411 réponses à ce sujet

[Esbatty]

leonia42 wrote...

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Use it well.

I wonder how many people will guess wrongly what that is.

/puts her hand up

Yeah I totally guessed wrong.

Your mind went to the same places mine went to.

[Piecake]

in the gutter?

[Crimson Invictus]

MerinTB wrote...
Liana Nighthawk,
Your avatar is eerie yet cute.

Indeed she is, well spotted.

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:25 .

[Rixxencaxx]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

TJPags wrote...
But I'm betting the guy who did write the preview saw something that he interpreted as an evasive roll - perhaps the dash you suggested - and I haven't seen Mike Laidlaw or any other dev state explicitly that there is no such effect which works as a lateral (rather than backflip) dodge move, regardless of what it's actually called.

"Lateral dodge: there is no such effect currently implemented into DA II."
-Mike Laidlaw, Dec 11, 2010

Not to say there couldn't be. And not to say there won't be, but currently, there isn't.

I suppose that a lot of people in here would suggest to add this, and then a magic shotgun witha first person view.
And then reduce the interaction to open/close door and launch dynamite. Then you could add a nice subtitle like dragon unreal edition or dragon shock or let me think about something better.....mmm ah yes you should name it fallout 3.....already taken...damn it

[crimzontearz]

LoveAsThouWilt wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

LoveAsThouWilt wrote...

I have to throw my cents in: I kind of hate DA:O

Nothing against the game, well I guess so. The story never registered as pivotal, never gave me a reason to really CARE about any characters (where as mass effect does) hence while DA2 announcment and news came into being i've jumped into the hype. The story sounds a lot better with focusing on a central main character, gives is more.. cohession? centered? whatever. Not to mention that combat in DAO was boring as hell. I'm a console player. I don't have the money to invest in an expensive computer and I prefer analogue stick movement over anything else: I have more control. Keys would always lead me into killing myself in games.

In DAO it was press A to attack, and spam abilities when they recharged. Waiting all the while for a thing to die. It bored me to death, but I did beat the game. DA2 combat looks.. well FUN. Entertaining. So, yeah, I can't wait.

Never gave you reason to care about the characters!? Combat boring as hell? 

Oh wait...you're a console gamer. Carry on. 

lovely.....I am a console gamer too you know?

THANKS YOU! I play on console is it my damn fall that its more comfortable? I've played PC games and doing so makes me feel like I've got carpel tunnel going on. It hurts my fingers and the controls are not as responsive. I grew up on Nintendo so sue me. (and now I hate nintendo for their huge gaps between games that are actually worth getting).

The story of games is why I play mostly, hence why I gave DAO a chance. That and I don't like entering a sequel without playing the previous. I don't care if it takes place in the same time frame of sorts. Its a pet peve of mine even if others go into a sequel without touching the first. Where the story begins is something everyone should know first. YOu don't start wastching a movie in the middle, nor a book and therefore you don't start a series in the middle or at the end.

DAO had me waiting for something cool to happen. ANd I got pissed when Ali..wow can't even remember the dudes whole first name. WHen the straight dude lol, took my epic dragon kills (him being the one do acrobats around its neck is NOT ALOUD! ME because I am the main character). That and I also hated when the character had no voice of their own. I couldn't care about the world of DA because my character didn't play a role in it. They said things via text, no dialogue. In this day in age with gaming, with DEMAND dialogue in a story driven game, not text. At least I do.

Mirage III wrote...

Not to
mention that combat in DAO was boring as hell. I'm a console player. I
don't have the money to invest in an expensive computer and I prefer
analogue stick movement over anything else: I have more control. Keys
would always lead me into killing myself in games.

Trolling is obvious. 
Don't worry, you'll definitely play games that you like in the future. Something like Fable or Final Fantasy 14. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

For your information  I
don't like Fable (never appealed to me) and Final Fantasy 14 is a mmo, a
genre that I detest. Pay to Play = go to hell in my book. If I buy a
game I'm going to be able to play it when I want, how I want. So your comment is moot.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Fortune favors the bold.

So do undertakers.

Of
course.  But I always "go for it" in video games.  Why play it safe
when the worst possible consequence of failure is reloading?

I do the same thing. I take risks in games because its more entertaining. Someone earlier complained the ME2 was too repetative, sure it was a times but I enjoyed the hell out of it, especially this 4th play as a Vanguard as I would mix up out to use my abilities with my companions. Would bring up the wheel and tacticaly have allies use an area warp on a group of husks for instance then SHOCKWAVE them away. Just one example. Would take risks and charge into a Harbinger on Insanity with a shotgun in hand. Sometimes I'd survive and feel proud of doing so, other times die. Risks make it more fun. I always play on insanity in ME2 now, even though I got the achievement long ago.

you got it all wrong pal. As much as I enjoy some of the new directions the DA franchise has taken I loved it as it was in DAO. For that matter I'd have loved for the game to keep its looks in DA2, and its control scheme while allowing Kinect to replicate mouse controls. Does it mean I will not like DA2? No, not at all I can see myself enjoying it a lot.
My point was that just because some console players find it impossible to enjoy an hardcore RPG rooted in the classic systems and mechanics of the genere that does not mean ALL console players are like that.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
It's free damage you can deal to the targets while they're closing in, without them being able to hit back. Having enemies already half dead by the time they reach you shortens the fights, means you take less damage during the melee phase and consequently require less healing -> less mana burnt, less downtime.

