I think I know what you meant, and I'm pretty happy about it.David Gaider wrote...
You'll have to play the game to see what I mean.
DA2 Preview by The Escapist
Débuté par
magicwins
, déc. 20 2010 05:22
-
Ce sujet est fermé
- Show only BioWare posts
#551
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 07:25
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
Retour en haut
#552
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 07:53
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
Xewaka wrote...
You know, since the story is king (queen?) in Bioware, and coupling that fact with that telemetry data mentioned long ago, I don't get the feeling that we'll be given the option to play a non-human again in the Dragon Age franchise. Which is a damn shame. I don't want to be playing fantasy just to be the most mundane option.
That's how I see elves and dwarves. They're not really a fantasy race. They're just aesthetically different humans.
#553
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 10:33
Veilinn
-
- Members
- 2 messages
So, after DA2 was announced as a Mass Effect clone, I really didn't want to think of the game all that much. Add to that watching devs that once rabidly defended the differences between DA and ME do a complete 180... I honestly didn't want to watch the spectacle.
But... I had hope, as DA2's design was born when DA had not yet been released, and ME was considered a sure thing, while DA was far from that. My hopes lay in the success that DA had had, and that DA3 might be a proper return to form. So I've been keeping a lazy eye on previews watching for clues to what the future might bring. Oh, and there have been so many previews that have infuriated me... so many design decisions that, well I can't say I didn't expect them considering what the game wants to be, but design decisions that cause the palming of the face. But I've kept my bitter silence, in no small part due to the rather negative reactions the audience has had (which warm my heart, I must say... to see so many that hate the dialogue wheel... ah, it feels good).
No longer. I can't stand it, not after this round of previews. And not after some of the statements made... and one in particular in this preview... one that has audacity that astounds me.
So welcome to the blow by blow response to a preview by a bitter gamer that the gaming world has left behind fo-
Oooh, Shiny!
[quote]Let's be honest: As excellent as Dragon Age: Origins was, it was not without its problems. It had exceptionally good writing, strong voice acting, and some truly unforgettable characters - part of why it was my favorite game of last year - but the difficulty balance was way off,[/quote] Yes, it was entirely too easy. One word- Kiting.
[quote]the inventory was unwieldy,[/quote]The inventory was boring, and that's one of the most complimentary things I can say about it in this day and age. ME has an unwieldy inventory (and that's an understatement), DA has a controlled, if boring inventory.
[quote]and if you played it on a console, your eyes may still not have recovered from its unique brand of ugliness.[/quote] Er... okay....
[quote]BioWare is aware of all of these things, and is giving Dragon Age a near-complete overhaul.[/quote] Opposed to more pressing issues with the game like p***-poor combat encounter design (that didn't make fights hard, just made them repetitive and boring), bad pacing (see the Deep Roads), poorly tested random encounter level scaling (wolves more powerful than the archdemon herself), uneven and confused art direction and level design (see the Deep Roads), occasional bouts of WTF in the plot (see arcane calculations behind the Landsmeet votes- and lets toss in trial by combat despite winning the landsmeet support, just because that all to common dreck deserves it), many choices but few substantial consequences, lack of patches (particularily for the toolset), and that travesty called the lightmapper (sorry, toolset thing, but it must be noted).
And I think I need to note this one by it's lonesome-
The. Deep. Roads.
Because it deserves to be on a list of it's own for it's crimes.
[quote]Even the bits of Origins that worked got a second look to see how they could be done better to create an experience that feels fresh and refined.[/quote]You mean, "Even the bits of Origins that worked got a second look to see how they could be hacked out and replaced with Mass Effectisms to create an experience that feels AWESOME and EXTREME."
[quote]"Dragon Age 2 looks better, plays better, and has an entirely new story," says lead designer Mike Laidlaw.[/quote]I should hope it has entirely new story, seeing as it isn't a remake of DA starring the same characters.
[quote]Concerned that Origins both looked and played too "old fashioned,"[...][/quote]"Old Fashioned" as practically every MMO on the market these days. But seriously, as much as I hate the use of the term "old fashioned" here (I think a better descriptor would be "like the far superior games of a decade ago"), isn't that the point of DA? It was to appeal to a group of players that don't enjoy games that....
[quote][...]the design team wanted to "give Dragon Age a shot of adrenalin,"[...][/quote]...Use the statement "give Dragon Age a shot of adrenalin" as part of their marketing.
No really. People that enjoy combat that has a slower pace and makes one think. People that want depth and tactics. That get enough twitch in their action games that they don't need it, nor want it anywhere near their RPGs.
Y'know, us, the subset of players that only get catered to by indie devs (and I pray daily that these projects see the light of day) these days (and those are typically just other members of our aggravated subset of players that got fed up enough to make their own game(s)).
[quote][...]as executive producer Mark Darrah puts it. And so just about everything has been changed in some way, whether it's a minor tweak to smooth out some rough edges, or the total reworking of an idea that never quite came together the way it should. But don't worry, says Laidlaw. It may not look quite the same, but at it's heart, "It's still Dragon Age."[/quote]"It's still Dragon Age," he said, "70 years haven't passed in the diagetic world yet, but for all intensive purposes the game is Mass Effect with swords now!"
That advertising totally worked for "Fallout" 3, by the way. I know, I know, first Toddy-boy denied it was 'Oblivion with guns,' and what not, but when that sucker started nearing release, that statement was embraced and declared to the masses with such pride.
[quote]In case you're not up to speed on Dragon Age 2, here's a quick cheat sheet. Although it has a 2 tacked on to the end of its name, it's not really a sequel in the classic sense.[/quote]You can certainly say that about this Mass Effect spin off.
[quote]Although its beginning overlaps with the events of Origins, its scope is far greater, spanning many years after the first game's time frame.[/quote] Oh... you're refering to the plot, aren't you....
