564 réponses à ce sujet

[MIke_18]

Yes.



With EA's statements, and leaked images of COD lookalikes yes it will probably will happen.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Xewaka wrote...



But I like dice rolls. What irked me about Origins was precisely that we couldn't see the physical dice rolls. I want to crunch numbers in combat. And I want the tooltips to help me do so, rather than hide it from me.

There are no combat logs, according to those old quotes. However, I did edit the post you quoted; Apparently the 'no misses' thing applies to abilities, Basic attacks apparently still can glance for PCs and miss for monsters.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

RussianSpy27 wrote...

 I see people complaining about how all these new features of DA:2 are taking away from DA:O, but why do you think all of this is going on? Is it really because (1) the developers are over-focusing on sound/video vs dialogue options and imagination, or rather, (2) because for THIS PARTICULAR game, with one protagonist, this is a better route to take? 

Let's reason through this together. DA:O was a huge hit. ME2 was a huge hit. The developers know as well as you and I why each game was a huge hit. Perhaps ME2's reviews were more favorable overall, though it was not universally so (For anyone who can read Russian, see Russian mega gaming site http://www.ag.ru/rev...gon_age_origins calls DA:O masterful and one of the best RPGs for its plot, characters and depth; ME2 is called a "'B' blockbuster hit worthy of a single run"). 

Could it be that EA corporate heads coldly looked at the economic statistics and told BioWare, "ok that ME2 toy sold more units, make sure the DA2 toy sells at least as many; good bye"? Everything is possible...the company naturally wants to make money, but I think it's quite unlikely for the changes to be dictated mostly by the $. 
- Bioware knows why fans liked DA:O, the uniqueness of origins, how it is meant to be more of a classic RPG than Mass Effect, how multiple unvoiced dialogue options play their role at expanding conversational options. They know all of it. They're smarter than many of us and are some of the most responsive developers in the industry. They could have easily stuck to the same format as DA:O and with good marketing would sell more units than the original. 

What's happening, IMO, is that they're trying something new with the series. Yes, they're creating one character instead of 6, yes they're going toward the "more like a movie" route, but they also believe it will work, be very enjoyable and appealing. No one is saying that future releases will not render something similar to DA:O. DA:O was a story of a nameless Warden, while DA2 is a story of a known hero...I trust there'll be many more stories to tell in the fantasy world of DA that will involve more than one format that will not be disappointing. 

I think for many of us, DAO was a welcome return to the RPG's of old. The tactical, story driven, high level of Role Playing aspect is something you just don't get in most modern RPG's, where you have to appeal to the other markets. Personally I thought the DA series would be a return to the days of difficult, tactical combat as opposed to the faster more stylized ways of ME, Fallout, or even Oblivion.

[AlanC9]

Xewaka wrote...

Actually, if I understood correctly, the whole party works on a different ruleset than the enemies. Which opens a whole new can of worms.

Well, we already had different AIs for the two sides anyway.

[Atakuma]

MIke_18 wrote...

Yes.

With EA's statements, and leaked images of COD lookalikes yes it will probably will happen.

Ah okay, so humans with guns is what constitutes a COD lookalike to you, good to know you are keeping your brain active with all those leaps of logic.

[AlanC9]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
I think for many of us, DAO was a welcome return to the RPG's of old. The tactical, story driven, high level of Role Playing aspect is something you just don't get in most modern RPG's, where you have to appeal to the other markets. Personally I thought the DA series would be a return to the days of difficult, tactical combat as opposed to the faster more stylized ways of ME, Fallout, or even Oblivion.

Faster doesn't mean easier. DAO was easy and slow.

[Brosef84]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

RussianSpy27 wrote...

 I see people complaining about how all these new features of DA:2 are taking away from DA:O, but why do you think all of this is going on? Is it really because (1) the developers are over-focusing on sound/video vs dialogue options and imagination, or rather, (2) because for THIS PARTICULAR game, with one protagonist, this is a better route to take? 

Let's reason through this together. DA:O was a huge hit. ME2 was a huge hit. The developers know as well as you and I why each game was a huge hit. Perhaps ME2's reviews were more favorable overall, though it was not universally so (For anyone who can read Russian, see Russian mega gaming site http://www.ag.ru/rev...gon_age_origins calls DA:O masterful and one of the best RPGs for its plot, characters and depth; ME2 is called a "'B' blockbuster hit worthy of a single run"). 

