564 réponses à ce sujet

[FedericoV]

Celtic Latino wrote...

Simply put, they are whiners (most of them anyways). They can be divided into several types:

01. The fanboys (and girls) who can't get past Baldur's Gate 2 (and yes I do love that game) and seem to think every single rpg must be like BG2 with no differences whatsoever.
 

No, maybe the point is that there are no more games like that (while there are tons of action RPGs with detailled graphics in third person view) even if anytime a company tries to make a game on the like of BG (DA:O, NWN2) those games are big hits. So, while supporting the DA franchise, I really think that it's strange that no one sees the potential of a classical, tactical, story driven, deep game like Baldur's Gate.

Well, I lost hope that Bioware will revisit the formula again in the near future (and it's strange since they have invented it in many ways) and enjoy the games that Bioware wish to do. My only hope is that in the future, when Atari and Hasbro settle down their dispute, someone else will make another D&D game continuing the tradition of the Golden/Black Box and of the BG trilogy.

[DanaScu]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

ptibog wrote...

Would having roleplay actually benefit a role playing game?

Probably yes.

You've played the game? Lucky.

In DAII we are not our character, at all.

Well, yes, we are. Just like any other RPG, or game, for that matter. If they made a big deal out of the last names in Origins, this would have been an issue for Origins, as well.

No, not really.

I don't care about the last name.

I want my fighter Hawke to use a bow to thin out enemies at range.
I want my fighter Hawke to use a sword and dagger.

I want my mage Hawke to be able to use a bow/crossbow when out of mana but not out of enemies.

I want my rogue Hawke to use a sword and dagger.

I want to know what all of my Hawkes are going to say before they say it.

Just going by what has been said so far, I won't be playing "my" Hawke at all.

Forget about the cartoon spikey armor and the hordes of Skeletor look-alikes. And the SPARTAN stuff. And the rabid kangaroo acrobat stuff. And the "push a button and AWESOME happens. All of that would be a whole 'nother thread.

What I want is to play "my" character like DA:O. It doesn't have be my Warden. It can even be restricted to human. But with the changes they keep saying are going to be super duper fantastically supremely outrageously AWESOME, it doesn't look like its going to be my kind of game.

::still waiting on the va for Hawke::

[Milana_Saros]

People always complain out of the sheer pleasure of complaining. There's not a single forum in the entire internet where people wouldn't complain about games that have been released and games that haven't been released.

It's so much easier to give negative feedback than to actually pat someone in the back and say "Well done!".

As far as complaing goes, I don't really have anything bad to say at this point. I prefer to take the rational route: Wait and see. The game seems to go to a more mature direction (I could hardly consider DA:O mature rated) which I personally like. Making class system more simple with weapon restrictions and such....not a fan but who knows how it will work? Inventory...seriously? Couldn't care less. I can't be bothered to go through 1000000 pieces of crap in order to "realistically equip my party the way I see fit". If they're equipped with their personal sleeping blanket, good for them! As long as they do their job and don't spend combat hours on wanking a door knob.

Story is pretty much the only thing that influences me heavily. I don't like "getting screwed". However with DA:O, I considered my Warden's story to be over anyway. A new protagonist doesn't bother me, quite the contrary. Why people insist on hanging on to DA:O, refusing to move forward and making 1000000 threads about "Will DA:O character x be in DA2?" I simply do not get. It's a new game even minus the Origins tag. Turn a new leaf plz.

Graphics, gameplay...I can live with those whatever comes my way. I've played games for 19 years, do you people seriously think that every single game before has had perfect graphics or perfect controls or perfect UI? Of course they didn't and opinions vary. My first fantasy game was Baldur's Gate 1 back in 1999 if I remember correctly. That game would make a lot of "modern fantasy gamers" cry with the UI and combat. That you can't just hop a dragon and start tank n spanking. And that you actually have to go through spells and really read what they do. Oh and sorry, your sword doesn't emit a particle effect since this game is 2D n stuff.

Not to even talk about graphics...my, SVGA was SO cool! When I look at DA2 screenies I just think "Looks OK." withouth putting any more thought on it. Cos' I simply do not care.

Maybe I'm just too nostalgic. Waiting for the post man to deliver my Cataclysm. Playing X-Com: Enemy Unknown while waiting for it. Haha.

Anyway the point being, as said before, is that change is not necessarily bad. Cloning a product isn't good for business. But of coure I'm just full of bull. I'll just raise my flame shield and back away slowly...

