128 réponses à ce sujet

[Gegenlicht]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

Gegenlicht wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I really liked the ability to mod the weapons in AP, and felt that it was something ME and ME2 could've learned from.

The equipment system of ME2 is a bloody mess. I can't even tell which gun is better for which job until I've done extensive testing cause they did away with weapon stats. That said, ME1 DID have moddable weapons in a similar vein than AP.

It seems I'm one of the few that liked the equipment system in ME2 (though it could have used more statistics on the weapons).

At the risk of going off-topic again.

I DID like the concept that weapons were essentially manufactured by you on-board.

That concept exploded the moment they introduced weapon lockers that could put out your highly specialized weaponry. If a weapon 'locker' on a random planet has the capability to produce my advanced firearms, why aren't my enemies using them? Why are the Krogans coming at me not using the Krogan BFG shotgun my Vanguard's lugging around? The idea is nice, but the game fails to give the concept weight.

In that context, making ammo types a skill function makes no sense either.

I'd have preferred to see the modding brought back as a part of the minifacturing processes done on board, maybe employing limited materials picked up as bonuses during planet scans. That just so you have to pick and choose whether Legion or you gets the rifle with warp ammo and an ultra-heavy barrel.


To bring this back to the topic of DA2, let me just say I hope the inventory still shows us all stats rather than relying on the star system too much.

The lack of stats was horrible too. I can't to this day tell which heavy handgun is the best at the end of the day. I'm really thinking they balanced firing speed, clip size and damage so that they all perform equally well over time.

[biomag]

Bioware games don't have real consequences.... only Fable is worse at that (what they promise and what they actually give).

Modifié par biomag, 03 décembre 2010 - 01:39 .

[Matchy Pointy]

Gegenlicht wrote...

Matchy Pointy wrote...

Gegenlicht wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I really liked the ability to mod the weapons in AP, and felt that it was something ME and ME2 could've learned from.

The equipment system of ME2 is a bloody mess. I can't even tell which gun is better for which job until I've done extensive testing cause they did away with weapon stats. That said, ME1 DID have moddable weapons in a similar vein than AP.

It seems I'm one of the few that liked the equipment system in ME2 (though it could have used more statistics on the weapons).

At the risk of going off-topic again.

I DID like the concept that weapons were essentially manufactured by you on-board.

That concept exploded the moment they introduced weapon lockers that could put out your highly specialized weaponry. If a weapon 'locker' on a random planet has the capability to produce my advanced firearms, why aren't my enemies using them? Why are the Krogans coming at me not using the Krogan BFG shotgun my Vanguard's lugging around? The idea is nice, but the game fails to give the concept weight.

In that context, making ammo types a skill function makes no sense either.

I'd have preferred to see the modding brought back as a part of the minifacturing processes done on board, maybe employing limited materials picked up as bonuses during planet scans. That just so you have to pick and choose whether Legion or you gets the rifle with warp ammo and an ultra-heavy barrel.


To bring this back to the topic of DA2, let me just say I hope the inventory still shows us all stats rather than relying on the star system too much.

The lack of stats was horrible too. I can't to this day tell which heavy handgun is the best at the end of the day. I'm really thinking they balanced firing speed, clip size and damage so that they all perform equally well over time.

I seem to remember Bioware saying stats are still there for DA2.

[upsettingshorts]

Gegenlicht wrote...
I can't to this day tell which heavy handgun is the best at the end of the day.

That's RPG item system thinking!  In a shooter, often the best weapon is the one you're most comfortable with and fits your playstyle the best.   Which isn't to say that some weapons are objectively inferior, such as some of the starter weapons in Mass Effect 2 but beyond that, their performance is unique and situational.   DPS is only one very limited way to measure the effectiveness of a weapon.  In an RPG, the actual use of weapons is abstracted, decided out of your hands by attributes and skills - you can give a character a falchion or a gladius and despite the fact they are wielded in remarkably different ways, they matter only insofar as which stats make them objectively better for the given situation.  In a shooter, whether or not my SMG or my semi-automatic rifle is better is far more subjective and in many ways guides playstyle beyond their stats.  That's why, in recognizing it is a shooter, ME2's weapons were a major improvement on ME1.  The GUI is where that system failed, I think.

However on the subject of Dragon Age 2 the item stats will still be present, the stars are simply an at-a-glance addition, not a replacement.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 décembre 2010 - 01:48 .

[Gegenlicht]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

I seem to remember Bioware saying stats are still there for DA2.

