35 réponses à ce sujet

[magicwins]

What's new in Dragon Age II

New facts:

One new feature in DA2's combat is one you'll almost assuredly come to hate, but for all the right reasons: assassins, commanders, and devastating mages. These new specialized threats are mixed in with more common enemies and have moves all their own. They will also kick your ass. I ran into a few Assassins during my playthrough, and I'm pretty sure I could hear them giggling as they cut me to pieces.

Crafting
The crafting in Dragon Age: Origins made logical sense: In order to make, say, a health poultice, you had to first learn the recipe, then find all of the necessary ingredients. It was a fine system if you only wanted to make one or two items, but the games' many different potions, poisons, and traps meant you were running around Ferelden with all kind of components rattling around in your backpack. Fighting a demon with 87 frostrocks in your inventory is not heroic or sexy, so the entire system has been redone. Now, rather than having to carry components around with you, you simply have to find their source out in the world. Once you come across a strain of Elfroot, for example, all crafting vendors will have access to it - no need to shuttle bits and pieces back and forth. The challenge now comes from finding the different sources of raw materials, and the different strains of components. It's a far more elegant system, one that rewards exploration over hoarding, unclogging your inventory in the process.

Awesome screenie on Pg3 *Very manly squee*

Visuals
Even if you're willing to graciously forgive the technical limitations that made the console versions of Dragon Age: Origins so butt-ugly, it's still hard to argue that the PC version didn't look a bit dated. For all its magic and fantasy, Ferelden was a remarkably  brown place and its inhabitants were the same old Lord of the Rings-style creatures that we've seen and killed a thousand times. Dragon Age 2 takes full advantage of the fact it's a story being told by a dwarf who has no trouble embellishing details to make for a more exciting tale. Kirkwall is awash in color and composed like artwork. Matt Goldman took inspiration from sources as diverse as Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood and Pieter Breugel's "Triumph of Death." The aim is to not only make players "excited about what they're seeing," says Laidlaw, but also to "make sure that the story being told is about the character, and that the scenery is drawing focus to the people."
And to make the people look different from each other. True story: After coming back to Origins after a very long break I completely forgot I was playing an elf until one of the other characters referred to me that way. It's a situation not likely to happen in DA2, where the elves sport extra large eyes and ears, the dwarves don't merely look like short humans, and one monster doesn't look like a slightly redder version of the one two dungeons
back.

So, Does it Work?
If you've made it this far, you're probably wondering if all of these new elements come together in a way that's actually an improvement over Origins, but still feels true to the franchise. Stop worrying: Early signs point to "Oh, hell, yeah." The build I played was fairly early, so I didn't have access to everything Dragon Age 2 has to offer, but what I experienced felt like Origins with all of the fussiness removed. You'll notice little things immediately, like how junk loot is actually labeled as "Junk," making it very clear what you can sell with a clear conscience, and be amazed at how such a small change can so greatly improve your experience. It's also gorgeous, even on the Xbox 360; the visuals are something you'll actually enjoy as opposed to endure.

From what I saw, Dragon Age 2 is making all the right choices, but we'll have to wait until March 8 to know for certain.
Susan Arendt thinks Commander Shepard should have a cameo in Dragon Age II somehow.

*muah* Much love, Bioware!

PS: Is anyone clear about the rules regd copy pasting this stuff? I've linked the source and used an open image host for the pic, but if someone knows that this stuff is frowned upon I'll remove it.

Modifié par magicwins, 22 décembre 2010 - 03:28 .

[Seb Hanlon]

The article is correct. You'll get Bethany if Hawke is a rogue or warrior (regardless of gender), and Carver if Hawke is a mage.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...
Yeah......not smooth Laidlaw, not smooth. >

Oh no, some people might get upset with me over a choice I made as applied to DA II's design! That's never happened before!

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
That kind of stinks- can't even make a choice in the matter its just predetermined by the Plot Gods?