But it's comparatively inferior damage. An S&S warrior built on STR and not DEX can outdamage an archer warrior very easily, who you're either relying on shortbows or weak and unbuffed crossbows for. If you want to deal with enemies at range, fireball is your all purpose catchall for it.

Then, while enemies are knocked down and burning from the free damage, you can use abilities like assault to deal heavy damage and finish them off.

I mean, I might see your point if mana required any sort of management in DA:O, but it really, really doesn't.

There's also number of fights with bosses who like to hit enemies in melee range (and are capable of damaging multiple targets in area around them) but are pretty weak against the ranged opponents. 

Not at all. A Revenant would still need to close to attack. So you're trying to tank with an archer at that point (and if you're not using a pure dex build and heavy heavy armour) you're just rolling a weaker tank, or your trying to kite.

You can do the same thing with a Revenant using positional skills (like placing one warrior in front and behind the enemy).

Or enemies in area filled with environmental traps, which also means it's plain easier to just shoot them from range rather than put up with extra damage caused by these traps.

I can't think of any scenario where this is effective, because the only two trap-filled settngs I recall are two random encounters, one with wolves (who automatically rush you) and one with darkspawn who would AoE fireball you if you were sitting in place.

Modifié par In Exile, 12 décembre 2010 - 03:36 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
If that were universally true, Fallout and Oblivion would not sell like they do.  It's a bit ridiculous to say the PC plays no role in the world when you go on to save the world.

It's arguable, though, whether these sell because they foster any connection to a character or because people just love the sandbox.

[Ravenfeeder]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Evade is a rogue ability. It can be used with reasonable frequency and the rogue flips backwards about...er...10ish feet from his or her current target. If the enemy was using a big attack, like an ogre raising its hands to do an AOE ground pound, then we evaluate the damage on the "impact event." If you're not there when that event fires, you don't take damage. Easy peasy.

So it's evasive. It's just not an active dodge by my definition, since you can't do it over and over, and it consumes stamina, as opposed to being a core ability.

Can this be programmed in to the Tactics?  Or are we going to have to micro-manage the tactics of all our party?

[TJPags]

Malevolence65 wrote...

In the leaked gameplay video I'm watching now, there's a what looks like a dodge roll at the start of the demo.

I've also seen something in vids that looks like it could have been a dodge effect.

Apparently, it's just coincidence/some other effect.

I mean, I believe Mike when he said straight out that there's no dodge roll or any effect that mimics it.  So I'm assuming - since the gameplay vid I saw was warriorFemHawke - that is was the charge ability, simply moving to the side.  Which is not an evasive move, but an offensive one.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

But it's comparatively inferior damage. An S&S warrior built on STR and not DEX can outdamage an archer warrior very easily

You are comparing wrong things -- the bow damage may be less than melee damage of your warrior, but it should be compared to doing no damage at all (because your s&s warrior is in the process of getting within the striking distance to the enemy) As such, it's by no means inferior. You are also ignoring the other aspects i mentioned, that is not taking damage yourself and related factors.

I mean, I might see your point if mana required any sort of management in DA:O, but it really, really doesn't.

Mages run out of mana when they use abilities, and then require either consumable or some period of relative inactivity to get it back. This becomes especially important if you opt not to use the pots for harder game.

Not at all. A Revenant would still need to close to attack. So you're trying to tank with an archer at that point (and if you're not using a pure dex build and heavy heavy armour) you're just rolling a weaker tank, or your trying to kite.

You can do the same thing with a Revenant using positional skills (like placing one warrior in front and behind the enemy).

I said number of bosses, not "Revenant". The ones i had on mind specifically was the broodmother and dragons, but there's some other bosses for which it works.

I can't think of any scenario where this is effective, because the only two trap-filled settngs I recall are two random encounters, one with wolves (who automatically rush you) and one with darkspawn who would AoE fireball you if you were sitting in place.

The abomination boss in forest ruins tries to kite you across electricity filled area which can additionally freeze your characters if i recall right. He dies like a punk if you just snipe him from the stairs instead. There's also area in the same ruins (iirc) with lot of fire traps activated with plates. Again, quite easier to deal with from the entrance. Neither is random. Then there's Zevran's ambush, and the Carta boss fight and a number of others which have enemies placed behind traps intended to intercept your melee guys when they attempt to close in.