Eh, just trying to appease any mods stumbling on this thread.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

They didn't "do away" with them, ME2 did the following:

* Made the weapons actually distinct from one another in significant ways.  This was, to me, a great improvement on ME1.
* Failed
to provide the player with that information in the GUI.  So you either
needed to guess or playtest, or open up the game files and actually look
at the data they should have given you in the game.

That being said, ME1-2 and AP have twitch shooter elements, so it doesn't really apply to an RPG like DA:2.

For one, the basic selection was very thin. Secondly, the weapon descriptions should have been more helpful as to the properties of the gun. Those descriptions read more like ads than helpful information.

Granted, ME1 had an unnecessary amount of different weapons which were often close to other weapons of the same tier in performance but the basic weapons in ME2 seem to be intended mostly as upgrades rather than alternatives. Only the DLC weapons seem to offer alternatives, but leave it unclear how they relate to basic and advanced original weapons. It's a bloody mess.

[biomag]

Yes, at ME 2 weapons were most just about how comfortable you were with them. I prefer the big damage low ammo weapons like the Hand Cannon or Vindicator for precise weapons, while I took Tempest for SMG as it has the biggest ammo. But such systems only work without stats when you can "feel" the weapon, which demands a direct control of it. Something that can't be done at DA 2, as its just "clicking" on the target and rest is maths.



I ain't expecting Bioware will go away from the system they used at DA:O to make the weapon comparable. Might look a little different, but they will provide the information that are necessary to make the choice.

[upsettingshorts]

I agree, but I think it was a step in the right direction - one of many. The shooter elements in ME1, weapons included, were atrocious.

Battlefield Bad Company 2, the only shooter I've played recently, has a much wider array of weapon selections - obviously, it's a shooter - with upgrades and, heres the kicker, a GUI to help the player pick the weapon they'd like to use without having to playtest.

biomag wrote...

But such systems only work without stats when you can "feel" the weapon, which demands a direct control of it. Something that can't be done at DA 2, as its just "clicking" on the target and rest is maths.

I ain't expecting Bioware will go away from the system they used at DA:O to make the weapon comparable. Might look a little different, but they will provide the information that are necessary to make the choice.

Yeah, the example comparison I used to the star system in DA:2 was the star ratings in Football Manager.  You can at a glance see how your assistant views a player's overall skill, but that doesn't mean you cant click on the player and see his attributes and skills.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 décembre 2010 - 01:58 .

[Gegenlicht]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In a shooter, whether or not my SMG or my semi-automatic rifle is better is far more subjective and in many ways guides playstyle beyond their stats.  That's why, in recognizing it is a shooter, ME2's weapons were a major improvement on ME1.  The GUI is where that system failed, I think.

Funny, I had the reverse of this argument with someone a while back regarding Counter-Strike. He claimed that the Colt was the best basic weapon and the AWP the best sniper rifle, period. This in spite of me having been able to two-shot people with an AK where a Colt would need more hits, or fast people being able to out-strafe enemies with an MP5.

Anyway, the thing with handguns in particular is that I really can't tell a difference between the handcannon and the advanced original model. One has less shots and presumably more damage, but over time they seem to work out the same without fail.

That said, I have a hard time seeing ME (or AP for that matter) as a shooter. Both games have shooter elements, but a game where I can essentially pause the game, take aim, then unleash a devastating special skill without pressure is nothing like you'd expect a shooter to behave. I did it more in ME1 than in 2, but that might just have been because there were less companion skills to manage.

[Matchy Pointy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I agree, but I think it was a step in the right direction - one of many. The shooter elements in ME1, weapons included, were atrocious.

Agreed, the action/shooter parts in ME2 were much better then those in ME1 (wich in themselves were much better then what I expected from the previews before the first one came out).

[Kail Ashton]

Why exactly would you buy alhpa protocol? you just watch the cut scenes on youtube and save yourself the money & pain of playing the game....



But then again that's the smart thing to do, so i proberly anwsered my own question, as a peventive measure to prevent the inevitible lemming effect by the rest of you, please check this url

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Gegenlicht wrote...
I can't to this day tell which heavy handgun is the best at the end of the day.

That's RPG item system thinking!  In a shooter, often the best weapon is the one you're most comfortable with and fits your playstyle the best.

They don't feel all that different, either. That leaves me with assault rifle black and assault rifle red.

Kail Ashton wrote...

Why exactly would you buy alhpa protocol?

What was the last modern-day spy RPG you played?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 03 décembre 2010 - 02:06 .