Not that this is something you're really concerned about, I imagine, but this came down to a design decision. I understand that you're deciding who you like more based on a meta-gaming decision (using information gleaned from previews, along with assumptions as to what Bethany and Carver are about) but someone who's playing the game for the first time won't know these things. How would they make such a decision, based on characters they've only just met? It would feel hollow at best-- and providing a decision that indirectly did the same thing (meaning you weren't directly deciding between them, but whatever decision you did make had the same end effect) might also feel cheap.

This did what we needed for the story to work-- and personally I really like the fact that both Bethany and Carver are fully-realized characters, providing you family members that aren't killed off right at the beginning of the story who are also going to work as part of it. I would caution you not to assume the worst about characters you haven't met yet and a story you don't know about... but you are of course free to jump to whatever conclusions you like.

[David Gaider]

tmp7704 wrote...
Couldn't that be decided on something like say, the way Hawke interacted with both siblings up to the point where the Drama Moment™ happens? Situations like where you directly support one over the other, or are attentive/dismissive to their concerns, things like that?

I'd imagine that could feel less cheap than a person arbitrarily kicking the bucket based on what class you chose... maybe it could even make player somewhat remorseful about the way they did interact with that person. Instead, you have basically a cross between pure metagaming and Mhairi 2.0

Mhairi 2.0? We've never claimed that either sibling joins your party or is available anywhere beyond the Prologue. If you're deciding now who you prefer, you're basing it on... what? Their looks? A few screenshots? We went with what works based on the context of the story rather than allowing the player to make an arbitrary decision-- and I'll leave it at that, sorry.

[David Gaider]

tmp7704 wrote...
I understand you've made an arbitrary decision and don't feel like discussing it. It's just surprising that -- in situation where you are unable to determine what exactly the individual player would be basing their decision on, and in situation where these reasons could be numerous and varied -- you've decided to just yank the decision out of their hand and then attach it to the meta-gamey "melee = mage and vice versa" mechanics. Thus effectively just limiting possible variations for the player's game, and little else.

There's nothing arbitrary about our decision. I've explained the reasoning-- and if I'm not going to debate it that's because you've no basis for a debate beyond assumptions, and I've no way to explain further without going into spoilers. I'm also saying we've provided two full characters that work with the player's story, as opposed to "just limiting possible variations for the player's game". If we'd wanted to do that, we would have just had one sibling, period. I know some people started conjuring entire scenarios in their head based on those assumptions, and this seemingly destroys those scenarios, but we never promised otherwise. There is a great deal of story variation that rests on these characters, and I'm confident that players will see this in the end.

[John Epler]

I would say that both Carver and Bethany add a lot to the plot and character development in their own unique way, and I wouldn't worry about it being better or worse depending who you get.

[Seb Hanlon]

MerinTB wrote...

I must admit some mild amusement how many of the people usually defending or indifferent to BioWare's DA2 design decisions are now actually upset with this one, even if only slightly.

It's a nice change of pace for the forums as a whole.

Well, it just goes to show what we (devs) have been saying all along -- you can't please everyone all the time.

[Lukas Kristjanson]

Maria Caliban wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

I would say that both Carver and Bethany add a lot to the plot and character development in their own unique way, and I wouldn't worry about it being better or worse depending who you get.

I don't think that's an issue though.

Alistiar and Morrigan are both great characters. If you could only pick up Alistiar as a mage and Morrigan as a warrior or rogue, people* would still sit at the character creation screen thinking "I want to play a mage... but do I want Alistiar as a companion? Maybe I want Morrigan."

And the thing is, that's not fun for me. When I create a character, I want to be thinking about making them look the way I like. I want to check out what various cool things I might be able to do and figure out the best way to allocate my points.

Instead, I'll be agonizing about my mini-Vermire. After all, my choice of class now determines who lives or dies. Seriously. You've taken an element of the game that used to be all about my wants and turned it into an important plot consideration.

*By people, I mean 'me.' I have no idea how many others think this way.