Edit: Oh and Hawke? So he is human and somewhat predefined. Why is that such a big deal? Works fine for me in ME.

Modifié par Milana_Saros, 08 décembre 2010 - 01:17 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

DanaScu wrote...

No, not really.

I don't care about the last name.

I want my fighter Hawke to use a bow to thin out enemies at range.
I want my fighter Hawke to use a sword and dagger.

I want my mage Hawke to be able to use a bow/crossbow when out of mana but not out of enemies.

I want my rogue Hawke to use a sword and dagger.

I want to know what all of my Hawkes are going to say before they say it.

Just going by what has been said so far, I won't be playing "my" Hawke at all.

Forget about the cartoon spikey armor and the hordes of Skeletor look-alikes. And the SPARTAN stuff. And the rabid kangaroo acrobat stuff. And the "push a button and AWESOME happens. All of that would be a whole 'nother thread.

What I want is to play "my" character like DA:O. It doesn't have be my Warden. It can even be restricted to human. But with the changes they keep saying are going to be super duper fantastically supremely outrageously AWESOME, it doesn't look like its going to be my kind of game.

::still waiting on the va for Hawke::

I think this post is more sentimental than anything.

Suppose warriors will be able to retain all those previous proficiencies you mentioned in the sequel. Also suppose warriors were able to use, say, guns or something in Origins, and they took that off in the sequel instead. By the same logic, you wouldn't think you'd be playing "your" Hawke at all, because of different standards set, even though Hawke is able to equip dual weapons or bows in this case.

Many people feel uneasy about features excluded in DA2, including myself, but there's more to a good game, or an awesome game as people put it. I have a feeling most of us will change our minds once the game is released. Some for better, others for worse, but it's too early to dismiss the game just yet.

[Wulfram]

It would make forums pretty pointless if everyone agreed

[edeheusch]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
Now with regards to some of the other comments made. I really don't understand this whole "I don't like the sound of it as it is going to be shorter than DAO".
So let me get this right, even if the story can be fitted into a shorter space of time without losing any content, your going to complain about that? Basically put you want them to drag the story out so that it is longer for no other purpose than it being longer? Am sorry I just can't understand such mentality.

The fact are that I don’t believe at all that a story as rich as the one of the first DAO can be fitted into a shorter space of time without losing any content. I had the same concern about Awakening, many people defended it with the same arguments as you did for DA2 and, finally, Awakening has confirmed my worst fears. The beginning of the story was promising but the end seemed so rushed that this expansion let me a taste of unfinished product.

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
With regards the 'Followers' having their own unique outfits and thus the obvious ME2 comparison. I'll admit when it comes to 'hazardous' areas (and the Quarian Fleet) those outfits do look silly, but people seem to forget that the group is a group of random people, not some 'organisation' (ok Jacob and Miranda probably should've been putting on the Cerberus Armor) so they are going to have 'individual' looks. Now with regards DA2, we've already been told that Aveline will get proper armor and if I remember rightly fairly early on too. Isabella, she's a pirate. Yes she wore 'armor' in DAO but I think back then they weren't looking at her returning for DA2 and they just decided to bring her back after, but please tell me when have you ever seen a pirate in proper armor (even full on leather), I can't think of anytime and am not just talking about PotC either, but in lots of various pirate stories. Where am sat, the only real reason I think some of you are complaining about her is because she's showing a bit of flesh. Funny because I recall most of the Leather armors in DAO having no coverage over the arms or thighs. Ahh but we can see her cleavage, my defence for that... Chasind Robe. Yup even DAO had an outfit showing cleavage, so don't try to use that as a complaint.

I am particularly expecting a group of random people to use the best equipment they can find. Personally I have no problem with the fact that Isabella's showing a bit of flesh (although it is a bit unrealistic as it let unprotected part of her body) but I have a problem with the fact that she cannot be equipped with the best outfits available for her combat style. The fact that your companions prefer to keep their 'individual' looks rather than to wear the best gears available (although their live are in play) is totally immersion breaking (and clearly a step in the wrong direction).

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
Origins...
Sorry but I agree with Dave here, I'd much rather have one GOOD origin than one where the only slight difference was a couple of variations in comments aimed at us and a couple of encounters being slightly different due to us knowing people from our Origin.

