333 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Not necessarily.  What it does mean though is that the different paths enhance replayability by encouraging players to try different paths with companions.

Or it could mean the friend/rival status has little to no effect on dialogue. Hmm.

Modifié par marshalleck, 30 novembre 2010 - 11:50 .

[Lord Gremlin]

I don't like not being able to be truly evil... Dev clarification please? I want my kittens to burn.

[Sir JK]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Not necessarily.  What it does mean though is that the different paths enhance replayability by encouraging players to try different paths with companions.

Not to mention that you can potentionally have a character that disagrees with them and thus not lose out on dialogue and bonuses for simply roleplaying your own character.

[marshalleck]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

I don't like not being able to be truly evil... Dev clarification please? I want my kittens to burn.

I hope it means you can't be Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good either. 

[upsettingshorts]

marshalleck wrote...

Or it could mean the friend/rival status has little to no effect on dialogue. Hmm.

Devs have said the opposite.  Otherwise, what's the point?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 11:52 .

[marshalleck]

Sir JK wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Not necessarily.  What it does mean though is that the different paths enhance replayability by encouraging players to try different paths with companions.

Not to mention that you can potentionally have a character that disagrees with them and thus not lose out on dialogue and bonuses for simply roleplaying your own character.

i.e. friend/rival status doesn't matter for dialogue. I wouldn't call that improvement. 

[Leonia]

You're arguing with a man who compares DA 2 to a turd, Shorts, don't expect it to be an enlightening debate.

[marshalleck]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Or it could mean the friend/rival status has little to no effect on dialogue. Hmm.

Devs have said the opposite.  Otherwise, what's the point?

Devs also said PC version would have iso-cam. Devs say a lot of things, you'd be foolish to trust them blindly. 

[Sir JK]

marshalleck wrote...
i.e. friend/rival status doesn't matter for dialogue. I wouldn't call that improvement. 

I believe, like upsettingshorts said, already gotten confirmation that it will. Not to mention that the assumption is a bit odd seing that it's dialogue that will be the primary means of advancing through the paths.

[Seagloom]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

I don't like not being able to be truly evil... Dev clarification please? I want my kittens to burn.

I think it has less to do with being truly evil than villainous. Strictly speaking from an ethical standpoint, you could play a corrupt, psychopath of a Warden at times in Origins. However, that character could never be a true villain since she was saving Ferelden from the Blight. I imagine DA2 will take a similar route. BioWare has not offered a truly villainous outcome for a game since "Jade Empire". I doubt we will see fewer jerkass choices for those antihero Hawkes out there.

[upsettingshorts]

leonia42 wrote...

You're arguing with a man who compares DA 2 to a turd, Shorts, don't expect it to be an enlightening debate.

No one could be that dense, I mean, can't he see that advancement along two paths is inherently more complicated, and I dare say more interesting, than advancement along one path?

marshalleck wrote...

i.e. friend/rival status doesn't matter for dialogue. I wouldn't call that improvement. 

I take it back leonia, you were right.

marshalleck wrote...

Devs also said PC version would have iso-cam. Devs say a lot of things, you'd be foolish to trust them blindly.

All I ever read them say was that it would have a zoomed out view and that it would be different from DA:O, probably zooming out less.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 11:58 .

[Herr Uhl]

Seagloom wrote...

Lord Gremlin wrote...

I don't like not being able to be truly evil... Dev clarification please? I want my kittens to burn.

I think it has less to do with being truly evil than villainous. Strictly speaking from an ethical standpoint, you could play a corrupt, psychopath of a Warden at times in Origins. However, that character could never be a true villain since she was saving Ferelden from the Blight. I imagine DA2 will take a similar route. BioWare has not offered a truly villainous outcome for a game since "Jade Empire". I doubt we will see fewer jerkass choices for those antihero Hawkes out there.

I think there'd be a greater potential for jerk endings in DA2 than DAO or ME.

[Morroian]

marshalleck wrote...

Devs also said PC version would have iso-cam.

No they didn't, they said there would be no iso cam but they were working on another option for a tactical camera which turned out to be rather less than hoped for.

Modifié par Morroian, 30 novembre 2010 - 11:59 .

[marshalleck]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

You're arguing with a man who compares DA 2 to a turd, Shorts, don't expect it to be an enlightening debate.

No one could be that dense, I mean, can't he see that advancement along two paths is inherently more complicated, and I dare say more interesting, than advancement along one path?

marshalleck wrote...

i.e. friend/rival status doesn't matter for dialogue. I wouldn't call that improvement. 

I take it back leonia, you were right.

It's not inherently more complex if each path is roughly half as developed as the relationships with party members in the first game (and I mean all party members, not just romance relationships)

[marshalleck]

Morroian wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Devs also said PC version would have iso-cam.

