934 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Aermas wrote...
There is a thing called "substance"

Please stop arbitrarily changing directions. Seriously.

[Ryzaki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Are you special? 

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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? 

I was proving that the Sims Games have goals, you said they didn't, you're wrong I'm right. Simple. Why are you arguing against games you have no knowledge about?

[the_one_54321]

Ryzaki wrote...
Are you special?

Are you? Do you feel that resorting to insults makes you right? 

[Blastback]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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 started this thread based on the internal consistancy argument.  So, it makes since for him/her to view the current discussion as off topic.

Aermas, the_one_54321 was having this discussion in another thread which Gaider closed and directed here because both topics were related to the clothing/armor issue.

Can we all stop yelling at each other now?

[Ryzaki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Are you special?

Are you? Do you feel that resorting to insults makes you right? 

I at least am aware that there are more than one type of video game.

And it wasn't an insult. Just a question.

You're trying to say that a video game isn't a game because it doesn't match what criteria you think it should have. Not what criteria actually makes a game.

And if not a game what pray tell exactly is The Sims? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 30 novembre 2010 - 09:53 .

[the_one_54321]

Aermas wrote...
I was proving that the Sims Games have goals, you said they didn't, you're wrong I'm right. Simple. Why are you arguing against games you have no knowledge about?

I mentioned one, count 'em, one game. The Sims. Later I also brought up MMOs. That's it.

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Aermas wrote...
There is a thing called "substance"

Please stop arbitrarily changing directions. Seriously.

Stop running in circles, This is a thread about having real armor in DA2, not about the Sims.

[Qset]

Piecake wrote...

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.

Piecake, no problem mate  I think we are saying the same thing. I agree with you I can see no reason why they would not increase the number and type of runes or some other similar mechanic to allow the same level of customisation as was possible in DAO. I am coming at this from the same logical guesswork position you are.

However, I also know that I don't design games and so its conceivable that there will not be the same level of customisation because of a reason(s) that Bioware has(have) that I am not aware of. It might also be entirely possible that it is not appropiate in the gameplay mechanics that DA2 has been designed with to have the same level of customisation. You are right, it is all guesswork on our part at this moment. I guess its fun to speculate in the absense of definitive dev guidance and detailed gameplay podcasts/videos.

[the_one_54321]

Ryzaki wrote...
And it wasn't an insult. Just a question.

Oh [cowpatties].
First you step in with a post that says nothing except "what you are saying is stupid." And you post saying "are you special?" But this isn't an insult. Oh on. Of course not.

[fchopin]

Ryzaki wrote...

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

I agree with you, there are many rpg elements in the sims and it could develop in to an advanced game in future sims games.

[Drasanil]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

And you seem intent on pushing buttons and number crunching... call it a "game" if you will, but I just call it math class

[Ryzaki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
And it wasn't an insult. Just a question.

Oh [cowpatties].
First you step in with a post that says nothing except "what you are saying is stupid." And you post saying "are you special?" But this isn't an insult. Oh on. Of course not.

Saying an arguement is stupid is calling someone stupid now? 

And I was asking becauseit seems to me that you don't understand what a video game is.

[Qset]

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.

yes agreed, its a sandbx game where the player defines the goals

[the_one_54321]

Ryzaki wrote...
You're trying to say that a video game isn't a game because it doesn't match what criteria you think it should have. Not what criteria actually makes a game.

I was asked to list what I thought made a game a game. So I did.

[Archereon]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

Many of the doomsayers who are saying that "simplified inventory"=hack and slash, hack and slash= casual newb game.

Now, Diablo on normal isn't particularly difficult, at all, but its not casual light sandbox game I assure you.

Modifié par Archereon, 30 novembre 2010 - 09:55 .

[Aermas]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Aermas wrote...
I was proving that the Sims Games have goals, you said they didn't, you're wrong I'm right. Simple. Why are you arguing against games you have no knowledge about?

I mentioned one, count 'em, one game. The Sims. Later I also brought up MMOs. That's it.

Well I'm telling you the Sims (franchise) has become more, so stop arguing!

Definition of GAME: A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool.

Nothing in there about goals

[Piecake]

Qset wrote...

Piecake wrote...

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.

Piecake, no problem mate  I think we are saying the same thing. I agree with you I can see no reason why they would not increase the number and type of runes or some other similar mechanic to allow the same level of customisation as was possible in DAO. I am coming at this from the same logical guesswork position you are.

However, I also know that I don't design games and so its conceivable that there will not be the same level of customisation because of a reason(s) that Bioware has(have) that I am not aware of. It might also be entirely possible that it is not appropiate in the gameplay mechanics that DA2 has been designed with to have the same level of customisation. You are right, it is all guesswork on our part at this moment. I guess its fun to speculate in the absense of definitive dev guidance and detailed gameplay podcasts/videos.

Oh, I didnt mean to sound like I was irritated or short there.  Just wanted to clarify my point.

This thread needs more hugs

*hugs*

[Blastback]

*Headdesk*

[Ryzaki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
You're trying to say that a video game isn't a game because it doesn't match what criteria you think it should have. Not what criteria actually makes a game.

I was asked to list what I thought made a game a game. So I did.

Then why are you saying that The Sims isn't a game? You should say you don't see it as a game.

And even that is baffling. What exactly makes it not a game according to your criteria? The Sims has goals.

Also playing house and dress up is playing a game. Or do those children that do such aren't playing games? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 30 novembre 2010 - 10:00 .

[Aermas]

Shorten your quotes  please, I don't want this thread locked.

Modifié par Aermas, 30 novembre 2010 - 09:58 .

[AlanC9]

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 is an argument against the entire concept of hit points. Didn't you say something a couple of pages back about picking your battles?

[the_one_54321]

Ryzaki wrote...
And I was asking becauseit seems to me that you don't understand what a video game is.

Your condescension is going to get you on my ignore list in a real hurry.

Acting like you have some higher level of understanding doesn't make you right. Having a gang of people around you that agree with you does not make you right. Resorting to semantic definition does not make you right. Resorting to insulting language does not make you right.

As things stand, it's not that hard of a concept that seems to be completely flying past a number of people reading the posts.



Companions clothing:
Does not effect companion statistics or performance.
Does not effect choices that effect the progression of the game.

Gameplay:
Mechanics/actions/options which progress the game through it's paces/goals/plot points/way points and eventually get you to the end of the game.

Simple. Some folks earlier implied that "Compnaions clothing" had an effect on "Gameplay" which it concretely does not.

[Qset]

fchopin wrote...

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.

fchopin

there has been some confirmation that the bolded mechanics do exist - but as mokponobi rightly points out we have no details on mechanics.

here is a Q&A thread by Peter Thomas (Bioware dev)that does provide some good insights on some of the mechanics
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/4715441/14&lf=8

its long, but well worth an hour to plough through it.

Other information that was confirmed by Mike Laidlaw and David Gaider/Luke  was that:
1. companion outfits can change appearance over time - trigger event and extent visually and stats wise was not defined
2. Aveline will get a change in outfit from her current starter gear to armor  - extent visually and stats wise was not defined

other folks might have seen otehr dev posts I possibly missed.

[Ryzaki]

And you're not being consdensing with your house and dressup spiel? Honestly One?

The Sims is a video game whether you like it or not. That's not a hard concept to grasp. I don't need insults, condensing or constantly repeating something that's not true on my side. It's a video game. Just like Tetris, Random Computer Barbie game X and Dragon Age Origins. They come in all size and shapes, with all matter of things. They're all video games.

Also: Ooooh your ignore list. I'm so scared and hurt!

Modifié par Ryzaki, 30 novembre 2010 - 10:05 .