Modifié par tmp7704, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:24 .

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mages run out of mana when they use abilities, and then require either consumable or some period of relative inactivity to get it back. This becomes especially important if you opt not to use the pots for harder game.

And if I decide to not use any of my S&S warriors activated abilities because I want a harder game, his DPS will drop.  
You know better than to drop in arbitrary restrictions when evaluating the system.

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

And if I decide to not use any of my S&S warriors activated abilities because I want a harder game, his DPS will drop.  
You know better than to drop in arbitrary restrictions when evaluating the system.

Sure, but it does not remove the fact mages do run out of mana in the fight and need to have it replenished. And by the same token i don't think one should introduce elements like having unlimited amount of pots at hand to dismiss it, just because it's option theoretically available for the player. As such -- with limited amount of consumables -- there is such element as mana management in game, contrary to the claim made.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
If that were universally true, Fallout and Oblivion would not sell like they do.  It's a bit ridiculous to say the PC plays no role in the world when you go on to save the world.

It's arguable, though, whether these sell because they foster any connection to a character or because people just love the sandbox.

I'll argue it.

The more my imagination creates the character, the more connected I am to them, the more I care about them.

The more the game designers create the character, the less connected to them I am, the less I care about them.

Playing Shepard or Nathan Drake (not played it, just a good example) or Leisure Suit Larry or Mario, It's more like I'm watching a movie / manipulating someone else's story / character.
Playing my Warden, or my Courier, or my Vault Dweller, or my character in any other game that lets you build your character from ground up, it's like I'm actively part of the story and in some small way contributing to it, helping to tell my part in a larger narrative.

The character I create in Wasteland or Bard's Tale or Pool of Radiance far more than the character I create in Baldur's Gate 2, Dragon Age: Origins or Knights of the Old Republic, sure, because the former games don't force my character into a given story persona like the latter games do... but even the latter games give you more creative control over your own character(s) than something like Final Fantasy (any) or Planescape: Torment.

And that narrative control, that conenction to the character that I helped make, the engaging in helping to create part of the story... that's one of the biggest draws to me in gaming.

So the sandbox of Fallout 3 or Oblivion are not the attraction for me.

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...

In Exile wrote...

It's arguable, though, whether these sell because they foster any connection to a character or because people just love the sandbox.

I'll argue it.

Despite your good description of why that isn't the appeal of them for you, that isn't what In Exile was saying. 

At least I'm pretty sure he meant that claiming that a particular feature is the reason why a game sells well is problematic because for all we know, it sells well for different reasons entirely.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:09 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

In Exile wrote...
It's arguable, though, whether these sell because they foster any connection to a character or because people just love the sandbox.

I'll argue it.

Despite your good description of why that isn't the appeal of them for you, that isn't what In Exile was saying. 

At least I'm pretty sure he meant that claiming that a particular feature is the reason why a game sells well is problematic because for all we know, it sells well for different reasons entirely.

I was responding to his point
which was contextually a response to Addai67's disagreeing with
LoveAsThouWhilt's point about voiced, set protagonists being easier to identify with and that modern games DEMAND said things (or, he backsteps, at least HE does demand it)...

so the thread of that conversation, at least going back that far, was about established, voiced protagonists being easier to identify with than no voice, just text, player-defined characters.

To which Addai67 said that Fallout 3 and Oblivion wouldn't sell as well if that were the case...
and In Exile said it was arguable whether that was due to sandbox or player-created, unvoiced characters.

That I then said I'd argue the point.

I'm fairly certain I'm right in line with the thread of that conversation, thank you very much.

Modifié par MerinTB, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:23 .

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...

To which Addai67 said that Fallout 3 and Oblivion wouldn't sell as well if that were the case...
and In Exile said it was arguable whether that was due to sandbox or player-created, unvoiced characters.

That I then said I'd argue the point.

And you're arguing that point by stating your own preferences and why you like the games?  If I was going to refute In Exile's "arguable" comment I'd go to reviews, even then, I'd find the point difficult to prove one way or the other.  It's like saying "DAO sold because of the silent protagonist" - how would anyone prove this?

In the post you linked that included the statement by LoveAsThouWilt - that the genre demands a voiced protagonist - I'd say they're just as wrong, except for that, "At least I do" part at the end, which makes the whole statement one of opinion. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 décembre 2010 - 08:27 .

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

And if I decide to not use any of my S&S warriors activated abilities because I want a harder game, his DPS will drop.  
You know better than to drop in arbitrary restrictions when evaluating the system.

Sure, but it does not remove the fact mages do run out of mana in the fight and need to have it replenished. And by the same token i don't think one should introduce elements like having unlimited amount of pots at hand to dismiss it, just because it's option theoretically available for the player. As such -- with limited amount of consumables -- there is such element as mana management in game, contrary to the claim made.