[quote]In Origins, you chose a character based on their origin story, but in DA2 you are Hawke (male or female, your choice), forced to flee your home in Ferelden and make your way as best you can in Kirkwall. You are not a revered Grey Warden, you're just a refugee like everyone else fleeing the Blight, doing the best you can to keep your family and friends safe and fed. Hawke isn't a particularly glamorous hero, but that's the point: the theme of DA2 is that there are no chosen ones, no pawns of prophecy - just people doing the best they can on any given day.[/quote]Well that sounds good... I'm certainly getting sick of Chosen Ones and Elite Commandos and Space Jesuses that seem to litter BW games. Sounds like my sort of plot... a shame a good theme and plot are going to be wasted on Mass Effect: Dragon Edition.
[quote]Origins was all about your hero gathering armies to fight a horde of Darkspawn, but the Blight is a mere blip in the action of DA2. Instead, its focus is on Hawke's rise to power,[...][/quote]"Rise to Power"
Oh well, there goes "just people doing the best they can on any given day," here comes 'unstoppable inhuman automaton of heroism.' Stroke the player's ego, stroke it hard.
[quote][...]which is shrouded in myth and legend. In the middle of a revolution, when the formerly mighty Chantry has become all but powerless, Hakwe became the Champion of Kirkwall and changed the world - but how?[/quote]How does one little town effect the whole wor-
"Rise to Power"
Ugh....
[quote]That story, told in flashback by the dwarf Varric as he's interrogated by the determined Cassandra, is what will play out during your adventures.[/quote]You mean Hawke's adventures while I'm passed out at the keyboard from boredom watching a poorly written protagonist prattle on endlessly.
[quote]Virtually every aspect of Dragon Age got a second look for Dragon Age 2, but here are a few areas that received the most love from BioWare:[/quote]Those were the areas least like Mass Effect, and by "love" you mean made to be like Mass Effect.
Likely would've added guns and 3PS gameplay if they had an excuse to.
[quote]http://www.cheatcc.com/pc/rev/dragonage2preview.html wrote:
However, archery has been completely re-tooled for the rogue in Dragon Age II and is now an equipable skill that pauses the gameplay so you can aim and then allows you to release your shot when ready.[/quote]
Oh sh*t, they did.
Wait... wait a second... I know this thread is about the escapist article... but:
[quote]http://www.cheatcc.com/pc/rev/dragonage2preview.html wrote:
Even if you didn't get the chance to pick up Origins when it released nearly two years ago[/quote]....
Apparantly it's December of 2011, damn that year went fast. (And this is why I use the term "journalists").
[quote]Combat
The combat in Origins had many failings, beginning with its unbalanced difficulty. "Was the default setting, especially on PC, too hard? Yeah," admits Laidlaw. "'Normal' felt more like 'Hard' to me."[/quote]
....
Well, Mr. Laidlaw, I will directly state how difficult I found the game.
Too easy on Nightmare. Boring and too easy. I am not everywoman, but still, too easy.
[quote]Even players who mastered the combat noticed other issues: It frequently felt sluggish, the rogue didn't feel much different from a warrior, and trying to be an archer just plain sucked.[/quote]I played through DA twice (once as a mage, once as a dual-wielding warrior) and started a third playthrough as an archer (never finished it as I got bored and dreaded going through the deep roads again), but archery didn't suck, in fact some of the most devastating attacks came from archers. And rogues were more fun to control than warriors, as you could actually use strategy and positioning with them- warriors you could just set on auto-pilot and let them do their thing. I'm not seeing how they were alike, sans that many warriors duel-wielded like melee rogues did.
[quote]The tactical side of combat returns, allowing you to pause the game and form a cohesive plan based on your current party, but the quick pace of fights has been ramped up for those favoring a more action-oriented combat style.[/quote] So for those of us that want a more challenging thinking man's game, pausing is an extreneous action, and I should just face roll the keyboard till the enemies are dead?
Because so far you're telling me that DA was too difficult, yet I found it too easy- and you're making DA2 easier. And then you tell me "but you can still pause! but we're making combat more action based".... meaning that pausing the game is something I should not need to do now that the game's difficulty has been castrated.
Faceroll it is!
[quote]Combat in Origins often got bogged down by fighting animations - rather than actually throwing a spell or shooting an arrow, a character would go through a big windup and then, eventually, get around to actually doing whatever it was you they were commanded to do. According to Laidlaw, BioWare wanted the fighting in DA2 to feel more immediate and less like "some invisible person rolling D20s behind the scenes."[/quote]That invisible person behind the scenes would've been a whole lot believable if there had been a combat log... and competant documentation for skills. Because stuff like:
Massive Blow of the BAMF
You raise your weapon above your head and bring it down upon your enemy causing a sh**ton of damage.
Was not hugely useful on figuring out what a skill actually did.
[quote]The design team also decided to inject a bit of common sense into the combat. "If you're a mage, and you're carrying around this big stick, why can't you hit someone with it?"[/quote]This would typically be because the energy bolt my staff shoots is more powerful than an actual physical attack my feeble strength could manage. Plus my magical staff could break on impact.
Just saying.
[quote][...]asks Laidlaw, pointing out that ranged combatants, like mages and archers, had little recourse when the fighting got up close and personal.[/quote]Well, as a mage... I sort of CCed them and ran away. And as an archer... I sort of CCed them and ran away. BUT if I had to do that, I COULDN'T FACEROLL! More than one ability, oh the horror.
[quote]Now, rogues and mages also have melee attacks - not particularly strong ones, but certainly better than just standing there and getting socked in the face.[/quote]Again, energy bolt. Just saying.
[quote]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. [/quote]Uh...Hurlock/Genlock Emmissaries? Alphas? Shrieks? Ogres?
I'm pretty sure these "threats" were in DA too, they were just in darkspawn form.
[quote]
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,[...][/quote]
Fighting a demon with Aerie's inventory baby stuffed in a bag of holding is not heroic or sexy either.
To put it more succinctly, we all carry around strange stuff in our inventory in RPGs, and it's okay, because it's a game. If we complain about silly things like this soon there won't be games with inventories anymore (see ME2).
[quote]
[...]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. [/quote]
I think I crafted less than 20 items in both my playthroughs of DA, and those were all for quests.
Y'know, if one could craft armor and weapons I might get a bit excited... but potions weren't exactly needed in DA. Especially potions that required frostrocks.