[Urazz]

Gegenlicht wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I really liked the ability to mod the weapons in AP, and felt that it was something ME and ME2 could've learned from.

The equipment system of ME2 is a bloody mess. I can't even tell which gun is better for which job until I've done extensive testing cause they did away with weapon stats. That said, ME1 DID have moddable weapons in a similar vein than AP.

Umm...All the weapons were pretty close to being equal.  Sure there were upgrades weaponwise here and there, but it really was more about picking what weapons you were comfortable with for the most part.  Could it have been done better, yes.  They really should've shown the stats on each weapon but overall, I think they did excellent with the weapons when compared to ME1.

Modifié par Urazz, 03 décembre 2010 - 02:12 .

[Gegenlicht]

Kail Ashton wrote...

Why exactly would you buy alhpa protocol? you just watch the cut scenes on youtube and save yourself the money & pain of playing the game....

But then again that's the smart thing to do, so i proberly anwsered my own question, as a peventive measure to prevent the inevitible lemming effect by the rest of you, please check this url

If you're so smart, why don't you find a way to **** yourself?

Yes, I'm feeding the troll. Someone has to, or the little guy will starve.

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...

They don't feel all that different, either. That leaves me with assault rifle black and assault rifle red.

They did to me.  I can tell the difference between a fully automatic rifle, an assault rifle that uses a three round burst, a semi-automatic rifle, a fully automatic light machine gun.   I'd also move and aim differently with each one. 

Is that as true for shotguns?  Not really, save perhaps the Geth one.  And there's far less variety in sniper rifles.  As far as SMGs go, the Locust is practically without flaws except for the small magazine and I'd even go so far as to call it ME2's noob gun.  Pistols, well, it depends.  It's mostly to me an assault rifle thing and as someone who plays soldiers a lot, I definitely appreciated the difference.

That being said, the kinds of things I'm talking about in this post and others like it have nothing to do with non-twitch games.  How a weapon feels is irrelevant in a traditional RPG.

Kail Ashton wrote...

Why exactly would you buy alhpa protocol? you just watch the cut scenes on youtube and save yourself the money & pain of playing the game....

It just so happens that the least "broken" (read: Not at all) combat style in Alpha Protocol were the ones I enjoyed the most.  Plus, do I have to say it again?  Scarlet Lake!  I've seen people on this forum announce their intention to pre-order DA:2 based on the concept art of an unnamed elf, so do not begrudge me my love lust for gorgeous redheads!

But really, I bought it because it was $7.75 on Steam and I figured why not.  It turned out to be much better than I expected.

In a desperate attempt to try and re-assert the thread topic, there are definitely quite a few things that make AP relevant to Dragon Age 2.  The framed narrative was very well done, but I wonder how it will feel given the fact the player will be hands off as far as I'm aware - Michael Thornton being the PC as opposed to Varric the NPC.  And the choices that closed doors was a nice touch.  Given that DA:2 is more narrowly focused than DA:O I hope that would allow for a more dynamic story.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 décembre 2010 - 02:17 .

[Apollo Starflare]

Urazz wrote...

Gegenlicht wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I really liked the ability to mod the weapons in AP, and felt that it was something ME and ME2 could've learned from.

The equipment system of ME2 is a bloody mess. I can't even tell which gun is better for which job until I've done extensive testing cause they did away with weapon stats. That said, ME1 DID have moddable weapons in a similar vein than AP.

Umm...All the weapons were pretty close to being equal.  Sure there were upgrades weaponwise here and there, but it really was more about picking what weapons you were comfortable with for the most part.  Could it have been done better, yes.  They really should've shown the stats on each weapon but overall, I think they did excellent with the weapons when compared to ME1.

Yeah I agree with this. I think they realised their mistake not putting the stats in judging by Christina Norman taking the time to write them up on the forums, so hoping they change it in game for ME3. While all the weapons in vanilla for the most part feel quite different to use I found they really got into their stride with the DLC weapons, and it's kinda disappointing that they couldn't fit them into the original game. I'm loving my Phalanx pistol on my current playthrough for example.

All things considered there was a huge improvement in weapon balancing between ME1 and 2, and I'm hoping they can perfect it with ME3.

Shotguns: They do differ. Greatly. Just ask a Vanguard player.

Sniper rifles: More or less likewise, but not to as great an effect from what I gather. The Incisor and the Widow are hardly similar for example.

I found the SMG's the most similar weapon in the game on the whole, and even there you could feel the difference when using them as your main weapon. The Locust was crazy overpowered though.

