608 réponses à ce sujet

[Marionetten]

AlanC9 wrote...

Oh... so when you said DAA fits a Cousland best, you meant your particular Cousland rather than Couslands in general?

No, I meant a Cousland in general but obviously there are exceptions.

That said, as a Cousland you have more potential motivations for joining the Wardens and fulfilling the main quest as intended. Arl Howe is a constant. As a mage there's... Jowan?

[Addai]

Marionetten wrote...

Having a set plot isn't. Having a set role is. The courier did start out the game as a courier just like how the mage warden started out as an apprentice in the tower. So far so good. What I take issue with is how BioWare railroaded my character into this predetermined role at every turn. The character I played had no interest in defending Ferelden or becoming the next Warden Commander. Imagine my shock when he suddenly was. It seems that anything which doesn't agree with BioWare's narrow definition of heroic is discarded.

With the courier I was put in charge. I could join the Legion. I could join the NCR. I could have House be my sugar daddy. I could go at it by myself. That is choice.

It didn't give you much roleplay option to express who your character was beyond a single political choice- which faction to support in a conflict.  Nothing on where you're from and why you don't already belong to one of these factions, for instance.  I would actually have preferred it if they made us choose at the beginning whether you were Legion or NCR background or a Khan or whatever, and then you get to decide whether you keep that loyalty or switch.  Similar to an origin.

No, you couldn't be a Warden who didn't care about the Blight.  That doesn't even make sense in the context of the game.  To an extent you have to work with what you're given.  I had a Dalish PC who didn't have any real reason to stay in Ferelden, certainly not involve herself in the kingship, but I decided she wanted payback for Tamlen and then she got involved with Alistair so bingo, I had my hooks.  My Queen Cousland was conscripted and very bitter towards the Wardens, but she was in Amaranthine because it was a threat to Ferelden and in order to keep a lid on the First Warden's interference.  She even got a dialogue option with Alistair to say "you know I didn't want to return to the Wardens" and he acknowledges it as though he knew it already, something that gave me more RP freedom than I had in Origins.  Anyway, it just sounds to me like you had an RP concept that simply wouldn't work.  At that point, what good is your RP concept?

[Marionetten]

Addai67 wrote...

... but I decided she wanted payback for Tamlen and then she got involved with Alistair so bingo, I had my hooks.

See, that's the thing. Your character had Tamlen as a personal hook. Your character had an actual reason to give a ****. As a mage there was Jowan and that was about it. You tell me how good of a hook that is.

I didn't go in with some elaborate RP concept as those are destined to backfire. I went in with open eyes and was disappointed when nothing managed to hook me on a personal level. I was doubly disappointed when all of those "I'm not sure I approve of this whole Warden thing" dialogue options turned to nothing in Awakening.

Modifié par Marionetten, 16 novembre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Marionetten wrote...
But a stupid character isn't an RP choice. It's something enforced by your statistics.

I don't understand how you can be saying this when you are also saying that you should be able to disregard the games plot due to imagination. 

Using the same imagination (and RPing), you can refuse to level up the characters Intelligence. You can completely play a stupid character based on how you RP it.

At what point does the game start to limit your imagination? It can't.

[Addai]

Marionetten wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

... but I decided she wanted payback for Tamlen and then she got involved with Alistair so bingo, I had my hooks.

See, that's the thing. Your character had Tamlen as a personal hook. Your character had an actual reason to give a ****. As a mage there was Jowan and that was about it. You tell me how good of a hook that is.

I didn't go in with some elaborate RP concept as those are destined to backfire. I went in with open eyes and was disappointed when nothing managed to hook me on a personal level. I was doubly disappointed when all of those "I'm not sure I approve of this whole Warden thing" dialogue options turned to nothing in Awakening.