Well, if one could make, say, a trap skill based rogue- that might start making the crafting skills more interesting. And I mean a true spec focused on trapping, not just a rogue who uses traps to help them out. That might make trap crafting interesting.
[quote]
Skill Trees
The linear progression of the skill trees in Origins meant that you frequently had to spend valuable points on talents you never had any intention of using so that you could get to the one you actually wanted. It was a well-established and accepted system, but it oftentimes sapped a lot of the enjoyment out of leveling up.[/quote]
How about making all abilities useful enough that one would want them?
[quote]The skill trees in DA2 are actually webs, more circular in nature and offering more than one path to the really Hot Stuff skills.[/quote]Again, make all skills "Hot Stuff"....
You know, this dreck just drives me up the wall. The idea that there have to be less than desirable abilities, trash abilities if you will. I admit I am a mmorpg veteran, I've been playing them.... for far too many years. That said, nothing has aggravated me more than useless abilites left to fester on class while all the time is spent trying to fix balance issues by tweaking the same major abilities time and time again. I remember the Bonedancer being ignored in DAoC because the suppression spec was considered the most powerful solo spec in game, nevermind that the darkness spec was the most useless spec in game. The darkness BD needed dire help, but was completely ignored because the supression BD was considered just fine. In LotRO the Minstrel has a skill list littered with abilities the player will never use, Gift of the Hammerhand, Cure Fear, Raise the Spirit, Numerous Ballads, Call to the Fellowship- trust me, I know, it's my main- the class lives and dies on it's ability to spam basically one ability. In WAR, a game that has it's messageboards right here on the social network, the White Lion still has specced PvE tactics (that are useless in PVE, anyway), and has had them since launch, much to the chagrin of long time WL players. This sort of dreck happens time and time again in mmos, and it annoys me to no end with nearly a decade of mmo playing behind me.
Why do I bring up mmos in response to the single player DA skills? Because DA's combat seemed to desperately want to be an mmo. Most everything in game could be defeated by kiting... and that's just sad. The many activated abilities, the AC2 style interface (I refuse to call it WoW, WoW stole it from AC2), all stunk of "I want to be an MMO" disease. I enjoy my mmos, but I definitely don't want single player games to become like mmos, I get enough mmo in my mmos, kay? But anyway, I've digressed a bit- DA wanted it's combat to be like MMO combat, so I can friggin bring up my hate of this stupid idea that trash abilites must litter up a character's ability set.
Make all abilities useful and desirable- speccing shouldn't be trying to minimize the suck, it should be trying to make the decision between equally amazing skills. The end.
[quote]Skill upgrades branch off from their base skills, leaving the way clear for other progressions. If you want to spend several levels making sure you're deadly with a shield, you can, but your path to other talents is clear if you'd rather not bother. There still has to be some progression, of course - you can't go from acolyte to towering badass in just one jump - but the web definitely feels much more open and forgiving, allowing you to spend points the way you really want to, as opposed to the way you have to.[/quote]Towering badass should be the combined power of many abilities, not just obtaining the abilites at the top of the tree... or web... or whatever you call it. Lower end abilites should not be made useless by higher end abilities. Especially if you want your silly MMO-based combat.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
It is true the game had sketchy art direction (I present the Deep Roads as evidence), and a somewhat ununified visual presentation for a game that claimed to be 'Dark Fantasy.' Very few locations actually felt like dark fantasy, the circle did, maybe portions of the brecilian forest... but the rest? Rolling green hills, quaint architecture, lovely stonework bathed in golden light? Not really dark. That line upon entering Lothering where Alistair states sardonically, "Well there it is. Lothering. Pretty as a painting." refering to the supposed chaos happening in the village as people were preparing to flee. And all I could think, upon seeing the lush green hills with the charming windmill upon them, the storybook houses with plump little plumes of smoke trailing out their chimneys, was yes, yes it is pretty as a painting.
That's an art direction failure for a game that claims to be dark.
But... this is not what's being questioned here. Granted I did not play the console version, but somehow I doubt there is such gaping crevasse between the PC and the console to elicit describing it as one of the most hideous modern games. Oh, and I read the escapists comments, I got to enjoy this gem:
[quote]Susan Arendt, Senor Editor, The Escapist wrote:
I don't think even the biggest 360 fanboy can deny that Dragon Age looked like crap on both it and the PS3. I didn't even know the dog was an actual dog (as opposed to some dog-like creature) until I saw the game on the PC.[/quote]
....
And that's about all I can say about that statement.
But as a PC player, I will state, rather firmly it did not look dated. It looked like a specific manner of storybook lighting was attempted, to give the game a sort of ethereal feel. And I guess I can see how that might go unappreciated by the "Oh lord, the bloom was AMAZING" crowd. But away from that, the game looked rather spectactular from the isometric view. I understand the consoles lacked that view, and console players were not been privy to DA's most lovely feature, but it was far from hideous when zoomed in.
Wait... wait a second. DA2... has no isometric view.
....
Yep, take away the one thing that was truly beautiful in DA, that's the spirit! More Mass Effectisms, MOAR!
[quote]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.[/quote] I Know! Every screenshot I see have so many diverse colors popping out at me! Grey, charcoal, silver, slate, ash, platinum, granite, and gray! I mean, wow, it's like a feast for the eyes, no LSD trip could compare to brilliant rainbows of color in DA2, it's disco fantastic man!
[quote]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."[/quote]Then show me that, not this game you're apparantly making for black & white telvisions.
[quote]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.[/quote]In Tolkien mythos, elves pretty much do look like humans except for slightly pointed ears, a more slender and taller build, and being substantially more beautiful than the average human. And there's an elegance to that... opposed to the creepy anime stuff BioWare seems to want to inject into DA2. I feel the D&D 3rd edition inspired (thankfully just inspired) elves of DA was about as far as I'd want to go into the realm of divergence.
[quote]
The Hero
In Origins, you were a nameless, voiceless hero, but in DA2, you are the silky-toned Hawke, a change that may be jarring to those who favored Origins's old school approach to characterization. [/quote]
Favored would be an understatement- more like finds the alternative completely unplayable.
