934 réponses à ce sujet

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Well it's not realistic or "Internally Consistent" That's my problem.

If it takes me a bunch of times to stab someone with one knife, then it only takes me once to stab someone with another.... I guess my Warden should have fought the Archdemon with his kitchen knife!

Can you please make a comment on the meat of an argument instead of running around it digging holes?

[Qset]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Qset wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Qset wrote...
I also find it interesting that you regard "The Sims" as not a computer game, am I correct there? If Sims is not a game, can you please explain what it is?

The Sims most certainly is not a game. The Sims is at best an amusing time sink, at worst a complete waste of time. If you enjoy it, then for you it's an amusing time sink. If you enjoy it a lot then for you it's a very amusing time sink. Games have Point A and Point B. Goals. End points. I'm not even entirely sure that I'd call most MMOs games, except that they do seem to have goals and tentative end points, just that they never stop reappearing.

Lol, I actually don't play The Sims myself - although my children enjoy it. I think we are converging on your definition of a game, if you would enjoy it, then its a game - if you regard it as pointless, a time sink or whatever its not. Excellent, we are really making progress today

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.

You are actually doing a good job of putting words in your own mouth I think. You said the sims is not a game, see the bolded statement above,  Let's be clear here - The Sims has no goal to you - that does not mean that it does not have a goal from another persons view and hence to that otehr person it is a game by your very own definition.

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Ahh i think i misread what you meant, then. The credits and the fact game comes to some actual end is the very thing i meant by these games lacking the "end game" --  i'm more used to "end game" as it's coined/used by MMOs, where this term means "the game once your character has reached the max allowed level and you no longer gain xp". I.e. if anything it's the very opposite of end credits.

[AlanC9]

Archereon wrote...

When an RPG, a genre known for having some sort of meaningful inventory since the time of D&D, has fewer items compared to a shooter, now...That's just sad.

Again, why? "D&D did it" is not a reason for wanting RPGs to keep doing something. I've played plenty of RPGs with minimal or even no inventory. They just aren't CRPGs, but I consider this to be a problem with the historical development of CRPGs rather than a problem with the PnP games.

While Diablo is an RPG as well as a Hack and Slash, its interesting, to say the least how we associate "actiony" combat with streamlined, simplistic inventory.

What do you mean "we," kemo sabe?

[Blastback]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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

I think the problem that alot of us have with your argument is that instead of simply saying that you don't see the merits of something as a game, you've been simply dismissing them.  So instead of those of us who have diffrent opinions on the matter simply having a diffrent perspective, we are wrong.  I'm not saying that you are trying to say this, but your wording has given this impression. 

[Aermas]

fchopin wrote...

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.

I'm not judging, I just didn't think it was relevant to the discussion at hand, if it is I am sorry, & I'm about 87.228% sure of my answer

[the_one_54321]

Aermas wrote...
If it takes me a bunch of times to stab someone with one knife, then it only takes me once to stab someone with another.... I guess my Warden should have fought the Archdemon with his kitchen knife!

This doesn't have anything to do with what I've been talking about the last few pages. You're talking to the wrong person here.

[mokponobi]

We have no information of if companion armor is removable or not, we have no information on how the rune system will work, this all seems like speculation to me.



We don't even know how companion armor will change or not change, who will decide this etc, we really should wait on more information so we can throw better informed arguments at each other, which I do so enjoy reading btw.

[the_one_54321]

Blastback wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well lets just say I don't see sandboxes as games, just as play.

I think the problem that alot of us have with your argument is that instead of simply saying that you don't see the merits of something as a game, you've been simply dismissing them.  So instead of those of us who have diffrent opinions on the matter simply having a diffrent perspective, we are wrong.  I'm not saying that you are trying to say this, but your wording has given this impression.

Well as I explained earlier, I understand that this is important to some players. And I would not have taken exception to any of that in the first place if all they had said was "I don't like this and it is important to me." But what was being said was "this effects how the game is played." True, they didn't use those specific words, but the arguments were strongly of the implication that the fact that this aspect of the game is important to them means that it changes things about the construction of the game. The construction of the game has, as of yet, not been shown to be any different as a result of not changing the visuals on your companions.

Yes, it has been shown to be different because of other changes, I know. But companion clothing is not one of those.

[Piecake]

Qset wrote...

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.