I agree that the mage origin is more open than others (something I appreciate about it precisely because it does allow you a wide range of RP backgrounds).  It's just ironic that you should choose the openness of the mage origin as a comparison, since the Courier's background is completely wide open.  Why are you even there in New Vegas?  Why not just abscond for parts unknown after someone shoots you in the head?  You have to decide, just as with a mage PC you have to decide why your character stays with the Wardens.  Maybe because it's either be a Warden or live as an apostate?  Maybe because you have a family in Ferelden or just don't want to see it burn?  Maybe it's your chance to become the awesome destructo-mage you always knew you could be?  Or whatever.

[condiments1]

Addai67 wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Having a set plot isn't. Having a set role is.
The courier did start out the game as a courier just like how the mage
warden started out as an apprentice in the tower. So far so good. What I
take issue with is how BioWare railroaded my character into this
predetermined role at every turn. The character I played had no interest
in defending Ferelden or becoming the next Warden Commander. Imagine my
shock when he suddenly was. It seems that anything which doesn't agree
with BioWare's narrow definition of heroic is discarded.

With
the courier I was put in charge. I could join the Legion. I could join
the NCR. I could have House be my sugar daddy. I could go at it by
myself. That is choice.

It didn't give you
much roleplay option to express who your character was beyond a single
political choice- which faction to support in a conflict.  Nothing on
where you're from and why you don't already belong to one of these
factions, for instance.  I would actually have preferred it if they made
us choose at the beginning whether you were Legion or NCR background or
a Khan or whatever, and then you get to decide whether you keep that
loyalty or switch.  Similar to an origin.

No, you couldn't be a
Warden who didn't care about the Blight.  That doesn't even make sense
in the context of the game.  To an extent you have to work with what
you're given.  I had a Dalish PC who didn't have any real reason to stay
in Ferelden, certainly not involve herself in the kingship, but I
decided she wanted payback for Tamlen and then she got involved with
Alistair so bingo, I had my hooks.  My Queen Cousland was conscripted
and very bitter towards the Wardens, but she was in Amaranthine because
it was a threat to Ferelden and in order to keep a lid on the First
Warden's interference.  She even got a dialogue option with Alistair to
say "you know I didn't want to return to the Wardens" and he
acknowledges it as though he knew it already, something that gave me
more RP freedom than I had in Origins.  Anyway, it just sounds to me
like you had an RP concept that simply wouldn't work.  At that point,
what good is your RP concept?

What you're talking about
is simply "flavor" roleplaying. Where you can make a comment, or have a
particular opinion, but but there isn't much tangible consquences.

The Fallout series is all about your character being a blank slate, and being able to decide for youself who you want to live and who you don't. This includes your companions, and the various factions of the land. Like say for example, do I like the Brotherhood of Steel? Should allow them to survive in the Mojave? Should I ally them with my current faction of choice? Should I backstab my faction of choice? What options are available?

New vegas is one of those few games that gives the player a VAST amount of options in terms of approaching situations, and joining certain factions. However, you'll eventually have to decide and deal with the consquences.This game is really lightyears ahead of other modern RPGs in terms of choice and your character build effects those choices.

Modifié par condiments1, 16 novembre 2010 - 09:13 .

[Marionetten]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I don't understand how you can be saying this when you are also saying that you should be able to disregard the games plot due to imagination.

I'm not.

Addai67 wrote...

I agree that the mage origin is more open than others (something I appreciate about it precisely because it does allow you a wide range of RP backgrounds).  It's just ironic that you should choose the openness of the mage origin as a comparison, since the Courier's background is completely wide open.  Why are you even there in New Vegas?  Why not just abscond for parts unknown after someone shoots you in the head?  You have to decide, just as with a mage PC you have to decide why your character stays with the Wardens.  Maybe because it's either be a Warden or live as an apostate?  Maybe because you have a family in Ferelden or just don't want to see it burn?  Maybe it's your chance to become the awesome destructo-mage you always knew you could be?  Or whatever.

It's just as determined as the other origins. What it fails to do is to provide you with a plausible motive. The motive in Fallout: New Vegas is obvious and the hook is undeniable. You get shot in the head. Track down the man who did it. This fits an extremely wide variety of characters. Kind of like the whole torture sequence in the beginning of Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn.