[quote]Which, as Laidlaw tells it, is not that many players. "People generally hated the silent protagonist," [...][/quote]I'd love to know where this statistic comes from, because I certainly wasn't asked- and there was no metric or checkbox in DA that asked "Oh gee, do you you hate that this game doesn't have our ABSOLUTELY STUPENDOUS AND GROUND-BREAKINGLY INNOVATIVE dialogue wheel that the game "journalists" ejaculated over like it was the best thing since sliced bread (but most sane people see as completely insipid and annoying) and a voiced protagonist?" What did this come from? Focus groups? Who were these focus groups made of?
Where is your proof of this statement?
Something makes me think this statistic comes from a location light dare not tred. I think it's the words "generally" and "hated."
[quote][...]he says, but that wasn't the only reason to adopt a main character who could speak for themselves; Having the hero stand stoically while drama erupted all around them "seemed to be doing a disservice to the storytelling."[/quote] I suspect a lot of those claims would disappear if the PC was actually animated and had expressions (Y'know, like Jade Empire!) during events like that- opposed to staring blankly off into nothingness while the player sees an over-the-shoulder shot of their character (which, I must note- over-the-shoulder camera for conversations a "cinematic" game does not make - stop the obsession). Personally, it doesn't bother me, because I'm far more concerned with picking my dialogue than looking at my character, but watching my character briefly emote during and after I pick the line (if there's something to emote) would be quite delightful I believe.
Remember how you used to do voiced lines that would feature the character's name in the text, but obviously not in the vocal recording? You know, a character might say something like this in text:
"Ah, Bert Parks, it's good see you again! Please take a look at my fine wares!"
But the recorded line sounded like:
"Ah, it's good to see you again! Please take a look at my fine wares!"
This is the same concept, but in animation. You're showing me my character is an active participant in the event, but not placing words in her/his mouth. You're still allowing it to be my character.
Which, by the way, stop naming the character unless you're willing to go all the way. I get it that "Shepard" worked because of the military background, even though it often came off as incredibly silly when it came to romances or other close relationships (see Kaiden's fears that calling Shepard "Shepard" was too informal and flirty instead of "Commander"), but cases that don't involve military designations, the set surname is plain insipid. Either drop it completely, or give us a list of first names to pick from if you're SO INTENT on giving the character a name. Or even better, a nickname.... Christ, just not the stupid surname.
[quote]Recognizing that responding to an impassioned speech from Leliana by choosing a sentence from a menu lacked a certain vitality,[...][/quote] Well then, make it more than a sentence, allow the player to string along various sentences. An example:
[Bingo Boyer]: ...And that's why I can stand pudding. Ugh! Even the thought of it sloshing through my toes, imbedding itself beneath my toenails can bring me to tears.
1. An interesting story, I have a similar one involving granola....
[*2. Truly unfortunate Bingo, but how can you blame pudding for all of that?*]
3. Mmm, pudding. Such a sweet delight....
4. Ugh pudding! A foul concoction, I've never liked it!
[Continue]
2.>
[*1. Pudding was not to fault for such a... tragedy. You're projecting.*]
2. I understand that you equate pudding with your loss, but....
3. To deny yourself something so delightful all because of this?
[Continue]
1.>
1. It's doubtful pudding alone to be the cause of all that.
2. The feel and smell of pudding is just what is most vivid in your mind.
[*3. Pudding is not cause for your problems, man up!*]
[Continue]
3.>
1. Find the actual culprit and punish them!
2. The rest of the party wants pudding, and I'm going to make them happy.
3. Stop running off and weeping like a little girl whenever I make pudding, dammit!
Etc. You get the idea. Let's call it player created monologues. Interactivity, what an amazing idea! But NO! It's so much preferable to have some character one has little to no connection with prattle off something 4 words and smiley without a doubt captured the 'essence' of.
[quote][...]the Dragon Age team decided to borrow a page from their colleagues across the hall.[/quote]Because the DA team seems to want to make z-grade movies just as much as the ME team!
See, that's the beauty of a game, it's interactive... not a boring trudge watching characters one has no connection with ramble on incessently between eachother.
[quote]
The conversation in DA2 plays out much like that in Mass Effect, with players selecting a paraphrase of a dialog option from various points on a wheel.[/quote]
*clenches jaw*
[quote]Hoping to avoid those situations where you think you're being flirty but end up sounding like a jerk, the wheel in DA2 adds an icon in the center to give you a better idea of the vibe you're about to convey. A heart is flirty, angel's wings indicate your goody-goody nature, and so on.[/quote]Once upon a time, I stated this about the dialogue wheel in my feedback for ME:
"Just have a little happy face on top, a neutral face in the middle, and an angry face on the bottom. Hell, this could be extended to a magnifying glass for Investigate and a little blue heart for charm and a little red flexing arm for intimidate. Why, you wouldn't even need to translate them to other languages!"
Good to know they've taken the idea inspired by InXile's "The Bard's Tale" and ran with it to try to fix the wheel.
But see, there's one major problem with the wheel, it's NEVER going to work in something that claims to be an RPG. It can't, because I'm in the dark about what my character says. You have to give me the option to see the text, or I can't roleplay. It's not an RPG if I can't roleplay.
[quote]There's still a bit of wiggle room, but you should always end up saying pretty much exactly what you meant to say.[/quote] "should always end up saying pretty much"
That just washes away all my doubts and arguments! I should always end up saying pretty much what I wanted to say! WOO HOO!
[quote](During my playthrough, I wanted to just tell someone I thought they were cute and ended up inviting them to bed, but flirting is open to all manner of interpretation, I suppose.)[/quote]Bah, anyone could mistake something like that. Hawke's not a sl*t, she just uses... intimate persuasion! That's it!