Ah, but if you played a certain way in Origins, the behavior of those characters changed towards you and people could die. Did you know that on your first playthrough? Did it change your second?
You’re on the forums. At this point you're effectively on your second playthrough of the meta-game. In an isolated single playthough of the actual game you're much closer to the reactionary experience of your character and these events are seamless. But frontload with info and you change the game for yourself. Once you know the mechanics that govern any entertainment you're deciding what experience you want to have, which is far different than reacting to it. You start playing a character rather than defining one. And at a certain point, it's less about our decisions making the game than it is about your preconceptions. Eventually you'll have so much info that your first playthrough of DAII will be your second, except the first one never existed.
Pull back the curtain too far (or worse, have a job like mine where you start behind the curtain), and eventually you’ll do it by reflex. You’ll never play a game/see a movie/read a book/watch network television/insert-media-here without seeing the background mechanics, and you’ll wonder why nobody else sees the obvious. Somewhere around that time a person makes their first “why don’t they make BLAH like they used to” post on a forum.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I suppose I should add the caveat that even though I dislike this choice, it's a minor one and I don't think that BioWare is out to destroy PC gaming or that David Gaider personally hates me and wants me to suffer.

But... I do want you to suffer. A little.

I find it a little amusing that some people are looking on this as a loss of choice, when it was never a choice to begin with. And it's not really comparable to Virmire-- that was a decision you had to make late in the game after you'd had the opportunity to get to know both of the characters involved.

Personally I think some people just need some time to let their preconception go and allow it to sink it a little. This is actually a very cool element in the story, in particular for those who value story above all else, and the fact that either one character or the other survives is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to your personal enjoyment of the game. You'll see.

Ms. Lovey Dovey wrote...
@MIdey77 As real as Bethany's breasts, mi boy.

This is very funny, for reasons that will eventually become self-evident.

Modifié par David Gaider, 20 décembre 2010 - 10:42 .

[David Gaider]

filaminstrel wrote...
They have interchangeable dialog, don't they? Even the same voice actor. I knew it.

I'm trying to imagine Bethany's voice actor going "DERP DERP DERP" but it somehow doesn't fit.

Zjarcal wrote...
It's not like I can do anything about it anyway.

That's about it, yep.

Modifié par David Gaider, 20 décembre 2010 - 10:46 .

[David Gaider]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Again, I don't even need to lay a trap to make an opening for my point.

If I want to fully load a mage party I cannot.  In fact I am hampered more so because of this.

The same for other party combinations

Unless they over-simplify what a Mage can do, which wouuld be seriously unsurprising, then I could not test build a set of mages for circumstance.  Same with the other classes.

How is removing what I want to do on a playthrough just because of what class I play as "diversify" my party?

It locks me out based on what class the PC is!

That's assuming:

a) That Carver or Bethany are permanent party members.

That you won't get the mages you need elsewhere.

c) That we ever intended for this to be anything other than a story mechanic.

Maybe it's just me, but that's a lot of assumptions-- all based on your desire to metagame your party composition rather than play the game we're presenting.

[David Gaider]

Saibh wrote...
So, I'm curious--will Carver be there instead of Bethany in the opening prologue? The exaggerated part, I mean.

Yes-- if you play a mage then Carver is present in the exaggerated opening instead of Bethany.

[David Gaider]

filaminstrel wrote...
In that other thread that other previewer talked about his emerald-eyed fire-haired rogue being paired up with Carver in the exaggerated portion. ???

Either you're mistaken or that other previewer is wrong.

[David Gaider]

otis0310 wrote...
C:  Not quite sure what you mean by "story mechanic".  Although I'd assume either characater would fit the story equally.  Don't quote me on that though, because as I said, I don't know exactly what you mean.

You'll have to play the game to see what I mean.

B: Higly irrelevant.  I get Zevran as a two weapon specialist later in the game.  Does that mean I should just accept Lelliana as an archer?  No, I do not, I get a mod that lets me respec Lelliana instead.  Why? Because I need a two weapon specialist in my team, not an archer, and I think Zevran is a jerk, he has his uses so I don't kill him. But still a jerk.

