth it.

The multiple origins thing really wasn't all that great anyways as the only differences between them was more superficial only and it felt like the human noble origin was the default origin anyways with it being tied into the main plot of the story more when compared to the other origins.

I rather have one more fleshed out origin tied into the the main story than several that only superficially changes things.

As you may notice by my avatar, I'd rather have dwarves as a player option back. I also noticed that you haven't commented on the gameplay issues I raised (the loss of choice on character building and companion configuration).
It is true that we have yet to see the skill trees for warrior, rogue, and mage. We already know that the warrior at least, and most likely the mage as well, have been lessened in options. Let's see if the new options make up for it, but somehow I doubt it. So far the player input (that is, choices in character and party building) has been sacrificed in the name of... what, exactly? Setting? Dialoge? DA:O wasn't exactly lacking in that regard.

Voiced PC. More focused story (being a human supposedly matters)

A dev said each class has 5-6 trees and each spec has a unique, full-fledged tree. Sounds like a warrior has just as many options as he did in DA:O, but through different talent trees.

[Xewaka]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Voiced PC. More focused story (being a human supposedly matters)

This is more a hindrance than a boon, in my opinion. It keeps me from playing my favored character. Voiced PC means paraphrasing for Bioware. They better solve their paraphrasing issues, for Shepard never said exactly what I expected him to.

The Masked Rog wrote...

A dev said each class has 5-6 trees and each spec has a unique,
full-fledged tree. Sounds like a warrior has just as many options as he
did in DA:O, but through different talent trees.

Dual wielding warrior fans would argue with that. Also, I might be mistaken, but don't those six trees include the one-to-three specialization trees?

Modifié par Xewaka, 15 novembre 2010 - 11:20 .

[The Masked Rog]

Xewaka wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Voiced PC. More focused story (being a human supposedly matters)

This is more a hindrance than a boon, in my opinion. It keeps me from playing my favored character. Voiced PC means paraphrasing for Bioware. They better solve their paraphrasing issues, for Shepard never said exactly what I expected him to.

The Masked Rog wrote...

A dev said each class has 5-6 trees and each spec has a unique,
full-fledged tree. Sounds like a warrior has just as many options as he
did in DA:O, but through different talent trees.

Dual wielding warrior fans would argue with that. Also, I might be mistaken, but don't those six trees include the one-to-three specialization trees?

Spec trees are supposed to be as extensive as the others. I'm not sure the six per class is with or without the specs but I think it is without.

[Xewaka]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Also, I might be mistaken, but don't those six trees include the one-to-three specialization trees?

Spec trees are supposed to be as extensive as the others. I'm not sure the six per class is with or without the specs but I think it is without.

My mistake then. Still, no Black whirlwind as class capacity makes me sad (by Black Whirlwind, I mean dual axe wielding berserker).

[ChickenDownUnder]

Only a fool in the game industry wouldn't pay attention to what is and isn't a selling point/popular in other games. Yet, with that said I don't see the success or failure of New Vegas having any real effect of what Dragon Age II will be like. Even if certain Bioware employees really liked and wanted to incorporate certain aspects of New Vegas into DAII, there's only a few months until the game is supposed to be released. Maybe Dragon Age III, perhaps, but certainly not II.



And it's really not all that fair to compare the two games, since they're aimed at different audiences.

[StingingVelvet]

ChickenDownUnder wrote...

And it's really not all that fair to compare the two games, since they're aimed at different audiences.

Good thing I didn't do that then.