206 réponses à ce sujet

[nightcobra]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...


The way I see it, either he doesn't know what he's talking about or there was miscommunication in the podcast.

or both.

[Rawgrim]

MerinTB wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Just because we cant custumize our companions, doesnt mean the game itself will suck. Planescape Torment anyone?

Yeah, what about it?

I didn't like it.  Not everyone falls on their knees in worship to this one game (as much as I may often fall on my knees to praise Black Isle Studios on most occasions.)

I've tried multiple times over the years to enjoy this game, because it's Black Isle, it's D&D, and so many people claim it is awesome.  I cannot get into it.

Being a predetermined character in an RPG is a huge part of it, largely being a party of one or a party of one plus a floating annoying head for a good chunk of the beginning didn't help, either.  The pacing... you know what, I'll just leave it at there was really nothing in that game that kept me interested.

I wonder if PS:T is becoming something of a Casablanca or Citizen Kane - one of those items that gets trotted out as "great" even if the person mentioning it hasn't experienced said items.

Anywho, claiming a feature is good because it was in PS:T has the opposite effect on me than you intended.  Not customizing my companions doesn't mean a game will suck - but it does lower my enjoyment quite a bit.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not claiming the feature is good, because it was in Planescape. I am saying its not a huge issue, because the feature has been in other games before, and those games ended up being good anyway.

On a side-note, I have to agree with you on your opinions about Planescape actually. I had trouble getting into it as well. For the most part I wasn`t sure what the heck was going on in the game.

[Neesee]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
Who the heck is Randall Bishop?

Apparently he is a Product Manager who was not educated well enough in his product.
Hold on. We have two threads referencing this interview?! Eff this. Have a picture of cake.

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
"I want more games to be like Baldurs Gate" would be an agenda. Would it not? It's hard to think of a consistent poster on these boards who doesn't have one.  Including myself. 

If you mean that everyone has a motivation for posting what they post, then yes, we all have an agenda.

I took what David said to mean that the person he was responding to was saying one thing, representing their argument as that one thing, but secretly meaning another and trying to be all tricky about it by somehow trying to trick people into coming to the secret meaning "seemingly all on their own" or some such.

That was confusing.  I meant it read like David was claiming disingenous intentions on the part of the poster he was responding to.  AND it read as snippy and personal.

Agenda is a charged word for many people, I believe, and it often is used (or interpreted as) implying some kind of deviousness or chicanery.  It's often used as a negative.

...

In the end, it felt like it was just simply being dismissive.  "Oh, you were the one who likes X not Y, so your opinions on Y are invalid" kind of silliness.

Especially the "smelling one" part - smell as in a stink?  Wouldn't the mere fact that anyone posts anything show they have an "agenda" if all that means is "a reason for doing something"?  What's clever about detecting that there's a reason behind an action?

---

For the record, I would be ecstatic if there was never, ever again another game like Baldur's Gate.  So little in that game is what I want from a cRPG that I won't miss any clones.
(and before anyone gets cute - I also don't need any BG2 clones, either.  2E is best left dead, and I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who reads alot of what I post that I'd rather create my party than have to forge it out of premade characters.  Yes, character creation (and owning those characters as my designs) is far more important to me than any story benefit given by predesigned party members.)

So needing another BG isn't my "agenda" - and it may be the "motivation" of others but I don't think many people are hiding it.

[MerinTB]

Rawgrim wrote...
I think you misunderstand me. I am not claiming the feature is good, because it was in Planescape. I am saying its not a huge issue, because the feature has been in other games before, and those games ended up being good anyway.

Fair enough.  It just gets me the worship of that game - probably because I can't share in it and desperately wish I could, most likely.

Games have had many things and still been good, this is true.  But paraphrases what I responded - I often like games despite their mechanics... I almost never learn to like mechanics because I loved a game.

On a side-note, I have to agree with you on your opinions about Planescape actually. I had trouble getting into it as well. For the most part I wasn`t sure what the heck was going on in the game.

Part of me intends to try AGAIN, but then a more rational part of me says "3 tries is enough - play a game you know you enjoy instead!"

[AtreiyaN7]

Neesee wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
Who the heck is Randall Bishop?

Apparently he is a Product Manager who was not educated well enough in his product.
Hold on. We have two threads referencing this interview?! Eff this. Have a picture of cake.

*runs off with a slice of cake*

Three cheers for cake!

[StingingVelvet]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

"I want more games to be like Baldurs Gate" would be an agenda. Would it not? It's hard to think of a consistent poster on these boards who doesn't have one.  Including myself. 

If that's an agenda I'm all over it.

[upsettingshorts]

Then explain what about the features it had you like do for your enjoyment of the game, preferably without dismissing the existence of those who would disagree - even if you can't understand or comprehend their perspective. Thus the wrath of Gaider will be avoided.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Rawgrim wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Just because we cant custumize our companions, doesnt mean the game itself will suck. Planescape Torment anyone?