Point is that simply because there is another mage/rogue that can take their place doesn't mean that we just use them instead. Maybe the other character is a grade A moron that you would rather feed to darkspawn than travel with.  In which case I'd rather have my sister instead of the other guy, wouldn't I?

You're always going to only get the companions that we offer you. Some you will like, some you won't. In this case, some people are deciding they wanted either Carver or Bethany-- sans any further knowledge of them, or even any assurances they were actual companions-- based on their first impressions of screenshots. Which is fair enough, but we're not "taking away" anything other than their assumptions. Like you not liking Zevran or someone not even meeting Leliana or having Wynne turn on them at the Urn of Sacred Ashes you will get the companions that are appropriate to the game you're playing and they will react as we dictate. That's how it always is. In this case, the Bethany/Carver thing was never a choice, nor could it be something we take away. In fact, what we did was add a sibling who will work very well with the story you have ahead of you-- and that's the way it was always intended.

Insofar as my comment about mages in the party, I was referring to the complaint that without Bethany someone couldn't have their all-mage complement. This is a complaint that assumes Bethany was even available in the first place, or that there wouldn't be suitable companions elsewhere. Might be, might not be, but raging that we didn't give someone Bethany is no different than someone raging that Alistair & Loghain were mutually exclusive or that they lost their only Spirit Healer in Wynne or... whatever. Sorry, but that's how the cookie crumbles. If one wants to complain just to complain, ie. "you didn't give me the companion I thought I wanted! I hate that so much!" then fair enough. Go ahead and gnash your teeth if you must. But it isn't really based on much, I'm afraid.

A: Great point, fantastic, so tell me, are they present beyond the prelude.  Because if not there is little point in worrying about it, is there?

True. Either way, I guess you'll have to find out.

And a side thing completely off topic.  I feel bad, ripped off acutally, about being forced to play as a human.  I miss my elf in particular.  I hope that Mr. Gaider reads this so they can fix that in the next installment.  That is by far my number one gripe about it.  

I personally believe the decision was based on money.  Human male/female is two actors.  Add an elf or dwarf in and you can get two more actors per race. More money to pay?

If not, I would like an explanation for that design decision.  It's the worse one.

"Forcing" you to play a human. It's a strange word, sort of like us "forcing" you to have Bethany or Carver, I guess? From our perspective, this is simply how we're making this game. It's not the same game as Origins. You can choose to look at the glass as half-empty or as half-full, if you like, but what we're presenting is simply the game that is. The decisions we make are for generally for numerous reasons.

Much like having the player be human. Yes, saving the cost of multiple voice actors is one factor-- short of us having all races use the same actor for their gender, which might be awkward (since we ourselves have set up the races as having different accents). There's also the savings of only needing the multiple armor models for humans (as the PC is the only one who is actively changing their model via equipment changes). There's also the story consideration, in that a human Hawke works better for the tale we wanted to tell.

I suppose one could sneer at us wanting to save costs, and we should simply spend as much as is needed to make the game someone thinks we should be making-- and fair enough. We'll put the money where we think it needs to go, and I suppose budgets will never be as high as someone thinks they should be-- in particular when a budget isn't a factor for them (outside of the sixty-odd dollars they're spending on the game).

But would it be better if the PC could be elven or dwarven? Maybe. It might also dilute the story we want, and take resources away from things we wanted to spend them on-- variation up front rather than later on, perhaps. There's always a trade-off, whether you agree or not. At any rate, it works for this project and we'll see if it's something we want to pursue in potential future projects. It's not a given either way.

Modifié par David Gaider, 22 décembre 2010 - 08:50 .

[Stanley Woo]

[quote]otis0310 wrote...
I'm afraid this is my point exactly.  That we will always be forced to play humans from now on.  In Dragon Age 2 we have to play as human and it appears to me that this will be the case for any future games as well. [/quote]
Since you can predict the future, will I still be pretty when I'm 50?

