1008 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Of course, in DAO, the empirical data wasn't sufficient to satisfy my standard of evidence, so I never thought I could rely on that pattern.

And that's how I like it.

That doesn't mean the same feature wasn't included, for anyone who wanted to use it. Claiming top is good, bottom is bad is a meta-game argument. No different than any other meta-game argument.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Of course, in DAO, the empirical data wasn't sufficient to satisfy my standard of evidence, so I never thought I could rely on that pattern.

And that's how I like it.

That doesn't mean the same feature wasn't included, for anyone who wanted to use it. Claiming top is good, bottom is bad is a meta-game argument. No different than any other meta-game argument.

Absolutely.

As I said, that's how I like it.  Even in ME I never remembered to pay attention to the positions on the wheel.  I always just read the paraphrase.

[AlanC9]

So you were ignoring one of the two ways ME characterizes dialog responses.It's hardly surprising you had trouble with the system.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

So you were ignoring one of the two ways ME characterizes dialog responses.It's hardly surprising you had trouble with the system.

When I tried to use the wheel position, I usually failed anyway because they didn't bother to define Paragon and Renegade in anything like a universally applicable way.

And regardless, the differences in the wording of the paraphrase options were usually more relevant.  If only those relevant differences had reflected relevant differences in the actual lines.

[Hollingdale]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So you were ignoring one of the two ways ME characterizes dialog responses.It's hardly surprising you had trouble with the system.

When I tried to use the wheel position, I usually failed anyway because they didn't bother to define Paragon and Renegade in anything like a universally applicable way.

And regardless, the differences in the wording of the paraphrase options were usually more relevant.  If only those relevant differences had reflected relevant differences in the actual lines.

Feigning stupidity is weak.

[Sylvius the Mad]

What does that even mean?

[PinkysPain]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Hey folks.

Thought I would slide in here to clarify this last query:

The camera is attached to your currently controlled character. It may be rotated freely.

Can I ask why? You yourself said you thought being able to detach the camera was the right thing to do.

Is it just to not ****** off the console gamers by giving the PC gamers the better game experience? We just have more control options, it's the simple truth ... intentionally not making use of that when some game modes do benefit seems a bit strange. If it's like DAO then friendly fire is the only way to make the gameplay remotely tactically interesting, nightmare will be the only mode worth playing in my opinion, but limited camera options combined with bad AI really puts a crimp on that.

I want to fight the enemy AI within the context of your map, and have a little challenge ... instead of fighting with your UI and the AI of my own characters.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 21 décembre 2010 - 09:19 .