Yeah, what about it?

I didn't like it.  Not everyone falls on their knees in worship to this one game (as much as I may often fall on my knees to praise Black Isle Studios on most occasions.)

I've tried multiple times over the years to enjoy this game, because it's Black Isle, it's D&D, and so many people claim it is awesome.  I cannot get into it.

Being a predetermined character in an RPG is a huge part of it, largely being a party of one or a party of one plus a floating annoying head for a good chunk of the beginning didn't help, either.  The pacing... you know what, I'll just leave it at there was really nothing in that game that kept me interested.

I wonder if PS:T is becoming something of a Casablanca or Citizen Kane - one of those items that gets trotted out as "great" even if the person mentioning it hasn't experienced said items.

Anywho, claiming a feature is good because it was in PS:T has the opposite effect on me than you intended.  Not customizing my companions doesn't mean a game will suck - but it does lower my enjoyment quite a bit.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not claiming the feature is good, because it was in Planescape. I am saying its not a huge issue, because the feature has been in other games before, and those games ended up being good anyway.

On a side-note, I have to agree with you on your opinions about Planescape actually. I had trouble getting into it as well. For the most part I wasn`t sure what the heck was going on in the game.

I am sorry but that is ****ing stupid, if you diddnt even like Planescape Torment then how can you say that the lack of customization options isnt a bother because it was in Planescape Torment and the game was considered good even though you dont like it? Perhaps it was the lack of customization and weapon and armour choices for your companions that turned you off the game? Now I actually really enjoyed Planescape Torment but even I have to admit that the combat and equipment selection for companions (and even the Nameless One) really sucked, luckily the story was good enough for me to overlook the shoddy combat and equipment options but I really dont think it is a good idea to neglect gameplay and hope to draw people in based on story alone.

[StingingVelvet]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Then explain what about the features it had you like do for your enjoyment of the game, preferably without dismissing the existence of those who would disagree - even if you can't understand or comprehend their perspective. Thus the wrath of Gaider will be avoided.

Anything on the internet can be taken in an offensive way, really.  I just took this post of yours as an annoying lecture where you come off as talking down to me.  Did you mean it that way?  Probably not.  Did I mean to dismiss any opinion other than mine earlier in this thread?  Nope.  The internet is a **** because people write like they talk but with no inflection, no expression and no history of conversation to reference.

So, let me say it as clearly as I can:

Removing the ability of the player to outfit his entire party makes the game feel more limited and simplified.  Even if some level of customization is maintained in stats, appearence of followers has always been something CRPG gamers enjoyed messing around with.  While the ability of customizing companion gear adds a lot to gameplay for many people I can't personally see what it takes away from anyone and thus why it would be removed.  Either it is to simplify the game, removing another choice the player has to make, or removing freedom for the sake of a more controlled art style, I disagree with it either way.  In an RPG player freedom and customization should always come first.

How is that?

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 30 novembre 2010 - 09:27 .

[MadLaughter]

Yeah, I have to agree with Stinging Velvet. Agenda doesn't play any role in this. Even knowing that there were reasons for making the change away from full companion customization, this guy is just saying he doesn't like it. I think DG is using 'agenda' much differently than Velvet or I would use it.

[upsettingshorts]

Perfectly fine, and no I didn't mean it that way - it was more of an attempt to explain the whole dustup over an "agenda."

What you posted makes sense, but since it goes into detail regarding your opinion, it allows those who disagree with it to respond amicably, as opposed to with annoyance, frustration, or anger.

For example I could have responded to your initial post earlier in the thread with a dismissive, "Oh yeah? Says you." But in elaborating, if I'm going to respond, if I'm not being a jerk - and there's no reason to be when it's worded in that way - I could challenge for example what is important to me about RPGs, and why that means we might disagree over some feature.

Granted, that could be just me.

[Rawgrim]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Just because we cant custumize our companions, doesnt mean the game itself will suck. Planescape Torment anyone?

Yeah, what about it?

I didn't like it.  Not everyone falls on their knees in worship to this one game (as much as I may often fall on my knees to praise Black Isle Studios on most occasions.)

I've tried multiple times over the years to enjoy this game, because it's Black Isle, it's D&D, and so many people claim it is awesome.  I cannot get into it.

Being a predetermined character in an RPG is a huge part of it, largely being a party of one or a party of one plus a floating annoying head for a good chunk of the beginning didn't help, either.  The pacing... you know what, I'll just leave it at there was really nothing in that game that kept me interested.

I wonder if PS:T is becoming something of a Casablanca or Citizen Kane - one of those items that gets trotted out as "great" even if the person mentioning it hasn't experienced said items.

Anywho, claiming a feature is good because it was in PS:T has the opposite effect on me than you intended.  Not customizing my companions doesn't mean a game will suck - but it does lower my enjoyment quite a bit.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not claiming the feature is good, because it was in Planescape. I am saying its not a huge issue, because the feature has been in other games before, and those games ended up being good anyway.