[quote]I  believe that marketing may well snuff out any possibility of playing a non human ever again.  Is DA:O the rule here for the franchise where you get to chose your race? Or is DA2 where it is chosen for you? And if it is chosen for you, will it always be human over and over again for the next 10 games?[/quote]
I dunno, you tell me, since you're predicting the future. Will I still be pretty when I'm 75?
 
[quote]I fear this is the beginning of a "Human only"  franchise. [/quote]
But... but you were so confident of this in your first paragraph. in your second you started questioning your own certainty, and now you're back to mere speculation. you know what? I don't think you can really tell the future at all!

[quote[I would like Mr. Gaider to reply on this if possible.  We all know such decisions are probably made first and foremost by the marketing people, ie. "Is this game sellable?" rather than a creative stance of the designers. (Maybe bioware is different that way though).  [/quote]
Comment on something everyone already knows? But why?

[quote]Given the internal politics and marketing of Bioware are our concerns justifiable?  I mean, if Hawke was elven only, would the game ever come out or get shelved by marketing mentality like "But people want to play humans, not elves."[/quote]
i don't know. If you had gotten a fire truck when you were 8, would you have turned out to be a fireman now? The answer could be yes or no, but there's no way to say for sure since it didn't happen. If I had to take a guess, I would think that an elf-only game concept would either be shelved pretty early on or, if allowed to get this far, be given as much of a push as any other game.

[quote]Maybe I shouldn't ask, after all, if the answer was. "Actually, the marketing people said human only, and probably would never sign on to an elven only game." Would you actually have the courage to admit here on the public forums?
[/quote]
i think you, like many laymen in our community, don't really know what role the marketing department plays in the game development process.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Veilinn wrote...
I will now state I apologize for any insults in my commentary, 'twas hard to hold back, and there is quite a bit of anger and bitterness built up. It came out here, and I couldn't help myself. Some of it was just a little funny though, just a little.

Glad you got that out of your system. That level of magnesium-fire rage is not healthy to internalize.

Sorry you're disappointed by what you're hearing. Hope you like the game when it comes out.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

i think you, like many laymen in our community, don't really know what role the marketing department plays in the game development process.

They are your iron-fisted lords and tyrants, second only to EA in their desire to tear out everything that's good and noble in BioWare while destroying the western RPG.

Am I close?

No.

They have nothing to do with the game development process, except to ask questions about how the game works and to try and understand it and communicate it. It's an imperfect system, but the system has zero to do with the development of our games, except that it involves people like myself.

[David Gaider]

otis0310 wrote...
As for this exact quote, maybe you can educate us laymen?  Just one paragraph will do, thanks.

Educate yourself. We don't respond well to snideness.

[David Gaider]

otis0310 wrote...
Neither do I, and I beleive Stan Woo was doing just that.  Maybe I was not articulate in my concern, but I still do not like the attitude.

And I imagine he didn't like yours. Congratulations. Even so, I doubt it's a good way to get answers to your questions.

[John Epler]

While I'm not going to comment on either the silent protagonist issue or Fallout 3's popularity (and the reasons for that popularity), I've purchased and loved many a game with features I didn't really like. So to say 'well this game has X feature and sold well so obviously people don't really dislike it' isn't really a compelling argument. Sometimes, the positives outweigh the negatives.

Again, not really commenting on this specific instance, but I don't feel the logic is really that sound there.

Modifié par JohnEpler, 23 décembre 2010 - 03:54 .

[John Epler]

Piecake wrote...

Addai67 wrote...


It is obviously not hindering them.  So, where's all the hate?

I get that some people like it.  I can even get that the devs like it better so they want to make their game that way.  But dissing your own game and at least a portion of the fanbase to sell the new game, that seems counter-productive to me.  Insulting, even.  And the screechy poster was right that it was just thrown out there with nothing to support it.