My point was that Bioware would have to be pretty stupid not to let players custommize their companions stats to the same degree.  It seems like it would cost very little resources(time/money) the way they have set it up, and there is simply no reason not to do it, but every reason for doing it.  I wasnt trying to give you a definitive answer because I don't have one.  All I have is a logical guess.

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Aermas wrote...
If it takes me a bunch of times to stab someone with one knife, then it only takes me once to stab someone with another.... I guess my Warden should have fought the Archdemon with his kitchen knife!

This doesn't have anything to do with what I've been talking about the last few pages. You're talking to the wrong person here.

How can I make this simpler for you since you seem to be struggling?

GRADE A ARGU-MEAT
How can someone take 10 hits to go down & wearing lace be equal to someone taking 10 hits to go down & wearing Chain Maille?

[Qset]

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?

As others have said, as far as we know - companion outfits are fixed and Hawke should be able to fight with no outfit slots populated.

I guess is it possible that the companion outfit can be removed aka morrigans robe but it cannot be equipped as it would be character name restricted - but we do not know if this 2nd point is valid in DA2

[the_one_54321]

Qset wrote...
You are actually doing a good job of putting words in your own mouth I think. You said the sims is not a game, see the bolded statement above,  Let's be clear here - The Sims has no goal to you - that does not mean that it does not have a goal from another persons view and hence to that otehr person it is a game by your very own definition.

This is an issue of semantics. If you'd like me to alter my wording so that it's clearer for you, I can do that. The game does not give you goals to complete. It does not give you any progression. It just gives you a bunch of tools. Sandbox and all.

[fchopin]

mokponobi wrote...

We have no information of if companion armor is removable or not, we have no information on how the rune system will work, this all seems like speculation to me.

We don't even know how companion armor will change or not change, who will decide this etc, we really should wait on more information so we can throw better informed arguments at each other, which I do so enjoy reading btw.

Thank you for the answer Mokponobi, this is exactly what i wanted to know.
There is no confirmation from a developer.

[Qset]

the_one_54321 wrote...

[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.

ah, but apparently close to 40% of players did not complete DAO - so if they never reached the mythical end game did they actually play a game?

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Qset wrote...
You are actually doing a good job of putting words in your own mouth I think. You said the sims is not a game, see the bolded statement above,  Let's be clear here - The Sims has no goal to you - that does not mean that it does not have a goal from another persons view and hence to that otehr person it is a game by your very own definition.

This is an issue of semantics. If you'd like me to alter my wording so that it's clearer for you, I can do that. The game does not give you goals to complete. It does not give you any progression. It just gives you a bunch of tools. Sandbox and all.

In the Sims (3?) You have certain goals, like rix the broken shower, when you complete enough goals a new area is unlocked. This is an example of goals & game progression. Your argument is now invalid.

[Blastback]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Blastback wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well lets just say I don't see sandboxes as games, just as play.

I think the problem that alot of us have with your argument is that instead of simply saying that you don't see the merits of something as a game, you've been simply dismissing them.  So instead of those of us who have diffrent opinions on the matter simply having a diffrent perspective, we are wrong.  I'm not saying that you are trying to say this, but your wording has given this impression.

Well as I explained earlier, I understand that this is important to some players. And I would not have taken exception to any of that in the first place if all they had said was "I don't like this and it is important to me." But what was being said was "this effects how the game is played." True, they didn't use those specific words, but the arguments were strongly of the implication that the fact that this aspect of the game is important to them means that it changes things about the construction of the game. The construction of the game has, as of yet, not been shown to be any different as a result of not changing the visuals on your companions.

Yes, it has been shown to be different because of other changes, I know. But companion clothing is not one of those.

Well, if say, I took ten minutes in Origins trying to a suit of Armor that I liked on one of my party members, based on visuals, and now I won't be doing that, then yes, there has been a change in my gameplay experiance.  Maybe not a massive one, but it does change the way I play the game.  I'm no longer selecting outfits with aesthetics in mind, just stats.  For me there was a bit of a balanceing act, that made powergaming a bit more difficult.  Yes, this hat may have the best stats, but dear lord it's to ugly to wear.  So I'll use the cool one with lesser stats.  Again, with this gone, there is a change in my gameplay experience.

[the_one_54321]

Aermas wrote...
GRADE A ARGU-MEAT
How can someone take 10 hits to go down & wearing lace be equal to someone taking 10 hits to go down & wearing Chain Maille?

