333 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

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)

Actually, that would be an example of more complex but less depth.
But nitpicking aside... I understand that you're a bit concerned and fear that something you like will change to something you don't. But rest assured that you have nothing to base that concern on. All we know is that there will be an additional option for companion relationships. We cannot say anything about wether they will be deeper or not. That's something we'll have to see for ourselves later.
But it is the same writing team. These were the people that made the approval-system work. Perhaps they can do the same thing again with this one. There is no indication at all that we will have less dialogue to go through. So you don't have to lie restless at night worrying that the companions will be less fleshed out.

All we know is that there is a new alternative path... no more, no less.

[Enshaid]

Herr Uhl wrote...

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.

Well this is heroic fantasy as Gaider has said before. So really that kind of leaves you with the worst you can be being a hero who murders the occasional ugly peasant.

[Seagloom]

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)

I think this is being blown out of proportion either way. My cynical side tells me the rivalry and lovey-dovey path will not be *that* different in practice. They might throw in a few choice words here or there, but I expect that much like gender and racial specific dialogue in Origins, the differences will not be staggering. It sounds similar to paragon/renegade to me; albeit focused on individual characters instead of cataloguing the protagonist's personality and having everyone react to it.

It would be too labor intensive to write completely different dialogue depending on which path Hawke was on with someone. Splitting overall content between both paths is a possible solution, but it seems pointless and inelegant when they can stick to the old approach to tangential dialogue.

[upsettingshorts]

marshalleck wrote...
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.

Seems to me, especially with regards to the iso camera but other issues directly involving DA:2 as well - they have done nothing that is in conflict with anything they've said.  Part of this is due to the ambiguity of many of the things they've said having left room for a variety of interpretations and wiggle room.  In fact, I recall a few threads demanding clarity on the inventory system before the announcement of fixed companion outfits precisely because Bioware was being so vague and noncommittal on the subject.

That being said, the Friendship/Rivalry system we're discussing here is not one of the things they've been vague about.  They've been very specific. 

Oh, and the first person that cites a well known DA:O marketing phrase in response to this post as evidence of some kind of Bioware truth stretching I'm going to slap with a fish.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:11 .

[marshalleck]

Sir JK 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)

Actually, that would be an example of more complex but less depth.
But nitpicking aside... I understand that you're a bit concerned and fear that something you like will change to something you don't. But rest assured that you have nothing to base that concern on. All we know is that there will be an additional option for companion relationships. We cannot say anything about wether they will be deeper or not. That's something we'll have to see for ourselves later.
But it is the same writing team. These were the people that made the approval-system work. Perhaps they can do the same thing again with this one. There is no indication at all that we will have less dialogue to go through. So you don't have to lie restless at night worrying that the companions will be less fleshed out.

All we know is that there is a new alternative path... no more, no less.

Concerned? Fear? Hardly. I'm quite rational and lucid in my judgement, and what I don't like is what I have read coming out of the developer's mouths lately. You can stick to the "just believe in them and all will be well!" sentiment if you like, it's your choice of course, but all that leads to is bitterness when you see people were right to be skeptical. I've been around too long to believe otherwise. 

[Herr Uhl]

Freek on a Leesh wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

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

Well this is heroic fantasy as Gaider has said before. So really that kind of leaves you with the worst you can be being a hero who murders the occasional ugly peasant.

As was DAO, and you could be a bastard there too.

The greater potential comes through not having an ancient immutable evil that can't be reasoned with as your enemy. By the marketing (as far as you can go on that) "by any means necessary" I'd assume you can in fact make some morally abject choices.

[marshalleck]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Seems to me, especially with regards to the iso camera but other issues directly involving DA:2 as well - they have done nothing that is in conflict with anything they've said.  Part of this is due to the ambiguity of many of the things they've said having left room for a variety of interpretations and wiggle room.  In fact, I recall a few threads demanding clarity on the inventory system before the announcement of fixed companion outfits precisely because Bioware was being so vague and noncommittal on the subject.

Okay, you call it being ambiguous, non-committal, open to interpretation and leaving wiggle room. I call it stretching the truth. No matter what you call it, the same end is achieved. 

[Esbatty]

*makes slow love to DA2*



Yeah, I hope the neighbors don't mind the noise - Daddy's a screamer.

[upsettingshorts]

marshalleck wrote...
Okay, you call it being ambiguous, non-committal, open to interpretation and leaving wiggle room. I call it stretching the truth. No matter what you call it, the same end is achieved. 