I could not agree less about the fact that “the only slight difference was a couple of variations in comments aimed at us and a couple of encounters being slightly different due to us knowing people from our Origin”. For me, the fact that I play with a character with a completely different backstory affect drastically the way I would play my character and finally provide a lot of replayability. It is the main reason why I have finished 4 times DAO OC when I generally only play twice other games of the genre like Neverwinter Nights 2 where you are always the same child of west harbour (although I prefer the D&D classes and combat system).

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
As for Hawke not being our character? Colour me curious, why are people saying this? Hawke is no different to a large number of the Wardens, most particularly the Human Noble whom I would bet was the most played. Yeah he isn't a noble, but just like Human Noble, he had brother (though he has a Sister too) and a mother and a father (probably one of the few to actually have both of the latter alive or seen on screen) and of course he had a tiny bit of background. The fact is, you could still shape them into whomever you wanted them to be and I highly doubt that won't be the case in DA2. After all there is the whole point of "Who is calling Hawke the Champion"

On this point I agree with you, I don’t see why Hawke would be less our character than any Grey Warden we play in DAO. However, my concern is the fact that the Hawke of my first playground would have the same backstory as the Hawke of my second playground, so (if I buy it) I would probably finish it twice (once with a male Hawke and once with a female Hawke) then I would rather play again DAO or even NWN2.

Modifié par edeheusch, 08 décembre 2010 - 01:39 .

[bill4747bill]

I assume that people fall in love with a game (DAO, for example) and are simply afraid the sequel will be 'broken'. The changes declared/hinted at/assumed of the sequel are scary.



I tend to be an irrational optimist in this area, so I assume DA 2 will be better than DAO.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

1.) Voiced protagonist - It could limit dialogue options or  constrain the PC to more of a set personality, limiting the replay value for some players which could lead to less hype for future releases if the fans don't come back to it. I didn't feel the urge to play Mass Effect all the way through more than twice, the voiced dialogue was nifty but it didn't strike me as necessary either.

2.) class limitations - I really don't like the idea that a warrior can't fight effectively with two weapons and that a rogue can't learn how to use a shield effectively. It just makes no sense to me, just like it makes no sense that a mage can't learn how to use weapons either. I think multiclassing would add to the Dragon Age experience and add to player play-throughs of the game, building the fan base and hopefully leading to DA 3! I like the idea of agile fighters having different animations than strength fighters but perhaps that should be regulated by stats and not class? It would be fun to make a nimble fighter.

3.) Less Player Character Options - I know alot of people will moan but I still think losing dwarves and elves is a bit of a mistake. It may add more for the writers to work with in the story,  but will it add more for players to experience than it takes away? I thought one of the major sale points to DA:O were the Origins. I played through each Origin at least once and liked them all, thinking that each provided an opportunity for player insites on the world of Thedas. It's a fantasy genre and sure, most people might play at a human PC often, but there are alot of people who enjoy the different story possibility of playing as a dwarf or an elf. It might be fine if DA 2's official campaign was centered around Hawke but I imagine DA 2's mods will only allow human character creation as well.

These three points have a common feature; namely, replayability. (Edit: or rather, you're trying to sell each point because it increases replayability.) But how seriously should Bio take replayability? Bio knows that very few people replay games. Hell, not that many even finish games once. They also know that the number of players who even tried a nonhuman is very small.

If anything, DA2's already doing the most important thing for replayability by making the game shorter.

I tend to hate nested quotes, but thought it was important to preserve the original.

Here is the thing: replayability is not the same thing to every person. To me, a game is replayable if the gameplay is fun. That is, I might have the greatest possible number of options in terms of text-based dialogue, hundreds of classes, thousands of player character option and quite literally over 100 hours of content... but if the game has gameplay that is just horrific and unplayable for me, I will have a hard time replaying the game.

Bioware games tend to recycle 90% of their content across so-called different playthroughs. It's hard to see a game as replayable for 15 minutes combined of extra dialogue at Orzammar if I have to play the same game again for 40 hours with a character I cannot get attached to.

I think we need to be fair that like other featues, replayability is also not the same thing to everyone.

People clearly dislike DA2 because it goes against the direction they like - but then there are people like myself, who depending on how Bioware will implement combat, might well have every single DA:O wish list feature implemented.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 décembre 2010 - 02:03 .

[In Exile]

Maria Caliban wrote...

It helps a great deal to know Advanced D&D before you play.

Indeed. I didn't, so the game was just incomprehensible. It wasn't a matter of the rules being hard per se, but there was just some basic familiarity with how the calculations worked that just were not explained to a general audience. The manual writers definetly assumed that we knew the very fundamental dice principles of P&P.