Could it be that EA corporate heads coldly looked at the economic statistics and told BioWare, "ok that ME2 toy sold more units, make sure the DA2 toy sells at least as many; good bye"? Everything is possible...the company naturally wants to make money, but I think it's quite unlikely for the changes to be dictated mostly by the $. 
- Bioware knows why fans liked DA:O, the uniqueness of origins, how it is meant to be more of a classic RPG than Mass Effect, how multiple unvoiced dialogue options play their role at expanding conversational options. They know all of it. They're smarter than many of us and are some of the most responsive developers in the industry. They could have easily stuck to the same format as DA:O and with good marketing would sell more units than the original. 

What's happening, IMO, is that they're trying something new with the series. Yes, they're creating one character instead of 6, yes they're going toward the "more like a movie" route, but they also believe it will work, be very enjoyable and appealing. No one is saying that future releases will not render something similar to DA:O. DA:O was a story of a nameless Warden, while DA2 is a story of a known hero...I trust there'll be many more stories to tell in the fantasy world of DA that will involve more than one format that will not be disappointing. 

I think for many of us, DAO was a welcome return to the RPG's of old. The tactical, story driven, high level of Role Playing aspect is something you just don't get in most modern RPG's, where you have to appeal to the other markets. Personally I thought the DA series would be a return to the days of difficult, tactical combat as opposed to the faster more stylized ways of ME, Fallout, or even Oblivion.

What old school RPGs are people talking about besides the obvious BG, Planescape games?  When i think of old school RPG I think of Final Fantasy games from SNES and the like.  The only reason I made it through games like that was because I wanted to see the outcome of the story; I hated that I had to sit an extra minute in a battle just to wait for the rest of the monsters to finish their attacks.  I'm all for moving games towards a quicker pace of combat.  The only game I can think of that's even remotely close to DA:O's playstyle is FFXII: set up your tactics and let the game play itself, only taking manual control when absolutely necessary.

[Vylan Antagonist]

AlanC9 wrote...


Faster doesn't mean easier. DAO was easy and slow.

Again, a game can't be all things for all people. The game was balanced around the default assumption that players would not be pausing and might even not be using tactics. People still frequently complained it was too difficult.

I absolutely acknowledge that I could be wrong about this, but I strongly suspect that DA2 will be balanced around playing in active control of one character with no pausing. For pausing micro-management types, this will definitely mean playing at a higher difficulty.

[Xewaka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Actually, if I understood correctly, the whole party works on a different ruleset than the enemies. Which opens a whole new can of worms.

Well, we already had different AIs for the two sides anyway.

Are you a Cyborg? I wouldn't count myself as an AI.

Ok, bad jokes aside, since I guess you mean tactics, I'd say I never bothered with them. Why would they give you full control of the party if not to control it?

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Actually, if I understood correctly, the whole party works on a different ruleset than the enemies. Which opens a whole new can of worms.

Well, we already had different AIs for the two sides anyway.

Are you a Cyborg? I wouldn't count myself as an AI.

Ok, bad jokes aside, since I guess you mean tactics, I'd say I never bothered with them. Why would they give you full control of the party if not to control it?

i found myself many times on the tactics menu experimenting for every situation and seeing how things played out, i quite enjoyed it in that way.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 10 décembre 2010 - 07:05 .

[AlanC9]

I find that Tactics do what I'd do most of the time, so I leave the companions on Tactics most of the time. If I don't have to think about it I don't find much appeal in manually doing it. YMMV.



Anyway, whether the player side is controlled by Tactics or the player, my point is that the player side evaluates its options differently from the way the enemy side does. Threat, for instance, simply isn't a meaningful concept on the enemy side. They can't use tanking because the player side would always leave the tank for last.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Brosef84 wrote...
What old school RPGs are people talking about besides the obvious BG, Planescape games?  When i think of old school RPG I think of Final Fantasy games from SNES and the like.  The only reason I made it through games like that was because I wanted to see the outcome of the story; I hated that I had to sit an extra minute in a battle just to wait for the rest of the monsters to finish their attacks.  I'm all for moving games towards a quicker pace of combat.  The only game I can think of that's even remotely close to DA:O's playstyle is FFXII: set up your tactics and let the game play itself, only taking manual control when absolutely necessary.