Modifié par Apollo Starflare, 03 décembre 2010 - 02:20 .

[biomag]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


In a desperate attempt to try and re-assert the thread topic, there are definitely quite a few things that make AP relevant to Dragon Age 2.  The framed narrative was very well done, but I wonder how it will feel given the fact the player will be hands off as far as I'm aware - Michael Thornton being the PC as opposed to Varric the NPC.  And the choices that closed doors was a nice touch.  Given that DA:2 is more narrowly focused than DA:O I hope that would allow for a more dynamic story.

Why should it be that different just because Varric is telling the story? The only difference is that you can't humiliate Leland/Cassandra.

I just watched a few endings of AP... its amazing how little they have in common with mine... and how different my 2 gameplays were although I played pretty similar. I really, really hope that Bioware takes this approach. Those choices have to have some real meaning and not just in interviews with the press. I can't express how pale DA:O's different endings feel compared to AP.

[upsettingshorts]

biomag wrote...

Why should it be that different just because Varric is telling the story? The only difference is that you can't humiliate Leland/Cassandra.

Because we're not choosing how Varric responds to his interrogator the same way we did with Thornton.  It seems hands off as opposed to hands on.  Granted, not all scenes in the interrogation room of AP actually called for the player to respond, but many did.

biomag wrote...

I just watched a few endings of AP... its amazing how little they have in common with mine... and how different my 2 gameplays were although I played pretty similar. I really, really hope that Bioware takes this approach. Those choices have to have some real meaning and not just in interviews with the press.

I just wish I could have gotten the good Scarlet ending without killing or leaving another person to die. 

biomag wrote...

I can't express how pale DA:O's different endings feel compared to AP.

DA:O's big choices were at the beginning, not the end.  I'm not sure we can realistically expect both.  AP can progress along a variety of paths because at least one element - Michael Thornton - is relatively static. 

[biomag]

Hm... those the other really have to die for the good Scarlet ending? I was supported by Scarlet in the end, but the other one was with me on the boat... could be the veteran effect, but I ain't sure... maybe I was just that manipulating that everyone liked me...


Hands on off shouldn't have that much effect. Think of BG. They tell the story, but all main decisions are made in the narration and so that the dialog becomes just the loading screen.

Hawke should be static enough this time. In the end its just about the resources the developer have.

Modifié par biomag, 03 décembre 2010 - 02:49 .

[Matchy Pointy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

biomag wrote...

Why should it be that different just because Varric is telling the story? The only difference is that you can't humiliate Leland/Cassandra.

Because we're not choosing how Varric responds to his interrogator the same way we did with Thornton.  It seems hands off as opposed to hands on.  Granted, not all scenes in the interrogation room of AP actually called for the player to respond, but many did.

biomag wrote...

I just watched a few endings of AP... its amazing how little they have in common with mine... and how different my 2 gameplays were although I played pretty similar. I really, really hope that Bioware takes this approach. Those choices have to have some real meaning and not just in interviews with the press.

I just wish I could have gotten the good Scarlet ending without killing or leaving another person to die. 

biomag wrote...

I can't express how pale DA:O's different endings feel compared to AP.

DA:O's big choices were at the beginning, not the end.  I'm not sure we can realistically expect both.  AP can progress along a variety of paths because at least one element - Michael Thornton - is relatively static. 

Maybe it's just me, I liked AP, but I never got the feelings of the ending that spectacular different, there were combinations of likesd you and who didn't, but the mission played out the same pretty much regardless (with some boss fights differances, the Darcy one had me dissapointed though, seeing as he and me were best pals this once). So while it's a great game, and I love how it build the story, I don't see it as the perfect game in that regard, I actually liked the ending slides in DA better (though that might come from loving the slides in Fallout 1&2).

[upsettingshorts]

Matchy Pointy wrote...
I never got the feelings of the ending that spectacular different, there were combinations of likesd you and who didn't, but the mission played out the same pretty much regardless (with some boss fights differances, the Darcy one had me dissapointed though, seeing as he and me were best pals this once).

Well, yeah, the endgame was the same on that level.  It played mostly the same each time, but the endings themselves could be very different.  Spoilers

That being said, I didn't mind the slides either - for the same reason.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 décembre 2010 - 02:54 .

[biomag]

I don't know but I remember my talk with Leland way different to fighting him behind the big gun and an assassin shooting me... Sure the last mission might not change, but the effects are by far more immediate than anything DA:O offers. You can miss so much in the game when you don't focus on investigation... and I ain't talking about collecting an armor set or such things.