Modifié par Marionetten, 16 novembre 2010 - 09:22 .

[Addai]

Marionetten wrote...

It's just as determined as the other origins. What it fails to do is to provide you with a plausible motive. The motive in Fallout: New Vegas is obvious and the hook is undeniable. You get shot in the head. Track down the man who did it. This fits an extremely wide variety of characters. Kind of like the whole torture sequence in the beginning of Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn.

Uh.. okay.  I never had any problem figuring out why my mage was doing what she was doing.  It was be conscripted or go to Aeonar/ die, then fight an existential threat to humanity rather than go on the run as an apostate.  As plausible a hook as running after the man who shot you in the head.  I suppose this is a matter of opinion, like so many things.

[Marionetten]

Addai67 wrote...

Uh.. okay.  I never had any problem figuring out why my mage was doing what she was doing.  It was be conscripted or go to Aeonar/ die, then fight an existential threat to humanity rather than go on the run as an apostate.  As plausible a hook as running after the man who shot you in the head.

I wouldn't consider do or die as much a motive as railroading. But yes, I initially went for self-preservation. I'm sure you can appreciate the irony in my concerned mage subsequently downing darkspawn bile.

Addai67 wrote...

I suppose this is a matter of opinion, like so many things.

That's a given. Which is exactly why I'd like to see a bit more flexibility in Dragon Age II.

[StingingVelvet]

sanadawarrior wrote...

It means nothing for Dragon Age 2 because these very same critics priased the streamlining of Mass Effect 2. They will probably take away the thought of "Streamlining seems to work for our story driven games but perhaps not for these open world games."

That's pretty much what Gaider said and is probably the core argument, but unfortunately we're too busy having fanboy arguments about New Vegas and open RPGs versus Bioware games to talk about it.

[Mordaedil]

In Exile wrote...

Also, arguing that ones definition of a term such as 'interactivity' is just silly. It's a word, it's an adjective with a single meaning, personal opinions on the term don't mean a thing.

It has a very clear meaning, but what satisfies that meaning is very much up for debate. Chest thump all you like.

Put another way: chair has a very specific meaning. Now think about all the things that we could debate about whether or not they'd be included as chair. Or hell, art.

Now you're just spouting nonesense that makes you look insane.

In Exile wrote...

If you honestly think DAO has more interactivity than Fallout: New Vegas, then you haven't played enough of New Vegas to have an opinion worth a damn. After 70 hours, I can stare the fact in the eye and say "yeah. This game offers more than DAO did."

Just like how NWN had a great SP campaign that didn't get reduced at all by MP? Don't trot out your opinion like it ends the debate, especially after just denounce people you think do that.

Actually I am, otherwise we're never going to get anywhere. You are wrong because you think you're entitled to be wrong and still save face over it.

NWN's SP campaign was underrated. It was not reduced by the inclusion of MP. It was not reduced at all, it did exactly what it was made to do.

Opinion doesn't make facts. Reality is staring you in the face and you chose to close your eyes and sing yourself a lullaby and imagine it is all a dream. Stop it. Now.

[maxernst]

StingingVelvet wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

It means nothing for Dragon Age 2 because these very same critics priased the streamlining of Mass Effect 2. They will probably take away the thought of "Streamlining seems to work for our story driven games but perhaps not for these open world games."

That's pretty much what Gaider said and is probably the core argument, but unfortunately we're too busy having fanboy arguments about New Vegas and open RPGs versus Bioware games to talk about it.

Personally, I think streamlining player choice is a dangerous direction for games to go because it surrenders their singular advantage over other narrative media, such as films and books.  Besides, if people really wanted streamlined games with strong narrative drives, why did the adventure game genre die?  Good adventure games had far better stories than Bioware has put together.  For that matter why have shooters over time tended to move away from the extremely linear, mission-based gameplay and added greater complexity?