[In Exile]

Pugnate wrote...

I find some of the comments in this thread absolutely ridiculous. People complaining for the sake of it? People complaining because they essentially hate change? People having some false sense of entitlement?

Are some of you so arrogant that you can't accept that most of the PC gaming public actually don't like most of the changes announced, because they feel that these changes will make for a poorer gaming experience?

I don't know if some of you have visited other gaming forums, but the feeling on the changes made for Dragon Age 2 are largely negative. And no, it isn't because they are whiny little nitwits complaining for the sake of it.

Because other gaming forums are perfectly representative of all PC gamers preferences, and it is not arrogant at all to say you know what their tastes are like, yes?

[tmp7704]

Dave of Canada wrote...

In my opinion, I'd much prefer having one in-depth Origin over having four-five that change dialogue from "Hello there, elf" to "Hello there, human".

I think covering more options --even if it's potentially at expense of depth-- is a better approach, if just because it increases the chance of providing the player with variation they happen to like, and thus allowing them to actually enjoy the game and make them want to play it at all.

And i wouldn't dismiss even that trivial example you give. Having the game acknowledge the player for what they "are" i.e. have it recognize some more unique aspects of the player's creation, that can have considerable impact on how much the player feels they are affecting the game world. It's not unlike getting these silly ME2 mails.

[Vena_86]

Wulfram wrote...

It would make forums pretty pointless if everyone agreed

I agree.

[Drake Sigar]

I really don’t believe every Bioware RPG should be Baldur’s Gate. My problem is that Dragon Age single handily revived a long dead sub genre of tactical RPGs for mainstream audiences, and now they’ve gone in the opposite direction and made Dragon Age: Mass Effect, presumably to consume more cash. It’s the lack of change that bothers me.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
I think covering more options --even if it's potentially at expense of depth-- is a better approach, if just because it increases the chance of providing the player with variation they happen to like, and thus allowing them to actually enjoy the game and make them want to play it at all.

You have to look at the cost, though. In principle, a perfect game should have an infinite number of backgrounds and voices. But this is impossible. Real games have constraints. If the choice is between VO and a fixed background that is frequently referenced and tied to the story, or a variable background that is rarely referenced and silent VO, then I would argue we ought to always choose the former.

I appreciate that you might disagree, but right now we are coming to allocation of resources. Which features are worthwhile? What is the experience the game seeks to create, and what is the experiene the audience wants created?

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

You have to look at the cost, though.

That's granted, hence the mention of reduced depth in such case.

edit:

If the choice is between VO and a fixed background that is frequently referenced and tied to the story, or a variable background that is rarely referenced and silent VO, then I would argue we ought to always choose the former.

Here i think it'll come down to the preferences -- personally i can't bring myself to care about such references if the background is fully fixed, since it's lacking that aspect i mentioned, the game acknowledging some choice the player has made, and reacting to it. I have no idea what's the breakdown of these preferences in population at large, though.

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 décembre 2010 - 02:56 .

[In Exile]

Drake Sigar wrote...

I really don’t believe every Bioware RPG should be Baldur’s Gate. My problem is that Dragon Age single handily revived a long dead sub genre of tactical RPGs for mainstream audiences, and now they’ve gone in the opposite direction and made Dragon Age: Mass Effect, presumably to consume more cash. It’s the lack of change that bothers me.

What Bioware argues is that their feedback on DA:O included things like "we want PC VO" and "the artstyle is bad!". Putting aside whether or not Bioware revived a tactical RPG for mainstream audiences or succeed on brandname or some combination of all of the above (they certainly didn't market it as a tactical RPG and allegedly their sales were largely on the console), the main issue is that it's not clear that Dragon Age is Mass Effect.

Put another way: until we see the combat, it will be hard to draw parallels. The PC version has suffered losses in terms of features because it is the minority platform, but it is not entirely clear that DA2 plays in a way that is very different from DA:O.

If you want DA:O console gameplay and some of the leaked DA2 gameplay, aside from the option to click-to-attack for your controllable character (and auto-attack is retained as of this time) the combat looks largely the same.

What Bioware has added are story-telling features from ME, like PC VO, fixed race, etc. And it's not clear that Bioware does not strongly believe in these features no matter what. I remember the furor over the origins for DA:O, and how they would kill roleplay because they gave us 6 fixed backgrounds. Bioware justified these decision by saying a central storytelling element is to actively tie the player to the world and actively display that in-game. It does not seam that PC VO or fixed race contradict either of these principles. If anything, they take them further to their logical conclusion.