On a side-note, I have to agree with you on your opinions about Planescape actually. I had trouble getting into it as well. For the most part I wasn`t sure what the heck was going on in the game.

I am sorry but that is ****ing stupid, if you diddnt even like Planescape Torment then how can you say that the lack of customization options isnt a bother because it was in Planescape Torment and the game was considered good even though you dont like it? Perhaps it was the lack of customization and weapon and armour choices for your companions that turned you off the game? Now I actually really enjoyed Planescape Torment but even I have to admit that the combat and equipment selection for companions (and even the Nameless One) really sucked, luckily the story was good enough for me to overlook the shoddy combat and equipment options but I really dont think it is a good idea to neglect gameplay and hope to draw people in based on story alone.

How is this stupid? I said the game was hard to get into. Never said I didn`t like it. And NO, it wasn`t the armour customization bit that made it hard to get into either. And if I didn`t like it, that doesn`t mean its a bad game. And given that so many people claim its the best crpg they have ever played, it serves as a good example that lack of armour customization in a game, doesn`t allways ruin a game utterly.

[nightcobra]

Rawgrim wrote...


How is this stupid? I said the game was hard to get into. Never said I didn`t like it. And NO, it wasn`t the armour customization bit that made it hard to get into either. And if I didn`t like it, that doesn`t mean its a bad game. And given that so many people claim its the best crpg they have ever played, it serves as a good example that lack of armour customization in a game, doesn`t allways ruin a game utterly.

sadly on the internet the variables known as "taste" and "preference" are marked as concrete and measurable for other users to judge you on.

[Archereon]

David Gaider wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...
Podcast Nr. 5 confirmed that we will be able to choose the weapons our companions use, as well as necklaces,rings and belts. The armor the companions wear can also be customized to some extend.

This is the case, and hasn't changed.

Ah that's ver nice...But will Signature weapons be universally superior to anything else they could use?

[Rixxencaxx]

yes yes..the game is so good that they put an embargo on gameplay videos, asking youtube to cancel leaked videos and opened an entire thread to ask people what they fear most of dao 2 before "choosing" what to show in the future gameplay video......

[sethroskull79]

Getting loot and sorting through it and deciding whats the best to keep and what to sell, and then what to buy with the money you made selling all the loot is one of the best parts of any RPG in my opinion. Not being able to do that, or having it severely scaled back is a bit of a blower for me.

[upsettingshorts]

You can still do it. The only thing - the only thing - confirmed to have been changed is that companions armor/outfits will be fixed.

[sethroskull79]

Yeah it is kinda weak to do that though. Getting all the Armor sets in DA:O was really fun. To not be able to fully utilize the items you acquire by outfitting your party with the best possible gear according to what you think is taking fun choices out of your hands. Oh well it is what it is I guess.

[upsettingshorts]

Well, you'll still have inventory management when it comes to their armor/outfit - in the form of runes and upgrades and such - its the appearance that is fixed. Basically what I'm saying is that for the most part, inventory management still appears to be a big part of the game.

[sethroskull79]

We will see I guess. Its still so far off. Seems like its 1/4 of a year away, oh wait it is.

[Apollo Starflare]

Archereon wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...
Podcast Nr. 5 confirmed that we will be able to choose the weapons our companions use, as well as necklaces,rings and belts. The armor the companions wear can also be customized to some extend.

This is the case, and hasn't changed.

Ah that's ver nice...But will Signature weapons be universally superior to anything else they could use?

Surely if they were Bioware would have just streamlined it down so that we couldn't equip different weapons on companions afterall?

Considering we can presume Hawke won't have a signature weapon, and it seems like folly to give his or her companions better weapons than he can ever have (not to mention the upgradability of items in the game), I would very much doubt that a companion's signature weapon will be the most powerful they can equip.

I doubt all the companions even get signature weapons, maybe some get unique items instead.

[Bruno Hslaw]

It is all about saving effort not making your crew wear different equipment. It would sound lazy if they were making an RPG but for a second rate action game it would be ok, think games of war etc the side kicks never change. That is the market EA sorry BW want now after all.



Hell why not get rid of the inventory all together after all most of it is just junk now anyway. Maybe build a racing section in it or get Sonic the hedgehog that seems to be selling well now.

[Nerivant]

Bruno Hslaw wrote...

It is all about saving effort not making your crew wear different equipment. It would sound lazy if they were making an RPG but for a second rate action game it would be ok, think games of war etc the side kicks never change. That is the market EA sorry BW want now after all.

Hell why not get rid of the inventory all together after all most of it is just junk now anyway. Maybe build a racing section in it or get Sonic the hedgehog that seems to be selling well now.

I tried to read this and couldn't. I didn't understand a word.

Mind explaining a bit?