[Vylan Antagonist]

I do think FO:NV's success is relevant, to answer the OP. Faced with a tight development cycle, like Obsidian invariably is, they chose to use the existing framework of Fallout 3 to tell their own story. Many of the Obsidian team worked at Black Isle during the creation of Fallout 1 & 2. A couple even sweated over Van Buren, the Fallout 3 that never was. They had a clear tie to the history of the franchise, a linkage similar to Bioware's ties to Baldur's Gate. When the opportunity to revisit that world arose, they took it.

Instead of relying on focus groups and consumer soothsaying, reading gamer entrails to determine how they should place and market their next game, they took the engine and assets available and decided to make the best story that they could with them. It surely wasn't easy. Gamebryo is a shambling beast. VATS was broken. Gunplay was terrible outside of it and damage was irrelevant when moving in pipboy bullet time. The core Fallout Warrior/Thief/Diplomat trifold dynamic was mostly absent from Bethesda's rendition. It didn't matter. They made their game anyways. They touched up Gamebryo where they could. They reworked VATS. They collapsed a couple skills and added significance to others. Most of all, they worked with the core of what they already had in order to focus their gaming 'zots' where they wanted to, on the story, on pure content.

And the beautiful thing about it? It worked out. It worked out beautifully and it sold. They made the game they wanted to make. They built it, in a regular Field of Dreams moment, and the people came.
Now contrast that with a different potential approach they could have taken. Imagine that, instead of working from what they had to generate content, that they tried to read the market and respond accordingly. Cynically, they determined that in order to move the number of units they needed to move, they needed to change their product. Screw the art style, let's 'hot rod' it and spend our zots there. Sure, it means new art assets, but yeah, let's spend the development resources on that. You know what, the big selling games don't have people moving up into combat to enact their actions. Let's mock that old slow kinda gameplay to play up how hot rodded our gameplay is now gonna get. Let's focus on capturing that whole adrenaline demographic. Let's change our approach in order to seek sales.

It *is* very different. And maybe it'll work. Some products work fine when designing by marketing's bullet points, I guess. Some. But sometimes, it's a disaster.

As a stand-alone game, I guess I can see chasing the God of War/Musou demographic. There probably IS a market for it. But there's also clearly a market for FO:NV. If they had kept their gameplay as just a slight refinement of DA:O and instead delivered massive amounts of content, it looks like that could very well have worked for them. The argument that it wouldn't have been financially viable, that their hand has been forced, doesn't look like it's really sustained by the market. And maybe there are things going on behind the scenes that I'm unaware of. Hell, I'm certain that there are. It's been alluded that the dev cycle was too long on DA:O for the return they achieved. Maybe there was a lot of pressure to craft their sequel proposal in a manner that would promise a better return down the line. It certainly seems that way.

But whatever the reasons were, it's nice to see that Choice is still valued. It's nice to see that a game that is virtually all content can succeed, and handsomely. It's nice to see that 80+ hour games are still very viable, that they CAN be done. I wonder at what DA2 could have been, had that been known (or believed, at least) a couple years ago.

And I'm not saying it won't be good. The gameplay I've seen hasn't filled me with optimism, but time will tell. I thought I'd detected an undercurrent, like the title character who heard the walls murmuring 'Money' in D.H. Lawrence's The Rocking Horse Winner, that profit had to be made and that if the game hadn't taken the form it has now, it never would have been. That was disappointing, because I very much liked the idea of envisioning what Bioware could have produced by focusing almost all of their development time on content. And while I guess I'll never get to find out, at least I now know that it wasn't inevitable. It wasn't ineluctable. It was a choice.

Modifié par Vylan Antagonist, 16 novembre 2010 - 11:17 .

[Addai]

Marionetten wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Uh.. okay.  I never had any problem figuring out why my mage was doing what she was doing.  It was be conscripted or go to Aeonar/ die, then fight an existential threat to humanity rather than go on the run as an apostate.  As plausible a hook as running after the man who shot you in the head.