But you dodged the important bit.  The subject we are discussing is not one of those vague or truth stretching cases.  It's something Bioware is emphatically on the record about.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:17 .

[Sir JK]

marshalleck wrote...
Concerned? Fear? Hardly. I'm quite rational and lucid in my judgement, and what I don't like is what I have read coming out of the developer's mouths lately. You can stick to the "just believe in them and all will be well!" sentiment if you like, it's your choice of course, but all that leads to is bitterness when you see people were right to be skeptical. I've been around too long to believe otherwise. 

But you're assuming out of the blue that a new feature will mean it is less developed than an old one. Having nothing to go on but that the new system exists. That's not rational, is it?

I don't mean to say that you should trust the developers if you don't feel that's justified. But neither should you assume based on little information.

This is essentially what science would call: Not enough data.

All I'm saying is: Wait for more data before you decide.
Not to much to ask, is it?

[Gleym]

Freek on a Leesh wrote...

Well this is heroic fantasy as
Gaider has said before. So really that kind of leaves you with the
worst you can be being a hero who murders the occasional ugly peasant.

Herr Uhl wrote...

As was DAO, and you could be a bastard there too.

The greater potential comes through not having an ancient immutable evil that can't be reasoned with as your enemy. By the marketing (as far as you can go on that) "by any means necessary" I'd assume you can in fact make some morally abject choices.

Remember the good old days when you were the half-blood spawn of a deity of murder and carnage and could go around being the biggest jerkass that ever roamed the face of the realm, killing every last person who ever rubbed you the wrong way and STILL got an ending that was suitable to that character, with you ascending into godhood and the realm suffering for the rest of time under your horrific rule?

Yeah, those were fun days..

[marshalleck]

Sir JK wrote...

marshalleck wrote...
Concerned? Fear? Hardly. I'm quite rational and lucid in my judgement, and what I don't like is what I have read coming out of the developer's mouths lately. You can stick to the "just believe in them and all will be well!" sentiment if you like, it's your choice of course, but all that leads to is bitterness when you see people were right to be skeptical. I've been around too long to believe otherwise. 

But you're assuming out of the blue that a new feature will mean it is less developed than an old one. Having nothing to go on but that the new system exists. That's not rational, is it?

I don't mean to say that you should trust the developers if you don't feel that's justified. But neither should you assume based on little information.

This is essentially what science would call: Not enough data.

All I'm saying is: Wait for more data before you decide.
Not to much to ask, is it?

Is it rational to conclude that the amount of content in the game can exceed the physical limitations of the disc? Voice over work carries a hefty footprint; if there is no limit to what the writers can dream up, there is a hard limit to how much they can put into the game. There has to be a limit to this new system somewhere. How they will work around that limitation is what I am curious about. My pragmatic side tells me it's likely to be one or two things: comparatively poor character development over the first game, or simply fewer companions with which to converse in a myriad of ways. The first option would in my opinion be a decidedly poor direction to take; the other could possibly be made to work so long as the characters appeal to a given individual. If not, then again it's no improvement.

[Apollo Starflare]

Sometimes I think this forum is just a big clash of the glass is half full crowd with the glass is half empty mob.

PCG wrote...

andBethany will be with you, making fun of you, criticising your
decisions, and magically freezing your beard even though Mum said to
stop it.

I actually would love this to happen. I know it won't, but it would be amazing. I'm really liking what I've seen of Bethany and the Bethany/Hawke dynamic so far.

My main gripe with the preview is the preview itself. How many times have we seen poorly researched previews for DA2 now? It doesn't take long to google 'DA2' and double check character names and basic details. Just a pet peeve of mine, no deadline can be so bad (especially for a piece that short) that the previewer couldn't have taken the time to at least spell companion names correctly.

Most interesting tidbit: Aveline being in the city guard. We already knew she took up a role defending Kirkwall, and this certainly makes sense for that, but I had previously been imagining her as having become a champion in her own right to some extent, helping the helpless and defending those in need etc. BatAveline or something.

[marshalleck]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Sometimes I think this forum is just a big clash of the glass is half full crowd with the glass is half empty mob.

Meh. Third option: the glass is twice as big as it needs to be, regardless.

[nightcobra]

marshalleck wrote...

