1012 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO accommodates a wide range of roleplaying without ever offering what you would call new content.  the very same dialogue option in the very same circumstances can be a very different gameplay experience based on your roleplaying choices (of which the game is unaware).

Please, God, don't let In Exile see this post....

Haha. Even I'm burned out on this talk. Let's say I disagree, but can understand why someone would feel this way if they think they think roleplaying is about the mental state of their character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO accommodates a wide range of roleplaying without ever offering what you would call new content.  the very same dialogue option in the very same circumstances can be a very different gameplay experience based on your roleplaying choices (of which the game is unaware).

Please, God, don't let In Exile see this post....

Haha. Even I'm burned out on this talk. Let's say I disagree, but can understand why someone would feel this way if they think they think roleplaying is about the mental state of their character.

I didn't actually think you'd object.  I wasn't claiming this was the way to play - only that it was possible to play this way.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I didn't actually think you'd object.  I wasn't claiming this was the way to play - only that it was possible to play this way.

I worded that poorly. I meant to say that I don't think the game is as supportive of this as you think which leads to problems with DA2 (I had a 3 hour exam last night from 7-10 in legal philosophy) which is an unrelated thought but I was exhausted.

I do think that if you focus exclusively on the perspective of the PC, you can have this experience.

Modifié par In Exile, 21 décembre 2010 - 09:54 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I do think that if you focus exclusively on the perspective of the PC, you can have this experience.

Thank you.

legal philosophy

That was my favourite discipline when I was a student.

[Wissenschaft]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Graunt wrote...

75% - 85% of the game time is spent fighting 

This is absolutely true.

It's also unrelated to the issue of what the focus of the game is.

Hows that make any sense? If the majority of the game is spent fighting then combat is a  major focus of the game. Certainly the spruce up combat is  a selling point for DA2.

[Graunt]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Graunt wrote...

75% - 85% of the game time is spent fighting 

This is absolutely true.

It's also unrelated to the issue of what the focus of the game is.

Maybe I was confused on the key word here?  Your focus was on the roleplaying aspects and mine on subsequent playthroughs was simply trying out different character builds.  I suppose everyone had their own reason for any replays, but despite someone's personal preferences, the core of the game is still combat.  It's not just a means to an end or an obstacle to overcome to play the "real" game if that "real" game is such a small portion of the overall experience.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Clovis- wrote...

Am I the only one who thinks the updated combat looks rather.... silly? I mean, I was one of the quiet majority who thought DA:O had terribly slow combat and could use an overhaul to make it more action oriented. But this combat video just makes DA: 2 look like a Saturday morning cartoon.

Flip kicks, black flips from a well armored individual; and thousands of arrows coming from one crossbow? (Within a matter of seconds) I know the point is not to be realistic, but perhaps this is a taaad overboard? It all just strikes me a bit too much like "SICK BRO!", if that makes sense to anyone. My suspension of disbelief can only go so far, and I just can't imagine the characters from Origins and David Gaider's novels to exist within the DA:2 universe. It honestly feels like DA:2 is the Force Unleashed of the Dragon Age universe, and while I think the the suped up combat of Force Unleashed makes for an interesting game mechanic, it does not lend well to the established Star Wars fiction.

I just hope the combat plays better than it looks; and who knows, maybe it will sell really well and my opinion will be worth jack. If it does not however, I'd go back to the drawing board Bioware, because so far the combat is the least impressive feature of your games. Mass Effect 2 was a step in the right direction though!

Agreed. Count me among those who don't like this over-the-topness.

[BallaZs]

I've just spotted that elf with the grey hair. He looks a bit gay to me. Reminds me of Zevran...

Who I didn't liked at all....

[Rake21]

BallaZs wrote...

I've just spotted that elf with the grey hair. He looks a bit gay to me. Reminds me of Zevran...
Who I didn't liked at all....

In his defense, most elves look a little bit like a gay stereotype.  I think that's a fantasy requirement.  Elves can be completly badass, but they also have to look mildly effeminate.

Zev fit this category.  He was awesome and a complete badass, but was also (literally) gay (sometimes).


On topic, the combat looks a lot better than I'd hoped for.  I get the "click and something awesome happens" comments that bioware has been tossing around.  Now, just show us the tacticle view, and I'll be completly happy.

[nightcobra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Agreed. Count me among those who don't like this over-the-topness.

count me out on that one.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 22 décembre 2010 - 12:01 .

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Anyway love those arrows on the ground from the talent "Arrow Shower"(or whatever it is called). I remember on Awakening, I was visiting that farm and the 4 of us were fighting that Ogre and suddenly Anders, who was standing far behind, was killed. It took me awhile to realize what killed him.

Modifié par The Hardest Thing In The World, 22 décembre 2010 - 04:45 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Graunt wrote...