I wouldn't consider do or die as much a motive as railroading. But yes, I initially went for self-preservation. I'm sure you can appreciate the irony in my concerned mage subsequently downing darkspawn bile.

I think that was true for a lot of my Wardens, that they felt pushed into it.  As I mentioned, my Cousland most of all- pushed into it in front of her dying father.  I still found it possible to roleplay a reluctant/ unhappy Warden.  No one but Alistair ever makes you say "rah rah Wardens."  Late edit:  Gah, and Wynne.  How could I forget Wynne?  Oh right, because she decorates camp.  LOL

Addai67 wrote...

I suppose this is a matter of opinion, like so many things.

That's a given. Which is exactly why I'd like to see a bit more flexibility in Dragon Age II.

I do like freedom and customization, no question.  I just like it with a good, emotionally engaging story.  Fallout 3 and DAO succeeded there for me, FNV did not.

Modifié par Addai67, 17 novembre 2010 - 01:34 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

StingingVelvet wrote...

ChickenDownUnder wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

If you only read the title and ignore everything else I could see how you could be confused.

It was more the many paragraphs describing FV and pointing out all the ways DAII might be different and how that would affect sales and so on, but I can see how you could be confused as well.

If you are going to assume things about people, then I can certainly pretend to do so too.

But please, carry on. I like you now. It makes me want to give you a doggy biscuit.

As I just wrote, the premise is simple: F:NV added depth in a time when adding depth is considered bad.  It has been met with success, generally.  What does this mean for DA2 and Bioware's future?

None of that has anything to do with comparing the gameplay of the two titles, other than talking about how the genre differences (tactical RPG versus open world RPG) make adding depth a different thing.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you (in that case: sorry), but I don't think 'adding depth' is considered a bad thing in the industry. Or are you just talking about the RPG genre?

If not, I think a game like Assassins Creed 2, for example, added a lot more depth than AC1. 

I don't think it will mean anything for BioWare. I think they will have a lot of depth in their stories. In my opinion they always do. 

[Hurrrr]

Black Isle, where are you?

[StingingVelvet]

Yellow Words wrote...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you (in that case: sorry), but I don't think 'adding depth' is considered a bad thing in the industry. Or are you just talking about the RPG genre?

If not, I think a game like Assassins Creed 2, for example, added a lot more depth than AC1. 

I don't think it will mean anything for BioWare. I think they will have a lot of depth in their stories. In my opinion they always do.

I wouldn't say AC2 added depth really, it just added more things to do.  Both Assassin's Creed games are insanely easy and simple to play.  I actually hear that the new 3rd one adds some interesting new mechanics which are deeper, and I look forward to playing with it, though PC gamers must wait until February for some reason.

I don't mean to speak in too broad of terms though, you are right that there are other examples of depth being added in recent times I'm sure.  All in all though the industry is very much in love with streamlining games recently, boiling them down to core concepts and presenting those in an easy to play manner.  Mass Effect 2, Civilization 5, GTA4, Splinter Cell 5, Rainbow Six Vegas, Call of Duty, Elder Scrolls 4, Fable 3, Divinity 2: DKS, Gothic 4, Supreme Commander 2, Thief 3, Deus Ex 2, Prince of Persia '08, ... all of those took away depth and complexity from their prequels.  That's not even mentioning all the new series that have launched in the last 5 years and how streamlined they are compared to older games.

I don't HATE it mind you, and some of those games listed above are even favorites of mine, but in general I prefer depth and complexity to easy gameplay that gets boring after a while.  You're right that Bioware have a lot of depth to their stories, but that is only one aspect of a game.  It's a cliche saying but true: if story was the only important thing then one could just watcha  movie.  I like depth in my gameplay as well, and when you remove any challenge and all the more complex mechanics, well, I feel like I am just clicking on dudes, which is not much fun.  I found Mass Effect 2, even on "insanity," to be a very simple and easy game.  At some point that ends up a lot less interesting.