You're going in circles. I'm not understanding you because your argument doesn't have any internal consistency itself.
And what you mentioned above is also something that I never was talking about to begin with either. You're still bugging the wrong guy. I don't care if the armor is realistic or not. I never mentioned the armor making sense in this conversation. And I never disagreed with anyone who said the armor doesn't make sense as armor.

The most it came up was with folks who tried to justify their dislike of the static NPC armor by saying that it wouldn't offer any protection. To which I'd say, as I said to them, there was plenty of armor in DA:O that made just as little sense. As there has been in countless other games. There is no realism.

If you want to talk about the internal consistency of that between different characters, well take that up with the writers and screen play people on the dev team. I really don't care that much about it and it's not what I was having a conversation about.

[the_one_54321]

Blastback wrote...
Well, if say, I took ten minutes in Origins trying to a suit of Armor that I liked on one of my party members, based on visuals, and now I won't be doing that, then yes, there has been a change in my gameplay experiance.  Maybe not a massive one, but it does change the way I play the game.  I'm no longer selecting outfits with aesthetics in mind, just stats.  For me there was a bit of a balanceing act, that made powergaming a bit more difficult.  Yes, this hat may have the best stats, but dear lord it's to ugly to wear.  So I'll use the cool one with lesser stats.  Again, with this gone, there is a change in my gameplay experience.

Well sure, it's important to you. And for others. As I have already acknowledged a whole bunch of times. The fact that it effects your experience does not mean it effects how you get from Point A to Point B. You're the one that is effecting this.

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Aermas wrote...
GRADE A ARGU-MEAT
How can someone take 10 hits to go down & wearing lace be equal to someone taking 10 hits to go down & wearing Chain Maille?

You're going in circles. I'm not understanding you because your argument doesn't have any internal consistency itself.
And what you mentioned above is also something that I never was talking about to begin with either. You're still bugging the wrong guy. I don't care if the armor is realistic or not. I never mentioned the armor making sense in this conversation. And I never disagreed with anyone who said the armor doesn't make sense as armor.

The most it came up was with folks who tried to justify their dislike of the static NPC armor by saying that it wouldn't offer any protection. To which I'd say, as I said to them, there was plenty of armor in DA:O that made just as little sense. As there has been in countless other games. There is no realism.

If you want to talk about the internal consistency of that between different characters, well take that up with the writers and screen play people on the dev team. I really don't care that much about it and it's not what I was having a conversation about.

Then what are you doing in this thread?

[the_one_54321]

Aermas wrote...
In the Sims (3?) You have certain goals, like rix the broken shower, when you complete enough goals a new area is unlocked. This is an example of goals & game progression. Your argument is now invalid.

You are nuts. Because one game that I didn't play and wasn't talking about has goals, suddenly what I said about a different game that I did play is invalid? 

[Ryzaki]

I can't give over the stupidity of suggesting that someone playing The Sims isn't playing a game.

[the_one_54321]

Aermas wrote...
Then what are you doing in this thread?

What is wrong with you, dude? Have you not been reading any of the conversation that has been going on for the last few pages?

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Blastback wrote...
Well, if say, I took ten minutes in Origins trying to a suit of Armor that I liked on one of my party members, based on visuals, and now I won't be doing that, then yes, there has been a change in my gameplay experiance.  Maybe not a massive one, but it does change the way I play the game.  I'm no longer selecting outfits with aesthetics in mind, just stats.  For me there was a bit of a balanceing act, that made powergaming a bit more difficult.  Yes, this hat may have the best stats, but dear lord it's to ugly to wear.  So I'll use the cool one with lesser stats.  Again, with this gone, there is a change in my gameplay experience.

Well sure, it's important to you. And for others. As I have already acknowledged a whole bunch of times. The fact that it effects your experience does not mean it effects how you get from Point A to Point B. You're the one that is effecting this.

There is a thing called "substance", theres a whole philosophy about life being a journey & not a destination & stuff about it.

Modifié par Aermas, 30 novembre 2010 - 09:48 .

[the_one_54321]

Ryzaki wrote...
I can't give over the stupidity of suggesting that someone playing The Sims isn't playing a game.

You're playing house and dressup. If you want to call that playing a game, go for it. I won't stop you.