[quote]In Origins, your companions either approved or disapproved of just about everything you said and did, from how you handled quests to your conversations with them to the gifts you gave them. If they disapproved enough, they might decide not to follow your commands or just abandon you completely. In theory, it allowed for a lot of role playing, but if you wanted to have the strongest crew, you were pretty much obligated to keep them all happy. DA2 uses a similar mechanic, but with a far more interesting twist: Instead of approval and disapproval, you now have friends and rivals. Your companions will have your back no matter what, but if they're your rival, there will always be a bit of tension between you. Rivalry doesn't mean they're your enemy, merely that you don't see the world quite the same way. If you're an upstanding, rule-following, law-abiding kind of hero, then a companion with more flexible morality is more likely to be your rival. It's a particularly interesting choice because one of your earliest party members is your sibling (your brother or sister, depending on what class you chose), and as you might expect, a whole lot of baggage comes with them. Some options, such as combat moves or romance, will only become available with a rival, nicely removing the urge to just suck up to everyone following you around.[/quote]"Some options, such as combat moves or romance, will only become available with a rival"
This game needs romance feats. Everyone loves romance feats, just ask Obsidian! The DA2 feats need names that are far more risqué than MotB, "Dreamer’s Heart" and "Safiya's Love" were just too bland for an idea that was so amusing. They need names that are double entendres, without a doubt.
Or you can just spell it out:
You have obtained the Romance Feat: You Just Got to Second Base. Your Cunning has increased!
You have obtained the Romance Feat: Fellatio Performed. Your Willpower has increased!
You have obtained the Romance Feat: You Just Got Laid. Your Dexterity and Constitution have increased!
Excuse me, but that line just reminded me of my love of the concept of a "romance feat," and I had to go off on my lewd little tangent. I apologize if I have offended anyone.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
Which franchise? Mass Effect? If so, YES!
[quote]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.[/quote] Wait... what? Dragon Age? The spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate? Nah, you're confused, I think you mean Mass Effect.
[quote]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.[/quote] Heaven forbid you actually have to look at an item long enough to notice it isn't usable or equippable to figure out if it's actually junk, gotsta have it spelled out for you... well at least that proves the user is literate.... I guess.
[quote]It's also gorgeous, even on the Xbox 360; the visuals are something you'll actually enjoy as opposed to endure.[/quote]I was unaware I had to "endure" the visuals of Dragon Age. I did have to "endure" a whole lotta bonfires and open ceilings in the deep roads... just I think that was more an issue with level design and poor art direction in the area.
[quote]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.[/quote]I know! This Mass Effect spin off is going to be amazing!
[quote]
Susan Arendt thinks Commander Shepard should have a cameo in Dragon Age II somehow.[/quote]
Of course Shepard's going to get a cameo, this is a Mass Effect spin-off!
------------------
At the beginning of my little response, I said there was one statement that truly hit hard, I suspect it is not hard to see which, but I shall go over it in more detail now:
[quote]Which, as Laidlaw tells it, is not that many players. "People generally hated the silent protagonist,"[/quote] See, here's the problem, this statement... seems based in no evidence. One might say, "People generally prefered a voiced protagonist." And I might believe it. One might say, "Our internal statistics have shown people dislike the silent protagonist." And I might believe it.
But a statement that uses such a nebulous word as "generally" then immediately follows it up with such a vicious and strong word as "hate" just rings as someone trying to convince the audience or themselves of something that is "generally" not true.
Away from this being shoddy PR, I want to see the numbers. I want to see where this statistic comes from. I want proof. I see more and more people come out and say they prefer an unvoiced Player Character, this isn't like the days when Mass Effect was just released, and everyone treated it like it was the second coming. People have played these games, and for many the novelty has worn off, and they want to see a character that they can have a deeper connection with. I do not claim a majority, but I do claim a sizable chunk of the audience, enough that one should listen to their concerns. Not thrown aside and told everyone "generally hated" what we adore.
[quote]Mike Laidlaw wrote...
[quote]Brockololly wrote...
Yeah......not smooth Laidlaw, not smooth. >
[/quote]
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![/quote]
But that's not what you said. You said, "People generally hated the silent protagonist." It is one thing to say, "I know many are distressed by the change to a voiced protagonist for DA2, but we decided during the design process that it suited the gameplay we had in mind better than an unvoiced protagonist." That is respectable, it's something that can't be argued with on a conceptual level. The game may no longer be an RPG, people like me may find it unplayable, we may dissent- but it was a design decision guided by the designers' feelings on what would work best for their game. I may hate it, but I can't argue with the best intentions of the designers. But it is an entirely different thing to state a dodgy statistic. It's bad PR, and makes those that disagree, well, quite furious.
So again, I will state :Where is your proof of this statement?
------------------
Well, that's all I've got for now. I could prattle on for pages about the the horrors of the dialogue wheel and the positives of an unvoiced Player Character, of internalization of a character's thoughts, and of the joys of reading dialogue choices. But no, For now I've spent enough time typing reams in an attempt at catharsis.
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.
But... I had hope, as DA2's design was born when DA had not yet been released, and ME was considered a sure thing, while DA was far from that. My hopes lay in the success that DA had had, and that DA3 might be a proper return to form. So I've been keeping a lazy eye on previews watching for clues to what the future might bring. Oh, and there have been so many previews that have infuriated me... so many design decisions that, well I can't say I didn't expect them considering what the game wants to be, but design decisions that cause the palming of the face. But I've kept my bitter silence, in no small part due to the rather negative reactions the audience has had (which warm my heart, I must say... to see so many that hate the dialogue wheel... ah, it feels good).
No longer. I can't stand it, not after this round of previews. And not after some of the statements made... and one in particular in this preview... one that has audacity that astounds me.
So welcome to the blow by blow response to a preview by a bitter gamer that the gaming world has left behind fo-
Oooh, Shiny!
[quote]Let's be honest: As excellent as Dragon Age: Origins was, it was not without its problems. It had exceptionally good writing, strong voice acting, and some truly unforgettable characters - part of why it was my favorite game of last year - but the difficulty balance was way off,[/quote] Yes, it was entirely too easy. One word- Kiting.
[quote]the inventory was unwieldy,[/quote]The inventory was boring, and that's one of the most complimentary things I can say about it in this day and age. ME has an unwieldy inventory (and that's an understatement), DA has a controlled, if boring inventory.
[quote]and if you played it on a console, your eyes may still not have recovered from its unique brand of ugliness.[/quote] Er... okay....