 Is it rational to conclude that the amount of content in the game can exceed the physical limitations of the disc? 

it's not rational to conclude anything with the little data we have available be it pro/con DA2.

[nightcobra]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Most interesting tidbit: Aveline being in the city guard. We already knew she took up a role defending Kirkwall, and this certainly makes sense for that, but I had previously been imagining her as having become a champion in her own right to some extent, helping the helpless and defending those in need etc. BatAveline or something.

i wonder if she's sort of a drill sergeant toward the other guard recruits...

[Apollo Starflare]

marshalleck wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Sometimes I think this forum is just a big clash of the glass is half full crowd with the glass is half empty mob.

Meh. Third option: the glass is twice as big as it needs to be, regardless.

You can never have a glass that is too big! Unless you are doing shots I suppose.

[nightcobra]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Sometimes I think this forum is just a big clash of the glass is half full crowd with the glass is half empty mob.

Meh. Third option: the glass is twice as big as it needs to be, regardless.

You can never have a glass that is too big! Unless you are doing shots I suppose.

*looks at marshalleck's glass*...what is this, the sampler's size?!

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:32 .

[Zhijn]

Damnit! Thought i was going to read a PC preview, then it just another story preview. =(

[marshalleck]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Sometimes I think this forum is just a big clash of the glass is half full crowd with the glass is half empty mob.

Meh. Third option: the glass is twice as big as it needs to be, regardless.

You can never have a glass that is too big! Unless you are doing shots I suppose.

*looks at marshalleck's glass*...what is this, the sampler's size?!

pfft, I wouldn't moan over a half-empty or  half-full pint. I'd down it and ask for another. 

[Apollo Starflare]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Most interesting tidbit: Aveline being in the city guard. We already knew she took up a role defending Kirkwall, and this certainly makes sense for that, but I had previously been imagining her as having become a champion in her own right to some extent, helping the helpless and defending those in need etc. BatAveline or something.

i wonder if she's sort of a drill sergeant toward the other guard recruits...

Maybe she rises through the ranks over the years, becoming more and more an important person for us to call on? It definitely underlines how the companions will continue to live their lives inbetween quests, I imagine Aveline will be busy doing, er, guard stuff when we aren't using her.

Of course judging by how badly researched some of that preview was 'city guard' could mean 'Templars' - maybe some posters here were correct and she joins the Templars in memory of Wesley? Another Templar tank companion (female or not) seems wrong to me though.

Modifié par Apollo Starflare, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:34 .

[Gleym]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Sometimes I think this forum is just a big clash of the glass is half full crowd with the glass is half empty mob.

Or the buyer's remorse/denial crowd: "The glass is perfectly and exactly as full as I wanted it to be! So stop pointing out all the cracks in it! So what if I'm drinking shards of broken glass?! So what if I'm bleeding internally?! The glass is perfect, so shut up, you.. you.. double-elitist!"

Modifié par Gleym, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:37 .

[nightcobra]

marshalleck wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Sometimes I think this forum is just a big clash of the glass is half full crowd with the glass is half empty mob.

Meh. Third option: the glass is twice as big as it needs to be, regardless.

You can never have a glass that is too big! Unless you are doing shots I suppose.

*looks at marshalleck's glass*...what is this, the sampler's size?!

pfft, I wouldn't moan over a half-empty or  half-full pint. I'd down it and ask for another. 

why ask for another when you can take the whole keg?! heck to hell with that, where's the cellar?! 

[upsettingshorts]

Gleym wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Sometimes I think this forum is just a big clash of the glass is half full crowd with the glass is half empty mob.

Or the buyer's remorse/denial crowd: "The glass is perfectly and exactly as full as I wanted it to be! So stop pointing out all the cracks in it! So what if I'm drinking shards of broken glass?! So what if I'm bleeding internally?! The glass is perfect, so shut up, you.. you.. double-elitist!"

The other side of that exaggerated coin is the "The glass is the size of Wembley Stadium and/or located at the top of a remote pacific island volcano surrounded by lava, and I am infuriated that Bioware didn't fill it to the brim for me!  I am shocked and appalled!" 

That would be the unrealistic and/or highly unique subset of expectations crowd.  They typically love the idea of toggles. and the futile goal of encouraging Bioware to try and please everyone at the same time.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 12:48 .

[Gleym]

The short of it is: Everyone is an idiot on some level or another. You, me, even the people at Bioware. The best we can do, really, is at least try to work towards a middle ground.