934 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Addai67 wrote...
Dude, all video games are "an amusing time sink."  We're not finding the cure to cancer here.

I guess I should have just not mentioned the time sink part, since it seems everyone who read that post is completely ignoring the part that actualy mattered...

[Blastback]

Look, altering how your companions look is a choice. Not a massive, world changing "Choice" like Bioware likes to focus on, but it is a choice that players make. And to some of us, it's pretty important. I would spend around 10 minutes some times, trying to get Alistair and Sten to look the way I wanted them to. I focused on that as much as how the armor would affect their performance. That is as much part of my gameplay experiance as hacking the Archdemon and chosing the next monarch.

[the_one_54321]

Aermas wrote...
I like the way you ignore the meat of the argument.

This is the first time you've mentioned internal consistency. How about you get your argument straight and then explain it to me in detail before I respond again.

[ErichHartmann]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You're putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate that. <_<
What you said above is not what I said at all. I listed some specific objective criteria and proceded to call The Sims a time sink.
Games have progression. Goals. Some kind of end game. The Sims have the first two in only the most transient of senses and completely lack the last. MMOs, since I mentioned those as well, have the first two and the last in only the most transient of senses.

Just hush before your hole reaches China.  Its obvious you have never played The Sims. 

[the_one_54321]

I've played the original The Sims. You play house for hours on end. Fun for some, sure. But no, there are not any serious goals or progression. And there sure as heck is no end game.

[Aermas]

AlanC9 wrote...

Aermas wrote...
Origins gave us options for who we are, I can no longer be Edgar Shortbeard, Dwarven Champion of Kirkwall, I am Eldrith Hawke, human Champion of Kirkwall.

"Can no longer be"? You mean there was a version of DA2 where you could play a dwarf once? Where did you get it?

It's a poor example, but when you compare that you could be the Elven/Human/Dwarven Warden, savior of Denerim to the Human-Only Champion, it's a loss of choice.

[Qset]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Qset wrote...
If DA2 ends up with less stat customisation compared to DAO then the change does in fact reduce choice by your own definition forgetting about your "dress up" argument.

That would be entirely true. But the devs have claimed that we have the same control over stats and equipment. It came up back when the last podcast was aired. I can't quote the podcast unfortunately, but it was discussed at length in other threads. We're talking thousands of posts here, so forgive me if I'm not willing to go look up the specific ones.

No problem, I have listened to all podcasts and read the forums alot and gone through peter thomas's excellent Q&A thread three times. At no point has a dev said that there will be the same level of stat customisation that was possible in DAO with companions. They have said that there will be stat customisation via rune mechanics, outfit upgrades over time and by other gears such as rings and belts.  I think you can see those are two different positions.
Now I am hopeful that there will be the same level of equivalent stat customisation available in DA2 compared to DAO - I am just waiting for it to be confirmed.

I was also hopeful that dual wielding warriors and bow and crossbow wielding warriors would be possible and that the pc and companions could have a secondary weapon equiped - however these have since been confirmed not to be available....

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Aermas wrote...
I like the way you ignore the meat of the argument.

This is the first time you've mentioned internal consistency. How about you get your argument straight and then explain it to me in detail before I respond again.

I already did, just read "realism" as "Internal Consistency". An example; How can the murder dagger kill in one blow, yet if I was to attack Isabela she would not die in one hit?

[Stazro]

the_one_54321 wrote...
What you're talking about is the suspension of disbelief. And that is a quality that is personal, subjective and not to be applied as something that actually effects a game outside your own personal experience.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about consistency inside the game world, which is not subjective.

[the_one_54321]

Oh, well yeah they've cut down a lot of what you can do in combat. That in the name of trying to distinguish the classes from each other. I think that may end up being a good thing. Playing a rogue in DA:O felt little different than playing a warrior except you could pick locks. For example, anyway.

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I've played the original The Sims. You play house for hours on end. Fun for some, sure. But no, there are not any serious goals or progression. And there sure as heck is no end game.

Just because it's weak doesn't mean it's not there.

[the_one_54321]

Stazro wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
What you're talking about is the suspension of disbelief. And that is a quality that is personal, subjective and not to be applied as something that actually effects a game outside your own personal experience.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about consistency inside the game world, which is not subjective.