[quote]BioWare is aware of all of these things, and is giving Dragon Age a near-complete overhaul.[/quote] Opposed to more pressing issues with the game like p***-poor combat encounter design (that didn't make fights hard, just made them repetitive and boring), bad pacing (see the Deep Roads), poorly tested random encounter level scaling (wolves more powerful than the archdemon herself), uneven and confused art direction and level design (see the Deep Roads), occasional bouts of WTF in the plot (see arcane calculations behind the Landsmeet votes- and lets toss in trial by combat despite winning the landsmeet support, just because that all to common dreck deserves it), many choices but few substantial consequences, lack of patches (particularily for the toolset), and that travesty called the lightmapper (sorry, toolset thing, but it must be noted).
And I think I need to note this one by it's lonesome-
The. Deep. Roads.
Because it deserves to be on a list of it's own for it's crimes.
[quote]Even the bits of Origins that worked got a second look to see how they could be done better to create an experience that feels fresh and refined.[/quote]You mean, "Even the bits of Origins that worked got a second look to see how they could be hacked out and replaced with Mass Effectisms to create an experience that feels AWESOME and EXTREME."
[quote]"Dragon Age 2 looks better, plays better, and has an entirely new story," says lead designer Mike Laidlaw.[/quote]I should hope it has entirely new story, seeing as it isn't a remake of DA starring the same characters.
[quote]Concerned that Origins both looked and played too "old fashioned,"[...][/quote]"Old Fashioned" as practically every MMO on the market these days. But seriously, as much as I hate the use of the term "old fashioned" here (I think a better descriptor would be "like the far superior games of a decade ago"), isn't that the point of DA? It was to appeal to a group of players that don't enjoy games that....
[quote][...]the design team wanted to "give Dragon Age a shot of adrenalin,"[...][/quote]...Use the statement "give Dragon Age a shot of adrenalin" as part of their marketing.
No really. People that enjoy combat that has a slower pace and makes one think. People that want depth and tactics. That get enough twitch in their action games that they don't need it, nor want it anywhere near their RPGs.
Y'know, us, the subset of players that only get catered to by indie devs (and I pray daily that these projects see the light of day) these days (and those are typically just other members of our aggravated subset of players that got fed up enough to make their own game(s)).
[quote][...]as executive producer Mark Darrah puts it. And so just about everything has been changed in some way, whether it's a minor tweak to smooth out some rough edges, or the total reworking of an idea that never quite came together the way it should. But don't worry, says Laidlaw. It may not look quite the same, but at it's heart, "It's still Dragon Age."[/quote]"It's still Dragon Age," he said, "70 years haven't passed in the diagetic world yet, but for all intensive purposes the game is Mass Effect with swords now!"
That advertising totally worked for "Fallout" 3, by the way. I know, I know, first Toddy-boy denied it was 'Oblivion with guns,' and what not, but when that sucker started nearing release, that statement was embraced and declared to the masses with such pride.
[quote]In case you're not up to speed on Dragon Age 2, here's a quick cheat sheet. Although it has a 2 tacked on to the end of its name, it's not really a sequel in the classic sense.[/quote]You can certainly say that about this Mass Effect spin off.
[quote]Although its beginning overlaps with the events of Origins, its scope is far greater, spanning many years after the first game's time frame.[/quote] Oh... you're refering to the plot, aren't you....
[quote]In Origins, you chose a character based on their origin story, but in DA2 you are Hawke (male or female, your choice), forced to flee your home in Ferelden and make your way as best you can in Kirkwall. You are not a revered Grey Warden, you're just a refugee like everyone else fleeing the Blight, doing the best you can to keep your family and friends safe and fed. Hawke isn't a particularly glamorous hero, but that's the point: the theme of DA2 is that there are no chosen ones, no pawns of prophecy - just people doing the best they can on any given day.[/quote]Well that sounds good... I'm certainly getting sick of Chosen Ones and Elite Commandos and Space Jesuses that seem to litter BW games. Sounds like my sort of plot... a shame a good theme and plot are going to be wasted on Mass Effect: Dragon Edition.
[quote]Origins was all about your hero gathering armies to fight a horde of Darkspawn, but the Blight is a mere blip in the action of DA2. Instead, its focus is on Hawke's rise to power,[...][/quote]"Rise to Power"
Oh well, there goes "just people doing the best they can on any given day," here comes 'unstoppable inhuman automaton of heroism.' Stroke the player's ego, stroke it hard.
[quote][...]which is shrouded in myth and legend. In the middle of a revolution, when the formerly mighty Chantry has become all but powerless, Hakwe became the Champion of Kirkwall and changed the world - but how?[/quote]How does one little town effect the whole wor-
"Rise to Power"
Ugh....
[quote]That story, told in flashback by the dwarf Varric as he's interrogated by the determined Cassandra, is what will play out during your adventures.[/quote]You mean Hawke's adventures while I'm passed out at the keyboard from boredom watching a poorly written protagonist prattle on endlessly.
[quote]Virtually every aspect of Dragon Age got a second look for Dragon Age 2, but here are a few areas that received the most love from BioWare:[/quote]Those were the areas least like Mass Effect, and by "love" you mean made to be like Mass Effect.
Likely would've added guns and 3PS gameplay if they had an excuse to.
[quote]http://www.cheatcc.com/pc/rev/dragonage2preview.html wrote:
However, archery has been completely re-tooled for the rogue in Dragon Age II and is now an equipable skill that pauses the gameplay so you can aim and then allows you to release your shot when ready.[/quote]
Oh sh*t, they did.
Wait... wait a second... I know this thread is about the escapist article... but:
[quote]http://www.cheatcc.com/pc/rev/dragonage2preview.html wrote:
Even if you didn't get the chance to pick up Origins when it released nearly two years ago[/quote]....
Apparantly it's December of 2011, damn that year went fast. (And this is why I use the term "journalists").
[quote]Combat
The combat in Origins had many failings, beginning with its unbalanced difficulty. "Was the default setting, especially on PC, too hard? Yeah," admits Laidlaw. "'Normal' felt more like 'Hard' to me."[/quote]
....