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...
I
wouldn't say AC2 added depth really, it just added more things to do. 
Both Assassin's Creed games are insanely easy and simple to play.  I
actually hear that the new 3rd one adds some interesting new mechanics
which are deeper, and I look forward to playing with it, though PC
gamers must wait until February for some reason.

What? Okay, New Vegas didn't add depth - it added more things to do. This is just an outrageous argument.

Vylan Antagonist wrote...
And the beautiful thing about it? It
worked out. It worked out beautifully and it sold. They made the game
they wanted to make. They built it, in a regular Field of Dreams moment,
and the people came.

The thing is, Fallout 3 sold too. As of right now, we don't know whether or not New Vegas is more succesful than Fo3. With no empirical difference in sales, how can we attribute the success of New Vegas to the changes as opposed to the consistencies?

It *is* very different. And maybe it'll work. Some products work fine
when designing by marketing's bullet points, I guess. Some. But
sometimes, it's a disaster.

Right, or it  could work out so well it doubles sales. How can we know? Even if it works out one way or another in one case, how can we know precisely what caused it?

Mordaedil wrote...
Now you're just spouting nonesense that makes you look insane.

No, I'm calling out your BS. Just because some categorize has a definition doesn't mean it is obvious whether an instance belongs to the category. It's not hard, it just requires thinking. 

Actually I am, otherwise we're never going to get anywhere. You are wrong because you think you're entitled to be wrong and still save face over it.

No, you're wrong. You're wrong because you seemingly cannot appreciate a good SP. See? I can be patronizing and insulting too! Stop me when we get somewhere that isn't useless.

NWN's SP campaign was underrated. It was not reduced by the inclusion of MP. It was not reduced at all, it did exactly what it was made to do.

Yes, it was underrated. Some people apparently cannot appreciate just how bad it was. Seriously, are you going to make this absurd argument? Yeah, it did exactly what it was supposed to do - suck.

Opinion doesn't make facts. Reality is staring you in the face and you chose to close your eyes and sing yourself a lullaby and imagine it is all a dream. Stop it. Now.

That you cannot wrap your mind around how hypocritical and ironic you are being with would be funny if it wasn't sad.

Modifié par In Exile, 17 novembre 2010 - 03:37 .

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...
I
wouldn't say AC2 added depth really, it just added more things to do. 
Both Assassin's Creed games are insanely easy and simple to play.  I
actually hear that the new 3rd one adds some interesting new mechanics
which are deeper, and I look forward to playing with it, though PC
gamers must wait until February for some reason.

What? Okay, New Vegas didn't add depth - it added more things to do. This is just an outrageous argument.

The things New Vegas added were designed to add more roleplaying and deeper mechanics.  The things Assassin's Creed 2 added were just busy work.  That's the difference.  I'm sure you knew what I meant, you seem to almost be becoming a troll in this thread.

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...
The things New Vegas added were designed to add more roleplaying and deeper mechanics.  The things Assassin's Creed 2 added were just busy work.  That's the difference.  I'm sure you knew what I meant, you seem to almost be becoming a troll in this thread.

ACII added or improved upon several features of ACI. They expanded the usage of eagle vision, they allowed the character to swim (which increases the reactivity of the world, such as avoiding guards, something you're supposedly fond of). The combat system is more complex, since (among other things) you can disarm opponents in ACII via unarmed counterattack.

The blending mechanic was greatly revamped. You have the added ability to dive underwater, and they extended the crowds you can blend it (no more finding cowled priests). You have a day/night cycle. The missions were expanded with a lot more variety than ACI.

So, no, I don't know what you mean, other that your not-so-secret agenda against DA2.

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

ACII added or improved upon several features of ACI. They expanded the usage of eagle vision, they allowed the character to swim (which increases the reactivity of the world, such as avoiding guards, something you're supposedly fond of). The combat system is more complex, since (among other things) you can disarm opponents in ACII via unarmed counterattack.