Tactics Ogre
Shining Force
Vandal Hearts
Jagged Alliance 1&2
Final Fantasy Tactics
Neverwinter Nights
Fallout
Fallout Tactics
Xcom 1-3
Silent Storm
Temple of Elemental Evil
Ultima
Wizard's Crown
Wizardry
Might and Magic
etc, etc.

[AlanC9]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...
I absolutely acknowledge that I could be wrong about this, but I strongly suspect that DA2 will be balanced around playing in active control of one character with no pausing. For pausing micro-management types, this will definitely mean playing at a higher difficulty.

Maybe so, but I already found that to be true with DAO anyway.

And faster DA2 combat works in favor of pausing, not against it.

[Brosef84]

Xewaka wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Actually, if I understood correctly, the whole party works on a different ruleset than the enemies. Which opens a whole new can of worms.

Well, we already had different AIs for the two sides anyway.

Are you a Cyborg? I wouldn't count myself as an AI.

Ok, bad jokes aside, since I guess you mean tactics, I'd say I never bothered with them. Why would they give you full control of the party if not to control it?

You are controlling it.  You're giving them a very situational script to run off of so you don't have to manually switch to every companion and tell them exactly what to do for an entire battle.  There's a big difference between having to switch to Wynne simply to cast group heal when she can do it herself when the circumstances are appropriate; circumstances that you gave I might add.

[Vylan Antagonist]

AlanC9 wrote...

And faster DA2 combat works in favor of pausing, not against it.

I think that will depend on how it feels. If moving out of the way of enemy attacks, then coming back in with rush attacks and staggers is generally how gameplay works, then pausing excessively could ruin the rhythm of play. I'm not going to force myself to play it in 'pause and issue orders' mode if it doesn't feel 'right' that way, even if it remains as an option.

[Brockololly]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...
And this still doesn't invalidate the ability to play with pausing and issuing orders. But I don't think playing that way will be as satisfying with these changes. Probably.

Hmmmm..yeah, those quotes are interesting. It seems as if you can actually play it in a twitch based way without pausing since enemies' attacks aren't front loaded.

Which is fine if you want to play DA without pausing and approach it like an action game, but like you said all these changes make it seem as if the game is being designed to be primarily played in real time and the pause and play stuff is an after thought. Even Origins was balanced and designed differently with combat on the PC versus consoles and yet apparently DA2 is being balanced the same across platforms despite all this?

I've yet to hear how they're making DA2 in such a way that you "Think like a general."

[Ortaya Alevli]

Well, in one of those unofficial videos, one dude tried to think like a Spartan and got his ass handed to him, ended up running around with the last standing party member (Bethany) screaming "HELP!", making an ass of himself in the process.

[Ziggeh]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

For pausing micro-management types, this will definitely mean playing at a higher difficulty.

I'm actively hoping this is the case. I'd also love to see the press-to-attack system on the pc, but I suspect it might be a bit wierd without a gamepad. Provided the difficulties are well built this time around (and we know extra work is going into that), providing the player with two largely distinct combat styles not only accounts for both ends of the spectrum, but gives people the chance to alter the experience should you find it becoming tedious. I would have loved to have had the option to do this in the deep roads. To just kick back and start wailing on dudes.

I completely understand the danger present in the approach however, I just haven't heard anything yet that concerns me as to the loss of one or the other.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Well, in one of those unofficial videos, one dude tried to think like a Spartan and got his ass handed to him, ended up running around with the last standing party member (Bethany) screaming "HELP!", making an ass of himself in the process.

Well, yeah, you are supposed to FIGHT like a Spartan, not think like one. That's like the old joke about an ideal world featuring German engineering, French cuisine and English police vs. a nightmare world featuring English cuisine, French engineering, and German police.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

AlanC9 wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
I think for many of us, DAO was a welcome return to the RPG's of old. The tactical, story driven, high level of Role Playing aspect is something you just don't get in most modern RPG's, where you have to appeal to the other markets. Personally I thought the DA series would be a return to the days of difficult, tactical combat as opposed to the faster more stylized ways of ME, Fallout, or even Oblivion.