[Matchy Pointy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Matchy Pointy wrote...
I never got the feelings of the ending that spectacular different, there were combinations of likesd you and who didn't, but the mission played out the same pretty much regardless (with some boss fights differances, the Darcy one had me dissapointed though, seeing as he and me were best pals this once).

Well, yeah, the endgame was the same on that level.  It played mostly the same each time, but the endings themselves could be very different.  Spoilers

That being said, I didn't mind the slides either - for the same reason.

It is something like god is in the details, and that is something AP does well, and for me, the effect of the different endings in AP is about the same as the differences in the slides, just presented in a diffeent way, and I love both ways to do it. There were many facets of the characters in AP (much so Scarlet Lake, though I always found it a bit too easy to get her to like you), and it does build the story much around your character (though I still would have loved to be ablle to play a Michelle Thornton).

[In Exile]

[quote]Shady314 wrote...
Which is why I have given up on judging games by the technical issues I encounter in them. [/quote]

I don't understand. Technical problems are still a part of the game.

[quote]? By that definition almost every game is AAA. Most developers put as much of their resources as they can into their game along with time, effort and love. A good game is not what AAA means. Any more than every good movie is a blockbuster. [/quote]

I'm not talking about quality. I'm talking about the resources invested, particularly relative to the other products. Something like Torchlight or King's Quest, stuff you can find on Steam for >$20 and is clearly inferior in terms of technology etc. is not a AAA release.

Obsidian makes AAA releases, independent of what people think about the appeal of their games.


[quote]I don't say this with snark. You are validating my point. Technical issues are a stupid way to judge a game. It too often comes down to a persons hardware and their own perception. [/quote]

Sure it does. And if most people with most hardware configurations experience a problem, then the game has a problem. This isn't a complicated concept. The quality of a product, in terms of how well it does what it ought to, absolutely is a

[quote]It's simple confirmation bias that when you play a game from Obsidian and expect it to be bugged every little bug you encounter is going to annoy you greater than if you aren't actively looking for them.  [/quote]

If people did this, sure. This is just some vacuous point you're bringing up. There is an objective difference in bugs between games. You can argue that people might be terrible at determining this, but there is absolutely no way to deny that bugs exists and that they can be measured.

The only question is whether or not most people are unreliable in getting a feeling for the relative frequency of bugs, and I see no reason to question whether or not they are.

[quote]I am glad you experienced no performance issues with DA:O and eventually I got my issues worked out but you still encountered bugs in DA:O. There were 100% repeatable bugs. Dex not appplying damage correctly. Plot flags not being set right if you talked to people in the end game etc. [/quote]

Right, but I'm not denying this. What I am saying is that you or I using our personal standard can't possibly be a good measure of whether or not the game is bugged. We need some objective standard. I submit that, given that sales of a game are usually at least 500,000 + we can look to the perception of the game as our measure.

[quote]Can you honestly say you would not be outraged if you played an Obsidian game and encountered similar issues? You mention Awakening so how many games does Bioware get before their bugs reach the same unacceptable level as Obsidian? I realize there is no actual number. That's my point. It's a matter of feeling and our feelings are governed by our perception. [/quote]

I would be outraged if I played any game an encountered these issues. But I didn't encounter these problems in a Bioware game, and a general review of the public perception of DA:O is not a bugged game. Whereas a general review of, say, AP or New Vegas is that it was a bugged game.

There is a threshold. Bioware has released stable games. Awakening was a horror and a huge source of concern. If Bioware drops the ball again, then they start setting a parttern and you begin to discount their old stable releases.

Whereas if Obsidian started to release stable releases, there would be a shift in how their products were received.

[quote]Also public perception is no standard I will ever judge anything on. This is not an argument I am trying to win. AP had bugs. DA:O had bugs. [/quote]

[statistician hat] There is nothing wrong with using population standards so long as you properly account for bias.

[quote]I simply don't believe that bugs stop a game from being good overall. Of course there's an exception for game breaking bugs. I am sorry you encountered them in AP. I am glad I never got anything nearly so severe in any of my playthroughs. But other people encountered them in DA:O and I don't believe that would automatically make DA:O a bad game anymore than it does AP. [/quote]

Technical problems, like technical flaws in any product, affect its quality. I might design the best car in terms of gas milleage or conform in principle, but if it explodes 1/10 it is not as good of a car as one that never explodes.