The blending mechanic was greatly revamped. You have the added ability to dive underwater, and they extended the crowds you can blend it (no more finding cowled priests). You have a day/night cycle. The missions were expanded with a lot more variety than ACI.

None of that makes the game more complex.  Hence: they added things, but not depth and complexity.  I suppose one could argue the meaning of "depth" in a game, but I have paired that word with complexity every single time I used it.  What I mean is deeper and more complext mechanics which make the game more challenging and require more thought and strategy.  Assassin's Creed 2 was so simple a 10 year old could play it.

So, no, I don't know what you mean, other that your not-so-secret agenda against DA2.

Assume whatever agenda you want, my pre-order is in.  The simple fact of the matter is that Bioware will tell you, and have said numerous times on this very forum and in preview articles, that they are streamlining the game.  They want a larger audience and believe that removing some things and streamlining some things will lead to that.  This is common knowledge.  I'm not throwing a hissy-fit about it, I am asking if this is still a viable strategy and what reviews/consumers want after the positive response to adding complexity to Fallout 3's formula for New Vegas, and the negatice response to removing complexity from Gothic and Fable.

If you want to ignore the clear depth and complexity additions to New Vegas then fine, that's your issue.  You've made your perspective clear countless times and ignore any examples to the contrary.  As I already said once, I'm done debating the issue.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
So, no, I don't know what you mean, other that your not-so-secret agenda against DA2.

And again, instead of addressing the posed question, you choose to attack the one who posed the question.

StingingVelvet has been nothing but cordial in this very busy thread.  In the face of some rude personal attacks (treated as a dog, offered a biscuit, for example.)

Normally I don't find you so abrasive, In Exile, but for this thread how you are debating is bordering on sophistry.

The OP was clearly looking at the change, as the OP perceived it, from Fallout 3 to Fallout: New Vegas, based on their personal experience and many critical reviews.  Taking that change and wondering if the positive reactions NV received, despite "having added features and depth to the RP experience" (concept of the thread, I'm not saying it's true or not as that's not my point whether it is or no) is the opposite direction of BioWare's latest sequels where the games are simplified and features are removed (the argument, again, not me saying it's true or not as that's not the point.)

That's the thread's purpose, as created by the OP.

You, and several others, have repeatedly insinuated that the TRUE, HIDDEN purpose (conspiracy theorist, are you?) of the OP is to bash DA2.  But a consistant evaluation of the OP's posts in the thread not only see a repeated defense on their part of their premise, but also continued discussions on the OP's part about the theme.  You, and some others, continue to derail the thread into either Bethesda games vs. BioWare games nonsense, F:NV doens't have depth debates (tangently connected to the theme, sure, but I feel largely being used merely to attack the poster instead of answering the posed question), and this continued attempt to discredit the OP by repeatedly calling the OP a liar with a hidden agenda.

The off-topic agenda here fully seems to be yours, In Exile, with how frequently you are responding to everything with circular logic and nit-picking examples meant only to confuse or derail and not to discuss fairly.

I'm not the OP, and it's not my place to do this, but regardless - I'm asking you to stop.   Outside of most of your posts and the posts of a few others I think this has been a very interesting and productive thread.  If you disagree with the premise of the thread (or seriously, honestly believe that the OP continues to deny having a hidden agenda because they secretly hope they can still achieve it and win... what, getting pegged as a DA2 basher?) then stop responding in it.

[AlanC9]

Marionetten wrote...


No, I meant a Cousland in general but obviously there are exceptions.

That said, as a Cousland you have more potential motivations for joining the Wardens and fulfilling the main quest as intended. Arl Howe is a constant. As a mage there's... Jowan?

Every time you explain this point I understand you less. Arl Howe has nothing to do with being a Warden as far as the PC knows. The only reason you run into him again is because he's working for Loghain, and you only get to kill him because he's holding Anora. Neither of these are things that the character can intend when he joins the Wardens, and he doesn't even find out Howe's working for Loghain until very late in the game.