Consistency is not the same as realism. Things can be consistently unrealistic, as they are in most (heck, nearly all) games.

[the_one_54321]

Aermas wrote...
I already did, just read "realism" as "Internal Consistency". An example; How can the murder dagger kill in one blow, yet if I was to attack Isabela she would not die in one hit?

Those are not the same thing. If that's what you meant, then all I can reply with is that your argument doesn't make any sense.

[Archereon]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Oh, well yeah they've cut down a lot of what you can do in combat. That in the name of trying to distinguish the classes from each other. I think that may end up being a good thing. Playing a rogue in DA:O felt little different than playing a warrior except you could pick locks. For example, anyway.

Unless I get my warrior mage, I'm gonna be pissed.  Now I'm not allowed to play my favorite type of class: Mage-Knights.  I'm gonna be stuck playing a squishy little p***y (Ogrhen: hehe...) in a dress hiding behind the REAL men (and women) in foot thick armor on the front lines with my pea shooter staff, rather than some badass arcane warrior who's practically invulnerable even without armor, and can set people on fire from a hundred meters away.


While you may have your qualms about the game, I think Death Knights, in concept, are very good proof that giving a mage a sword and armor doesn't make him "an OP spell using warrior."  Though they have consistently been a very OP class, DKs operate on a fundamentally different playing style than ordinary warriors, and tank in a way that is, if not groundbreaking, rather fresh compared to the generic "get big shield, go bash guy with little sword."

Modifié par Archereon, 30 novembre 2010 - 09:22 .

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Oh, well yeah they've cut down a lot of what you can do in combat. That in the name of trying to distinguish the classes from each other. I think that may end up being a good thing. Playing a rogue in DA:O felt little different than playing a warrior except you could pick locks. For example, anyway.

If you've ever been in a sword fight, the only difference between the combatants are style, & experience ( & the people themselves of couse). It doesn't matter if you can pick a lock or know the square root of pi to the hundredth mark

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Games have progression. Goals. Some kind of end game. The Sims have the first two in only the most transient of senses and completely lack the last. MMOs, since I mentioned those as well, have the first two and the last in only the most transient of senses.

The goals (and associated progression) in the Sims is left for the player to decide, this is the nature of sandbox games.

The "end game" is concept very much limited to MMOs, most typical games don't have anything like that . There's no "end game" to most if not all BioWare games, for example.

[fchopin]

fchopin wrote...

To many posts to read so i would like to ask can we fight naked in DA2 or will we be forced to wear something?

Does anyone know the answer to my question above?

[Ryzaki]

Hawke might be able to fight naked but everyone else has clothes on.

[Aermas]

fchopin wrote...

fchopin wrote...

To many posts to read so i would like to ask can we fight naked in DA2 or will we be forced to wear something?

Does anyone know the answer to my question above?

Despite what I named the thread this isn't the place, but yes Hawke should e able to run around sans armor

[tmp7704]

Well, the companions armours are likely removable as well, since you can get new ones over the course of the game.

[Qset]

Piecake wrote...

Qset wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
But when you say that "it doesn't affect the way the game is played," that is not true in terms of player experience.  Choices are being taken away, in the name of streamlining or story necessity or whatever.  A lot of choices, it seems to me, but that is because I spent 10 seconds thinking about what rune to slap on a companion's weapon, and a great deal of time choosing which armors and weapon classes to give them.

That's true, but the only "choice" I've talked about so far was the way your companions will appear. Because that's the only "inventory" related choice that has been taken away.
And the important thing about that is that this "loss of choice" does not effect how you get from Point A to Point B in the game. All the mechanics remain as they would have, effecting the outcomes of situations int the game as they would have, except that the NPCs don't change in appearance.

That has yet to be proven. We have been told that we can customise stats on the static outfits with rune type mechanics and we have been told that the outfits will get stat upgrades during the 10 year period. However, we do noy yet know if all of this will allow the same level of stat customisation that was available for companions in DAO. If it does - then fine, it is purely a cosmetic change that some folks put greater or less value on. Lets also remember here that Bioware must put high value on this cosmetic look since they are the one's driving this change.
 If DA2 ends up with less stat customisation compared to DAO then the change does in fact reduce choice by your own definition forgetting about your "dress up" argument.