How is saying that "People generally hated the silent protaganist" insulting to the people who liked that feature?

That would be the other part I'm curious about. I can guarantee Mike meant nothing of the sort by that statement, and while I'm always one to allow for misinterpretation, I'm really not certain how this interpretation was arrived at.

If Mike said 'people generally hate pizza with anchovies, jalapenos and italian sausage with spicy tomato sauce on multigrain flat bread', he'd probably be correct. Even though I find that combination to be delicious, I wouldn't be insulted that he said people generally hated it.

Maybe I shouldn't post analogies before I've eaten dinner.

[David Gaider]

Ziggeh wrote...
It didn't need anything to support it, people did hate it. There are no quantities involved in that statement. If more than two people expressed dislike, it's entirely accurate, even if implies a more general sensation.

And I expressed dislike, so we're half way there.

I don't think Mike intended to suggest that everyone hated a silent protaganist. And even then, "hate" is a pretty strong word. Better probably to say that it sticks out in a game which has such a strong focus on cinematics. In such a case the protaganist is conspicuously silent.

Do we need to have that focus on cinematics? No, of course not. You can make a game just fine without that. But here we are, and this is what we're doing, and the criticism that the silent protaganist doesn't work happens to be one we agree with-- like with all criticism we're going to evaluate that based on our project's goals and, yes, our own personal preferences. We do have them.

All the criticism in the world doesn't mean a hill of beans unless it happens to ring true with us, so at the end of the day it's pretty irrelevant if everyone feels a certain way, a bunch of them do or just a handful of people on the forums. It's not meant to be insulting, but merely a statement of fact. I'm sure Mike meant it only as evidence that we aren't doing what we're doing absent of outside commentary-- not that it's the only reason we're doing it, or that there's any reason for us to put up charts and graphs and prove anything (in particular for something that's largely subject to taste, anyhow).

Modifié par David Gaider, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:18 .

[David Gaider]

Addai67 wrote...
So, dare I ask, why did you make Origins that way?

There was a point where we toyed with having a voiced protaganist in Origins, actually. We went as far as to test it out, but in the end decided against it. Once the cinematics were further along, I think we regretted it mainly because it didn't have the effect we intended, something that was reinforced when we showed the game to the public.

Did it still work in DAO? I think it did. I don't mind a silent protaganist, myself, but it certainly does stick out amidst all the cinematic dialogue. In this case between our own feelings on the subject and some of the criticism we felt it was worth changing direction.

Could Mike have said all of that? He may in fact have said more on the topic, or maybe he didn't intend to go on an entire lawyer-like diatribe to try and justify something to people who were bound to disagree with the idea anyhow. Even so, he was not wrong and I wouldn't try to read more into his words than what he said.

Modifié par David Gaider, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:35 .

[David Gaider]

Drasanil wrote...
So do you agree with the criticism that forcing a human protagonist is off putting?

Not really, no. I know there are some folks who think it might be off-putting, but they haven't played the game yet. They're imagining what it might be like and reacting to that, or looking at it only in comparison to Origins (which had its own issues, even though I'm sure many here enjoyed the game despite them). Some of the best RPG's I have ever played "forced" you to be human, or even a set character.

Once people have actually played the game I think we'll be look at any criticism then for constructive feedback. As always, it'll be measured against our own opinions on the subject.

I'd rather put up with a touch of wierdness like the wrong accent (which should be a regional as opposed to racial characteristic any ways, we both know newfies sound nothing like albertans) and some shoe-horning, if it ment I actually got to play a protagonist I had an interest in. I love your stories, but half my interest goes right out the door when I'm faced with a protagonists I don't really care about. Which is pretty much the case with being forced to play a human in a fantasy setting.

Fair enough. Personally I see nothing intrinsically amazing about a non-human character-- beyond the fact that some people are apparently so jaded they'll long for something different just for the sake of it being different... even if that difference is only superficial. I can understand that desire, but I can't respect it. Sorry.