Well, Mr. Laidlaw, I will directly state how difficult I found the game.
Too easy on Nightmare. Boring and too easy. I am not everywoman, but still, too easy.
[quote]Even players who mastered the combat noticed other issues: It frequently felt sluggish, the rogue didn't feel much different from a warrior, and trying to be an archer just plain sucked.[/quote]I played through DA twice (once as a mage, once as a dual-wielding warrior) and started a third playthrough as an archer (never finished it as I got bored and dreaded going through the deep roads again), but archery didn't suck, in fact some of the most devastating attacks came from archers. And rogues were more fun to control than warriors, as you could actually use strategy and positioning with them- warriors you could just set on auto-pilot and let them do their thing. I'm not seeing how they were alike, sans that many warriors duel-wielded like melee rogues did.
[quote]The tactical side of combat returns, allowing you to pause the game and form a cohesive plan based on your current party, but the quick pace of fights has been ramped up for those favoring a more action-oriented combat style.[/quote] So for those of us that want a more challenging thinking man's game, pausing is an extreneous action, and I should just face roll the keyboard till the enemies are dead?
Because so far you're telling me that DA was too difficult, yet I found it too easy- and you're making DA2 easier. And then you tell me "but you can still pause! but we're making combat more action based".... meaning that pausing the game is something I should not need to do now that the game's difficulty has been castrated.
Faceroll it is!
[quote]Combat in Origins often got bogged down by fighting animations - rather than actually throwing a spell or shooting an arrow, a character would go through a big windup and then, eventually, get around to actually doing whatever it was you they were commanded to do. According to Laidlaw, BioWare wanted the fighting in DA2 to feel more immediate and less like "some invisible person rolling D20s behind the scenes."[/quote]That invisible person behind the scenes would've been a whole lot believable if there had been a combat log... and competant documentation for skills. Because stuff like:
Massive Blow of the BAMF
You raise your weapon above your head and bring it down upon your enemy causing a sh**ton of damage.
Was not hugely useful on figuring out what a skill actually did.
[quote]The design team also decided to inject a bit of common sense into the combat. "If you're a mage, and you're carrying around this big stick, why can't you hit someone with it?"[/quote]This would typically be because the energy bolt my staff shoots is more powerful than an actual physical attack my feeble strength could manage. Plus my magical staff could break on impact.
Just saying.
[quote][...]asks Laidlaw, pointing out that ranged combatants, like mages and archers, had little recourse when the fighting got up close and personal.[/quote]Well, as a mage... I sort of CCed them and ran away. And as an archer... I sort of CCed them and ran away. BUT if I had to do that, I COULDN'T FACEROLL! More than one ability, oh the horror.
[quote]Now, rogues and mages also have melee attacks - not particularly strong ones, but certainly better than just standing there and getting socked in the face.[/quote]Again, energy bolt. Just saying.
[quote]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. [/quote]Uh...Hurlock/Genlock Emmissaries? Alphas? Shrieks? Ogres?
I'm pretty sure these "threats" were in DA too, they were just in darkspawn form.
[quote]
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,[...][/quote]
Fighting a demon with Aerie's inventory baby stuffed in a bag of holding is not heroic or sexy either.
To put it more succinctly, we all carry around strange stuff in our inventory in RPGs, and it's okay, because it's a game. If we complain about silly things like this soon there won't be games with inventories anymore (see ME2).
[quote]
[...]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. [/quote]
I think I crafted less than 20 items in both my playthroughs of DA, and those were all for quests.
Y'know, if one could craft armor and weapons I might get a bit excited... but potions weren't exactly needed in DA. Especially potions that required frostrocks.
Well, if one could make, say, a trap skill based rogue- that might start making the crafting skills more interesting. And I mean a true spec focused on trapping, not just a rogue who uses traps to help them out. That might make trap crafting interesting.
[quote]
Skill Trees
The linear progression of the skill trees in Origins meant that you frequently had to spend valuable points on talents you never had any intention of using so that you could get to the one you actually wanted. It was a well-established and accepted system, but it oftentimes sapped a lot of the enjoyment out of leveling up.[/quote]
How about making all abilities useful enough that one would want them?
[quote]The skill trees in DA2 are actually webs, more circular in nature and offering more than one path to the really Hot Stuff skills.[/quote]Again, make all skills "Hot Stuff"....
You know, this dreck just drives me up the wall. The idea that there have to be less than desirable abilities, trash abilities if you will. I admit I am a mmorpg veteran, I've been playing them.... for far too many years. That said, nothing has aggravated me more than useless abilites left to fester on class while all the time is spent trying to fix balance issues by tweaking the same major abilities time and time again. I remember the Bonedancer being ignored in DAoC because the suppression spec was considered the most powerful solo spec in game, nevermind that the darkness spec was the most useless spec in game. The darkness BD needed dire help, but was completely ignored because the supression BD was considered just fine. In LotRO the Minstrel has a skill list littered with abilities the player will never use, Gift of the Hammerhand, Cure Fear, Raise the Spirit, Numerous Ballads, Call to the Fellowship- trust me, I know, it's my main- the class lives and dies on it's ability to spam basically one ability. In WAR, a game that has it's messageboards right here on the social network, the White Lion still has specced PvE tactics (that are useless in PVE, anyway), and has had them since launch, much to the chagrin of long time WL players. This sort of dreck happens time and time again in mmos, and it annoys me to no end with nearly a decade of mmo playing behind me.
Why do I bring up mmos in response to the single player DA skills? Because DA's combat seemed to desperately want to be an mmo. Most everything in game could be defeated by kiting... and that's just sad. The many activated abilities, the AC2 style interface (I refuse to call it WoW, WoW stole it from AC2), all stunk of "I want to be an MMO" disease. I enjoy my mmos, but I definitely don't want single player games to become like mmos, I get enough mmo in my mmos, kay? But anyway, I've digressed a bit- DA wanted it's combat to be like MMO combat, so I can friggin bring up my hate of this stupid idea that trash abilites must litter up a character's ability set.
Make all abilities useful and desirable- speccing shouldn't be trying to minimize the suck, it should be trying to make the decision between equally amazing skills. The end.