As In Exile pointed out, joining the Wardens is a step up for the Dwarf Commoner and the City Elf, and perhaps even for the Mage depending on how he feels about the Chantry. (Jowan's irrelevant, obviously). The Dwarf Noble may want access to the Grey Wardens' status and power to attempt to retake her place in dwarven society, and in any event there aren't any better options on the table, since she's an outlaw in Orzammar. The human noble doesn't need assistance from the Wardens until he finds out that Loghain's backing Howe. That's not revealed until after Eamon calls the Landsmeet.

Edit: forgot the Dalish Elf's motivation. Then again, so did Bioware.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 novembre 2010 - 07:24 .

[asaiasai]

David Gaider wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...
It's not about comparing the two games at all really, it is about adding depth versus removing it and the general feelings among fans and reviewers at the moment about it.

I just find it heartening that so many people say a game where you don't play the same character as the previous game, and also play a human only with a single origin is still capable of depth. Who'd have thunk it?

Touche Mr. Gaider, very nice if you would do me the courtsey to steady my pitard while i foist myself upon it. 

I will admit that when i heard about only Hawke being human i was also a bit disappointed, but as you have so correctly pointed out is, that the single race and origin of a character are no indication of the complexity avalable to the player. I do think that alot of the concern folks have expressed myself included is that the depth of character development (customization), specifically the PC, not be lost in the percieved streamlinning of DA2. The only person here who knows just how much streamlinning the game will have is you, understandably your not talking yet, but yes i will be disappointed if you can not some how manage to provide an experience that is at least as deep as DOA was. I guess i was concerned that i will not have a reason to play 22 different characters like i did in DAO because limits of story a single race places on the experience. It is simple math really, 6 distinct origins that can be played as male and female which can be 12 different plays, not counting the different decisions which king to support, Conner lives etc... it becomes a massive shell game where in the end a player like me winds up with 22 completes and a half a dozen or so in various states of completion. 

I had FONV pre-ordered, i paid for release day delivery from Amazon and i am currently designing character number 4. I have the next 4 characters laid out on an excel spread sheet, my shooters, sneakers, talkers, melee, unarmed, science geeks, just to name a few. Now take those 6 different builds, combine them with the 4 major story arcs and it is possible to have 24 distinctly different characters as each faction has thier own reward system which will shape the character (in melee for example there are Ranger and Legion unarmed techniques). i have not even mentioned what a different sex for the PC will add. It is here precisely where ME2 failed and DAO ruled, and for me at least is the major concern considering the chatter about DA2.

What the success of FONV can mean is that you as a developer and we as an audience can see that even with some limitations on the character's race or origin does not mean a limited immersive experience. It is possible to place limits on PC story yet still provide an experience that a player will want to return to because there is room to do something different with each trip to the game world.  Whether that difference is male vs female, good vs evil, mage vs rogue vs warrior, it is quite simply, what compells the player to return. It is like a trip to Disney World, it is physically impossible to see everything in a day, game design i belive should incorporate that into the design. Anora is queen, Allistair is king, Anora and Allistair get married, Allistair and the PC get married, Anora and the PC get married, while in the over all scheme of things it is this drive for some of us hardcore folks to experience each one of those story arcs that compells us to return. What i think you need to take from the success of FONV is that we the hard core fans are not as few a number as originally believed.

Asai

[Addai]

AlanC9 wrote...

Edit: forgot the Dalish Elf's motivation. Then again, so did Bioware.

You have the most motivation of anyone to actually take the Joining.  As for fighting the Blight, duty to your clan is a big one.  Your keeper charged you with the task.  I mentioned that with my PC I felt a personal motivation was wanting to get payback for Tamlen.

I always thought my Dalish chicks made the best Wardens.  Born fighters and they understand duty and sacrifice.  They come to see the Wardens as their new clan.

Anyway, motivation is there for all the origins.  The world not ending, if nothing else?