Faster doesn't mean easier. DAO was easy and slow.

I don't think that's the case. Remember right after launch they had to release a patch that made it easier because so many people were having problems?

Brosef84 wrote...


What old school RPGs are people talking about besides the obvious BG, Planescape games?  When i think of old school RPG I think of Final Fantasy games from SNES and the like.  The only reason I made it through games like that was because I wanted to see the outcome of the story; I hated that I had to sit an extra minute in a battle just to wait for the rest of the monsters to finish their attacks.  I'm all for moving games towards a quicker pace of combat.  The only game I can think of that's even remotely close to DA:O's playstyle is FFXII: set up your tactics and let the game play itself, only taking manual control when absolutely necessary.

Let me be clear, I'm not advocating turn based combat, merely more tactical combat. 

[Ortaya Alevli]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Well, in one of those unofficial videos, one dude tried to think like a Spartan and got his ass handed to him, ended up running around with the last standing party member (Bethany) screaming "HELP!", making an ass of himself in the process.

Well, yeah, you are supposed to FIGHT like a Spartan, not think like one. That's like the old joke about an ideal world featuring German engineering, French cuisine and English police vs. a nightmare world featuring English cuisine, French engineering, and German police.

And, if I remember correctly, the difficulty setting was Easy in that demo. Which is part of the reason I'm optimistic about it. Animations may be faster and flashier, but that doesn't necessarily mean the tactical aspect should be abandoned.

[wolf3957]

AlanC9 wrote...

Oh good, he's back.

wolf3957 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sorry for the derail, guys, but still some business to take care of.

wolf3957 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But I can still muster up the energy to correct a.. typo? Mistake? Lie? You be the judge!

wolf3957 wrote...
 First, between ME and ME2 there were three years. ME2 was released just after EA bought out Bioware.

EA bought Bio in October 2007. That's before ME1 was released, not 2.

Make that two errors, since the time between ME1 and ME2's release is two years and two months, not three years.

ME was released in Nov of '07. ME2 was released in Jan of '10. EA bought Bioware and Pandemic in '08.

Yep, two years and two months between ME1 and ME2, like I said.

The EA purchase of Bio was announced in October 2007, before ME1 shipped. It took full effect in mid-January 2008. So two full years between EA taking control of Bio and ME2's release. Two years is your idea of "just after"?

Kid, if you're going to troll, you'll have to do better than this.

Announced in '07, FINALIZED in '08, AFTER the release of ME. Microsoft published the first, then EA stepped in for the second.

How come you keep repeating the things I say like they prove your point?

Yep, EA never had anything to do with ME1, but they did with ME2. You're the one who said that they came in just before ME2 was published. This is obviously false. That's why I gave you the "typo" out

Or was the "just" misleading there, and all you actually meant to say was that ME2 was an EA product and ME1 was not? If so, that's fine with me, since ME2 is the superior RPG.

The 'just' was a typing error in itself. Also, saying ME2 is subjective. It is a tad more refined, but it's the relation with Tali that made it worth it.

[AlanC9]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Faster doesn't mean easier. DAO was easy and slow.

I don't think that's the case. Remember right after launch they had to release a patch that made it easier because so many people were having problems?

Actually, I didn't buy DAO until a while after release, and I'm pretty sure I patched up before playing. So all I know is that it's easy now.

[AlanC9]

wolf3957 wrote...

Yep, EA never had anything to do with ME1, but they did with ME2. You're the one who said that they came in just before ME2 was published. This is obviously false. That's why I gave you the "typo" out

Or was the "just" misleading there, and all you actually meant to say was that ME2 was an EA product and ME1 was not? If so, that's fine with me, since ME2 is the superior RPG.

The 'just' was a typing error in itself. Also, saying ME2 is subjective. It is a tad more refined, but it's the relation with Tali that made it worth it.

If that's what you liked about ME2, so be it.

So exactly what was your point about EA, then? If you're not going to attack ME2, then what's your evidence that EA owning Bioware is a problem?

[Sutamina]

RussianSpy27 after reading all these post was your question "Why are people complaining about DA2? " answered?