Maybe I was confused on the key word here?  Your focus was on the roleplaying aspects and mine on subsequent playthroughs was simply trying out different character builds.

So I was roleplaying in the roleplaying game, and you weren't.

I maintain that the core feature of a roleplaying game is always the roleplaying.

[upsettingshorts]

I roleplay in strategy games, FWIW.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So I was roleplaying in the roleplaying game, and you weren't.

I maintain that the core feature of a roleplaying game is always the roleplaying.

That doesn't mean the majority of the content isn't non-roleplay content. This is the problem with combat centered games.

I wait for the day we will have an RPG with almost no combat. Like PS:T, but without the agravating railroading.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I roleplay in strategy games, FWIW.

So do I.  My ability to roleplay is usually what makes or breaks a game for me.

But I can't make a credible argument that the core feature of Civilization is roleplaying.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So do I.  My ability to roleplay is usually what makes or breaks a game for me.

But I can't make a credible argument that the core feature of Civilization is roleplaying.

I RP the nation in games like that, which I take to be the sum governing political body of the particular society, be it monarch, parliament, etc. It adds a bit more motivation than just crushing your enemies constantly, but it does pale in comparison to a real RPG. It's like Icewind Dale, and I never fund games like that fun. I didn't even know you were supposed to treat those games like an RPG until after I playe KoTOR. I thought it was some kind of magic wargame (like I did BG, actually).

Modifié par In Exile, 22 décembre 2010 - 05:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

That doesn't mean the majority of the content isn't non-roleplay content.

I would agree, though I don't think that changes the focus of the game.

And I do think most of the content has roleplaying aspects.  DAO's combat certainly allows quite a lot of roleplaying.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I would agree, though I don't think that changes the focus of the game.

I think it does, in a very real way. It bleeds into the roleplay, and forces you into certain types of characters.

And I do think most of the content has roleplaying aspects.  DAO's combat certainly allows quite a lot of roleplaying.

It certainly does, but it has the kind of ''in your mind only'' (and I'm using the general you here, just to denote it is an exclusively internal experience for the player) content instead of the visible kind.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

It certainly does, but it has the kind of ''in your mind only'' (and I'm using the general you here, just to denote it is an exclusively internal experience for the player) content instead of the visible kind.

I think that's true of all roleplaying.  Only the consequences of the roleplaying - the character's actions - are visible.  This is as true in dialogue (the character's utterances are visible) as it is in combat (the character's tactics are visible).  But the decisions that led to those visible effects are always available only to the player.  Just as your decisions in the real world are only available to you; all other people can see is the effects of those decisions on your behaviour.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I think it does, in a very real way. It bleeds into the roleplay, and forces you into certain types of characters.

And I don't think this is true either, unless you allow some metagame motivation (like the player's desire to see the rest of the game, or to win, or some other such thing) drive your decision-making.

I don't think roleplaying has a winning condition.  Roleplaying is about making in-character decisions.  if those in-character decisions would lead to your character's death, then the death of your character is evidence that you played well.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I roleplay in strategy games, FWIW.

In a very technical sense, I suppose I do too. Was just doing it last night on Sins of a Solar Empire.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think that's true of all roleplaying.  Only the consequences of the roleplaying - the character's actions - are visible.  This is as true in dialogue (the character's utterances are visible) as it is in combat (the character's tactics are visible).  But the decisions that led to those visible effects are always available only to the player.  Just as your decisions in the real world are only available to you; all other people can see is the effects of those decisions on your behaviour.

I think roleplay is metal state + recognized action. My character acts in a particular way if and only if the world recognizes that action through content.

Put another way, when I act in the world, there are always visible and directly related consequences that I experience. An RPG must allow for the same and recognize the choice for what it is.

[Maria Caliban]

I try to role-play in Civilization V. I pick a random leader and then base my civilization building on their personality and history.

Last night, my Macedonian army swarmed over the Roman empire and took their capital. Julius Caesar told me I was a barbarian and I felt guilty but… it's what Alexander would have done!

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I think roleplay is metal state + recognized action. My character acts in a particular way if and only if the world recognizes that action through content.

In the real world, do you think you haven't actually acted if the world doesn't notice you?

Put another way, when I act in the world, there are always visible and directly related consequences that I experience.

You notice them, sure.  Why do you hold RPGs to the higher standard and ask them to notice you as well?

An RPG must allow for the same and recognize the choice for what it is.

The real world doesn't do this.  I don't see why RPGs should have to.

[Mr. Man]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I try to role-play in Civilization V. I pick a random leader and then base my civilization building on their personality and history.

Last night, my Macedonian army swarmed over the Roman empire and took their capital. Julius Caesar told me I was a barbarian and I felt guilty but… it's what Alexander would have done!

You can play as Macedonians? Are you sure your not thinking of the Greeks? Maybe they were added in a dlc but I don't remember being able to play as Macedonians