We shouldn't introduce unlimited mana pots, no, but there's no serious constraint on using them once the player finishes Broken Circle, nor healing pots after NotB. One of the big problems with the DAO economy is that you can use the gold that would buy you one big item and instead pretty much never run out of consumables. But the economy is what it is.

[KennethAFTopp]

Wait wait, Warriors teleport?

[upsettingshorts]

KennethAFTopp wrote...

Wait wait, Warriors teleport?

I believe they just have Charge attacks, which appear too quick for some people.  Others like it.  Others don't care.  But I haven't read about a teleport for them.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 décembre 2010 - 11:13 .

[Brockololly]

KennethAFTopp wrote...

Wait wait, Warriors teleport?

They dash forward, Dragon Ball Z style, complete with speed lines, flames and all.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
You are comparing wrong things -- the bow damage may be less than melee damage of your warrior, but it should be compared to doing no damage at all (because your s&s warrior is in the process of getting within the striking distance to the enemy) As such, it's by no means inferior. You are also ignoring the other aspects i mentioned, that is not taking damage yourself and related factors.

Whereas you're introducing a false dillema. You are talking about finding a way to open an attack on the other party without exposing your warriors to damage. AoE knockback attacks are more effective because for the 4-5 seconds it takes the enemy to get back on their feet, you are damaging them.

Mages run out of mana when they use abilities, and then require either consumable or some period of relative inactivity to get it back. This becomes especially important if you opt not to use the pots for harder game.

If you're going to intentionally gimp yourself, we can't really talk about what abilities are useful or not. 

If you're trying for optimal builds, I don't see archery being useful at all becaue there are far better alternatives for the same effect.

I said number of bosses, not "Revenant". The ones i had on mind specifically was the broodmother and dragons, but there's some other bosses for which it works.

The High Dragon closes. I just found out Flemeth is a broken encounter, so I can't really comment on that.

The broodmother is the only one I will actually agree with, though really all that does is speed up the encounter (since the brood mother can't actually damage the party at all). When she sends mooks to attack you, archery becomes useless.

The abomination boss in forest ruins tries to kite you across electricity filled area which can additionally freeze your characters if i recall right. He dies like a punk if you just snipe him from the stairs instead. There's also area in the same ruins (iirc) with lot of fire traps activated with plates. Again, quite easier to deal with from the entrance. Neither is random. Then there's Zevran's ambush, and the Carta boss fight and a number of others which have enemies placed behind traps intended to intercept your melee guys when they attempt to close in.

Fireball. Always fireball.

There is absolutely no enemy you are not dealing better damage to via fireball and close.

[lunarknightmage]

I wonder if Mages will get some kind of evasive/mobility move talent..........



in the leaked gameplay vids, right when the fight with the Ogre starts, Bethany does seem to quickly "teleport" to the left. It says she's "Moving." So, I don't know if this is a planned move talent for mages, or simply because the demo is showing an unfinished product.........

[slimgrin]

Brockololly wrote...

KennethAFTopp wrote...

Wait wait, Warriors teleport?

They dash forward, Dragon Ball Z style, complete with speed lines, flames and all.

ZZZZZZZYAAAPPPPP!!!!

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Sure, but it does not remove the fact mages do run out of mana in the fight and need to have it replenished. And by the same token i don't think one should introduce elements like having unlimited amount of pots at hand to dismiss it, just because it's option theoretically available for the player. As such -- with limited amount of consumables -- there is such element as mana management in game, contrary to the claim made.

You don't need healing pots or lyrium at all. I use neither. BM/SH combos are infinite mana/healing batteries on nightmare. Mages are so broken in DA:O it's silly.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
And that narrative control, that conenction to the character that I helped make, the engaging in helping to create part of the story... that's one of the biggest draws to me in gaming.

So the sandbox of Fallout 3 or Oblivion are not the attraction for me.

Right, that's what sells the game for you. Taking New Vegas as an example, we would need to survey another 4,499,999 people to have an accurate idea if that's true or not, or alternatively get a proper random sample and try to infer something.

If you want the strictly formal version of my claim, what I am arguing is that we cannot look at a game that offers many different features and infer any one feature in particular is responsible (or alternatively not responsible) for the success of the game.

So would VO make Fallout less succesful? 
Would fixed gender? 

MerinTB wrote...
To which Addai67 said that Fallout 3 and
Oblivion wouldn't sell as well if that were the case...
and In Exile
said it was arguable whether that was due to sandbox or player-created,
unvoiced characters.

That I then said I'd argue the point

Do you think a silent PC is such a mainstream feature? 
I don't get that impression at all from some of your other posts, so I'm confused.

Modifié par In Exile, 12 décembre 2010 - 11:39 .