[quote]? I'm happy to say I never once ran into anything like that. Out of curiosity what platform did you play on? I was PC.
DA:O was bugged because there were people that suffered the exact same sorts of issues. You may not have but that doesn't change the fact others did. [/quote]

On the 360. And with DA:O, that's my point. We can't appeal to anything that happen to any one person. We need to know, objectively, what the # and frequency of bugs were across all releases to start talking about whether or not the game was buggy.

[quote]Except anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Maybe go back in time and stop by the DA:O tech support forums when DA:O was first released and tell everyone there how great Bioware games are because you didn't experience anything major? I doubt it'd be a big help to them. It's all just perception. [/quote]

Why do you insist on twisting what I said? I told you explicitly, several times we cannot use a personal standard. As for anectodal evidence, you're mistaken. My evidence or yours is not definitive, but the experience of 6,000 of us would be. This is what I mean by the popular opinion - if the preponderance of evidence suggests one releases was buggier than the other, we need to take notice.

[quote]You thought I was trying to subtly insult you? I assure you I was not. I do not think you are in any way wrong. PIease remember I do not disagree that Obsidian games suffer from bugs. I just disagree to the extent that it matters. [/quote]

Yes; the allusion to confirmation bias is just a rude dismissal. It amounts to a claim that the only reason I am complaining about Obsidian games as oppposed to Bioware games is belief.

[quote]I can't imagine a more neutral tone I could have taken. We all suffer from confirmation bias to some degree. It really cannot be helped. I'm just stating the obvious that everyone has their own tolerances for this sort of thing. Just look at AP's own reviews. Everywhere from 85 to 20. Obviously some people put a premium on the technical side while others are more forgiving. This is by no means limited to AP either. Reviews often have more to do with the reviewer than the game. [/quote]

Confirmation bias is a complicated psychological phenomenon. People misuse it all the time as "seeing what you want to see" and that's not an accurate description of what it is. It's a general bias in hypothesis testing and the relationship with belief is complicated.

I didn't speak to reviewers at all, but I agree with you.

[quote]They make better games? Highly subjective. I found KOTOR 2 superior to KOTOR in every way but performance. Even the rushed ending was better than KOTOR's A New Hope Ending. As for stability I've already stated I had more performance issues with DA;O by far than AP. It's just a matter of perception. [/quote]

No; it's a matter of practical, objective reality. As for KoTOR2, Obsidian went out to write whatever story they wanted, setting or player agency be damned. KoTOR2 didn't have a Star Wars story, but I don't think Obsidian should be praised for that.They did the same with MoTB.

They had an excellent idea in terms of companion influence and getting the story through a villain-protagonist, but they failed pretty miserably in the end.

[quote]I respect ambition that falls short rather than playing it safe. Of course I also prefer something less grand but executed well. I really can't lose. I will take that bet. The framed narrative really lends itself well to choices and consequences as AP showed. Also I'm hoping this rivalry thing means less companion death having to be taken into account. Furthermore I think we will not play Hawke in DA3 so Bioware can hopefully go a little crazy. [/quote]

You can believe Bioware will implement choices well, but you're setting yourself up for a dissapointment. Bioware has a track record on this.

AP was written with reactivity in mind, and designed on that track. I am willing to bet a rather large amount that Bioware, like all of their other games (including the massive DA:O) will not write mutually exclusive content very much.

[quote]To tie this back into Dragon Age 2 I love that DA2 is taking AP's idea of identifying the tone of the line and incorporating that into their dialogue wheel with the icons. I'd prefer seeing the full line along with it though.  [/quote]

AP had an interesting idea, but the way they implemented it made it too easy to push an NPCs buttons. It was easy to tell almost from the start the sort of person & response someone wanted, which created tremendous problems for a game that wanted to convey psychological back and forth.

[quote]I also say we should bite the bullet and get stuck with a first name. In DA:O and Mass Effect your first name is used exactly zero times anyways. It's utterly superflous. If having a first name means people can refer to me by it just like people that called you Mike in AP then I say that should be copied too.
[/quote]

No. I disagree completely. Giving a character a fixed name is one of the things that creates tremendous psychological distance, especially if the name is intorelable (like Garret would be in this case; it's almost as bad as Hawke).

[joriandrake]

I loved AP, but obviously I am biased

[AmstradHero]

In Exile wrote...
Giving a character a fixed name is one of the things that creates tremendous psychological distance, especially if the name is intorelable (like Garret would be in this case; it's almost as bad as Hawke).

Whoa, bad move there.

Someone is now going to break into your home, steal every valuable you own and leave without a trace.

No one disses Garrett.