Its a simple question for the dev team to answer, does this change reduce stat customisation of companions compared to DAO, a yes or no would suffice. Its the lack of this answer that is fuelling a lot of this discussion.

I'd imagine that the stat upgrades/customization would have to be significant.  I mean, Hawke is presumably getting new armor, new boots, new chest, new gloves, new whatever while your companions dont.  They have to make up for that stat loss somewhere.  Rune/other type mechanics seem to be an easy and efficient solution to that problem.  Why wouldnt they make it significant?  There is no downside to it, and if they dont make it signficant itll just enrage a portion of their fanbase.

The change fixed outfits also has other benefits such as varied body types and unique character animations, which go beyond simple aestetics.  I think those are pretty significant as well.

Of course the stat upgrades/customization at the outfit level would have to be significant to match the level of customisation available in DAO. No one is disputing that  If it wasn't they would not achieve parity would they.
The question is have they? They have told us customisation is possible but have not told us if its equivalent to DAO, 50% or 10%. There is a downside to doing it - it costs development resources.

Sure it allows varied body types and uniue character animations - you could acheive it with multiple outfits though - you know what it costs development resources. After all are you saying that this choice prevents outfit DLC since you can only have unique moves and unique body sizes if the characters are restricted to a single outfit? Please explain to me how it works with Hawke then.

Dev resource costs is an argument I understand working in software development myself so I have no issues with the choices they have made, I understand why and can see the benefits with cinematics, character animation, itemization and marketing.

My question is can I customise my companion stats to the same degree with this method in DA2 that I could in DAO? I don't yet have an answer.

[the_one_54321]

Aermas wrote...
If you've ever been in a sword fight, the only difference between the combatants are style, & experience ( &
the people themselves of couse). It doesn't matter if you can pick a lock or know the square root of pi to the hundredth mark

And what about DA:O combat was ever that realistic?

tmp7704 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Games have progression. Goals. Some kind of end game. The Sims have the first two in only the most transient of senses and completely lack the last. MMOs, since I mentioned those as well, have the first two and the last in only the most transient of senses.

The goals (and associated progression) in the Sims is left for the player to decide, this is the nature of sandbox games.

The "end game" is concept very much limited to MMOs, most typical games don't have anything like that . There's no "end game" to most if not all BioWare games, for example.

Well lets just say I don't see sandboxes as games, just as play.

As for end game, haven't every single one of BioWare's games and game additions had an end game? I distinctly remember credits rolling a number of different times.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 30 novembre 2010 - 09:29 .

[Blastback]

Aermas wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Oh, well yeah they've cut down a lot of what you can do in combat. That in the name of trying to distinguish the classes from each other. I think that may end up being a good thing. Playing a rogue in DA:O felt little different than playing a warrior except you could pick locks. For example, anyway.

If you've ever been in a sword fight, the only difference between the combatants are style, & experience ( & the people themselves of couse). It doesn't matter if you can pick a lock or know the square root of pi to the hundredth mark

What I wish they had done in regards to class mechanics, is allowed Rogues and Warriors access to most of the same styles, Two Weapon, Sword and Shield, Ranged, but then given each class it's own abilities within that style.  Have the Rogue dual wielder do lots of acrobatic flips and focus on single enemy dps, while have the Warrior be more stationary and doing AoE damage.  Let a Rogue use a buckler and weapon, while Warriors carry massive shields. 

[fchopin]

Aermas wrote...

fchopin wrote...

fchopin wrote...

To many posts to read so i would like to ask can we fight naked in DA2 or will we be forced to wear something?

Does anyone know the answer to my question above?

Despite what I named the thread this isn't the place, but yes Hawke should e able to run around sans armor

The reason i asked is not for what you are thinking so don't presume the obvious please.
 
Are you sure on your answer.

[Ziggeh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Consistency is not the same as realism. Things can be consistently unrealistic, as they are in most (heck, nearly all) games.

Theres also a vast amount of inconsistency in the game. Cut scenes operating under different principles to combat is the best example. So once again, like "realism", we're back around to personal interpretations of whats acceptable.