No they didn't, they said there would be no iso cam but they were working on another option for a tactical camera which turned out to be rather less than hoped for.

I don't think they outright stated "no iso-cam" when they were originally being bombarded with questions after the  first gameplay videos began cropping up; they certainly implied strongly that they were working on it for the PC version.

[Morroian]

marshalleck wrote...

It's not inherently more complex if each path is roughly half as developed as the relationships with party members in the first game (and I mean all party members, not just romance relationships)

Sure it is, its inherently more complex, what you're talking about is depth not the complexity of the system.

Modifié par Morroian, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:02 .

[Morroian]

marshalleck wrote...

I don't think they outright stated "no iso-cam" when they were originally being bombarded with questions

Yes Mike Laidlaw did. We get it you don't like what they're doing with the game, no need to make stuff up.

[Seagloom]

Herr Uhl wrote...

I think there'd be a greater potential for jerk endings in DA2 than DAO or ME.

Maybe, maybe not. We have nothing to go on. I have my doubts we will see a return to the evil overlord endings of BioWare's past. We have three games in a row forcing the protagonist into an antihero role regardless of how morally dubious their decisions are. I have high hopes ME3 will offer a truly messed up renegade path, but I am not holding my breath. This preview writer just cements it with his closing paragraph.

[marshalleck]

Morroian wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

It's not inherently more complex if each path is roughly half as developed as the relationships with party members in the first game (and I mean all party members, not just romance relationships)

Sure it is, its inherently more complex, what you're talking about is depth not the compelxity of the system.

"Depth" and "complexity" are interchangeable in this regard, as I see it. A mechanic which merely increases complexity by hashing numbers without any corresponding increase in the depth of possible conversation paths is useless.

Modifié par marshalleck, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:04 .

[upsettingshorts]

And we can't really evaluate the depth of the relationships until we play the game. Unless we make vague assumptions about resources.

marshalleck wrote...

I don't think they outright stated "no iso-cam" when they were originally being bombarded with questions after the first gameplay videos began cropping up; they certainly implied strongly that they were working on it for the PC version.

Which would seem to imply that Bioware would only have "lied" had they said something like, "We're working on something for the PC version to replace the iso camera that won't at all be controversial and everyone will like it." They are/were working on a zoomed out camera for DA:2, it isn't going to be the same iso camera as DA:O, ergo they never lied. Bioware saying they're going to work on something then producing a result you don't like does not make their efforts lies.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:04 .

[Herr Uhl]

Seagloom wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

I think there'd be a greater potential for jerk endings in DA2 than DAO or ME.

Maybe, maybe not. We have nothing to go on. I have my doubts we will see a return to the evil overlord endings of BioWare's past. We have three games in a row forcing the protagonist into an antihero role regardless of how morally dubious their decisions are. I have high hopes ME3 will offer a truly messed up renegade path, but I am not holding my breath. This preview writer just cements it with his closing paragraph.

Yeah, I'm not expecting a total overlord, but a corrupt bastard at least.

[nightcobra]

marshalleck wrote...

Morroian wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

It's not inherently more complex if each path is roughly half as developed as the relationships with party members in the first game (and I mean all party members, not just romance relationships)

Sure it is, its inherently more complex, what you're talking about is depth not the compelxity of the system.

"Depth" and "complexity" are interchangeable in this regard, as I see it. A mechanic which merely increases complexity by hashing numbers without any corresponding increase in depth is useless.

though you can't really say it's useless if you haven't seen  it in action yet.

[marshalleck]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Which would seem to imply that Bioware would only have "lied" had they said something like, "We're working on something for the PC version to replace the iso camera that won't at all be controversial and everyone will like it." They are/were working on a zoomed out camera for DA:2, it isn't going to be the same iso camera as DA:O, ergo they never lied. Bioware saying they're going to work on something then producing a result you don't like does not make their efforts lies.

I don't know why you put "lied" in quotes, since I never accused Bioware of lying. I said they stretch the truth. All developers do, Bioware is no different. There's a reason the phrase "dev speak" exists.

Modifié par marshalleck, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:07 .

[upsettingshorts]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

though you can't really say it's useless if you haven't seen  it in action yet.

Unless of course, you make baseless assumptions guided by a general bad feeling.  Then you can.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:08 .

[Morroian]

marshalleck wrote...

]"Depth" and "complexity" are interchangeable in this regard, as I see it. A mechanic which merely increases complexity by hashing numbers without any corresponding increase in depth is useless.

Maybe, but they aren't interchangeable, they are 2 different things and Mike was not talking about depth. You're now trying to mount a different argument, one which can't be answered until we actually play the game.