A big problem is that Bioware just does not seem to value the same sort of features some of their fans do, and you can even see than in their design from BG onward.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
That's granted, hence the mention of reduced depth in such case.

Depth is a poor way to frame it. For me, less defined PCs means less roleplaying content. I have consistently maintained that there is an ideal sweet spot between predefined and player generated in RPGs.

Despite my dislike of silent VO, I was initially excited for DA:O because of what they promised the origins to be. We were told they would give us a background in-game that was so central to the story it would make a "mysterious stranger" background that just starts at Ostagar impossible, that we would have an actual nemesis that hounds us at every turn throughout the game, that our background would be referenced and we could reference it, etc.

And what we got were some throwaway lines, and a game where you could quite literally play it without any origins at all and just choose the generic options (like becoming Commander of the Wardens).

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Depth is a poor way to frame it. For me, less defined PCs means less roleplaying content. I have consistently maintained that there is an ideal sweet spot between predefined and player generated in RPGs.

If there's supposed to be sweet spot between predefined and pre-generated (as opposed to pre-generated being the best) then i don't think that stance about "less defined = less roleplaying content" is accurate.

The sweet spot being between the extremes rather than at far end implies that at some point the amount of details provided for the PC becomes a constraint for the roleplay, turning it instead into plain acting out a role written (entirely in most extreme case) by someone else. Consequently, that means for certain amount/range of definition the less defined PC actually means more roleplaying opportunity, not less. As long as we can agree that roleplaying is playing a role as interpreted by the player.

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 décembre 2010 - 03:05 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
If there's supposed to be sweet spot between predefined and pre-generated (as opposed to pre-generated being the best) then i don't think that stance about "less defined = less roleplaying content" is accurate.

Should have been specific, but I thought it was apparent from the context. I mean relative to DA:O, any less defined = less roleplaying content. DA:O, by my taste, is already to far to the extreme of less defined.

The sweet spot being between the extremes rather than at far end implies that at some point the amount of details provided for the PC becomes a constraint for the roleplay, turning it instead into plain acting out a role written (entirely in most extreme case) by someone else. 

But this is subjective. What does it mean for something to be extreme? I think DA:O is extreme in how poorly defined the PC is. I think ME approaches being right, but we should still have more "personal development" options in dialogue where the PC can express emotions, beliefs, etc.

Consequently, that means for certain amount/range of definition the less defined PC actually means more roleplaying opportunity, not less. As long as we can agree that roleplaying is playing a role as interpreted by the player.

Certaintly, but what we can't agree on is what these values are.

[MIke_18]

Why would people whine if they remade Back to the Future with Justin Bieber in the lead?

[Ziggeh]

MIke_18 wrote...

Why would people whine if they remade Back to the Future with Justin Bieber in the lead?

Would people complain if the analogy was terrible?

[nightcobra]

MIke_18 wrote...

Why would people whine if they remade Back to the Future with Justin Bieber in the lead?

thank god that didn't happen and we instead got a back to the future videogame with someone who actually sounds like martin in the lead then^_^

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 08 décembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Vena_86 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

It would make forums pretty pointless if everyone agreed

I agree.

Well played.

[RussianSpy27]

I think an important question to ask is: "Would BioWare be potentially open (say upon negative reviews of an aspect of a game) to reverting the style back to some of the original, or would it be seen as degrading the quality of a modern game? Let me explain.



For example, voiced PC vs # of dialogue choices. People make an uproar that hey want to play as one of multiple possible characters and races in the next installment. That may (and highlight the word may, since SWTOR seems to have solved the issue) require the PC to be mute. Fans may say: "we care about more dialogue choices and imagination than a voiced PC."



Would going back to a mute PC be theoretically considered, or would it be seen as a weakness in the eyes of the media and reviewers (OMG they're not having a voiced PC - what's up with this retro style??).



IMO, BioWare will do anything required to make the best game, as they have proven many times, including reverting PC voice if needed. If I'm wrong/naive, then the more voices the merrier

[Giggles_Manically]

Because people like to you know have an view and state it, especially on the internet.



Myself I am waiting to get my hands on it and play it before deciding if it is good or bad. That is the ONLY way to know if a game is any good, is if you play it.



Or see some PC gameplay footage #cough#.