[quote]Skill upgrades branch off from their base skills, leaving the way clear for other progressions. If you want to spend several levels making sure you're deadly with a shield, you can, but your path to other talents is clear if you'd rather not bother. There still has to be some progression, of course - you can't go from acolyte to towering badass in just one jump - but the web definitely feels much more open and forgiving, allowing you to spend points the way you really want to, as opposed to the way you have to.[/quote]Towering badass should be the combined power of many abilities, not just obtaining the abilites at the top of the tree... or web... or whatever you call it. Lower end abilites should not be made useless by higher end abilities. Especially if you want your silly MMO-based combat.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
It is true the game had sketchy art direction (I present the Deep Roads as evidence), and a somewhat ununified visual presentation for a game that claimed to be 'Dark Fantasy.' Very few locations actually felt like dark fantasy, the circle did, maybe portions of the brecilian forest... but the rest? Rolling green hills, quaint architecture, lovely stonework bathed in golden light? Not really dark. That line upon entering Lothering where Alistair states sardonically, "Well there it is. Lothering. Pretty as a painting." refering to the supposed chaos happening in the village as people were preparing to flee. And all I could think, upon seeing the lush green hills with the charming windmill upon them, the storybook houses with plump little plumes of smoke trailing out their chimneys, was yes, yes it is pretty as a painting.
That's an art direction failure for a game that claims to be dark.
But... this is not what's being questioned here. Granted I did not play the console version, but somehow I doubt there is such gaping crevasse between the PC and the console to elicit describing it as one of the most hideous modern games. Oh, and I read the escapists comments, I got to enjoy this gem:
[quote]Susan Arendt, Senor Editor, The Escapist wrote:
I don't think even the biggest 360 fanboy can deny that Dragon Age looked like crap on both it and the PS3. I didn't even know the dog was an actual dog (as opposed to some dog-like creature) until I saw the game on the PC.[/quote]
....
And that's about all I can say about that statement.
But as a PC player, I will state, rather firmly it did not look dated. It looked like a specific manner of storybook lighting was attempted, to give the game a sort of ethereal feel. And I guess I can see how that might go unappreciated by the "Oh lord, the bloom was AMAZING" crowd. But away from that, the game looked rather spectactular from the isometric view. I understand the consoles lacked that view, and console players were not been privy to DA's most lovely feature, but it was far from hideous when zoomed in.
Wait... wait a second. DA2... has no isometric view.
....
Yep, take away the one thing that was truly beautiful in DA, that's the spirit! More Mass Effectisms, MOAR!
[quote]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.[/quote] I Know! Every screenshot I see have so many diverse colors popping out at me! Grey, charcoal, silver, slate, ash, platinum, granite, and gray! I mean, wow, it's like a feast for the eyes, no LSD trip could compare to brilliant rainbows of color in DA2, it's disco fantastic man!
[quote]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."[/quote]Then show me that, not this game you're apparantly making for black & white telvisions.
[quote]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.[/quote]In Tolkien mythos, elves pretty much do look like humans except for slightly pointed ears, a more slender and taller build, and being substantially more beautiful than the average human. And there's an elegance to that... opposed to the creepy anime stuff BioWare seems to want to inject into DA2. I feel the D&D 3rd edition inspired (thankfully just inspired) elves of DA was about as far as I'd want to go into the realm of divergence.
[quote]
The Hero
In Origins, you were a nameless, voiceless hero, but in DA2, you are the silky-toned Hawke, a change that may be jarring to those who favored Origins's old school approach to characterization. [/quote]
Favored would be an understatement- more like finds the alternative completely unplayable.
[quote]Which, as Laidlaw tells it, is not that many players. "People generally hated the silent protagonist," [...][/quote]I'd love to know where this statistic comes from, because I certainly wasn't asked- and there was no metric or checkbox in DA that asked "Oh gee, do you you hate that this game doesn't have our ABSOLUTELY STUPENDOUS AND GROUND-BREAKINGLY INNOVATIVE dialogue wheel that the game "journalists" ejaculated over like it was the best thing since sliced bread (but most sane people see as completely insipid and annoying) and a voiced protagonist?" What did this come from? Focus groups? Who were these focus groups made of?
Where is your proof of this statement?
Something makes me think this statistic comes from a location light dare not tred. I think it's the words "generally" and "hated."
[quote][...]he says, but that wasn't the only reason to adopt a main character who could speak for themselves; Having the hero stand stoically while drama erupted all around them "seemed to be doing a disservice to the storytelling."[/quote] I suspect a lot of those claims would disappear if the PC was actually animated and had expressions (Y'know, like Jade Empire!) during events like that- opposed to staring blankly off into nothingness while the player sees an over-the-shoulder shot of their character (which, I must note- over-the-shoulder camera for conversations a "cinematic" game does not make - stop the obsession). Personally, it doesn't bother me, because I'm far more concerned with picking my dialogue than looking at my character, but watching my character briefly emote during and after I pick the line (if there's something to emote) would be quite delightful I believe.
Remember how you used to do voiced lines that would feature the character's name in the text, but obviously not in the vocal recording? You know, a character might say something like this in text:
"Ah, Bert Parks, it's good see you again! Please take a look at my fine wares!"
But the recorded line sounded like:
"Ah, it's good to see you again! Please take a look at my fine wares!"
This is the same concept, but in animation. You're showing me my character is an active participant in the event, but not placing words in her/his mouth. You're still allowing it to be my character.
Which, by the way, stop naming the character unless you're willing to go all the way. I get it that "Shepard" worked because of the military background, even though it often came off as incredibly silly when it came to romances or other close relationships (see Kaiden's fears that calling Shepard "Shepard" was too informal and flirty instead of "Commander"), but cases that don't involve military designations, the set surname is plain insipid. Either drop it completely, or give us a list of first names to pick from if you're SO INTENT on giving the character a name. Or even better, a nickname.... Christ, just not the stupid surname.
[quote]Recognizing that responding to an impassioned speech from Leliana by choosing a sentence from a menu lacked a certain vitality,[...][/quote] Well then, make it more than a sentence, allow the player to string along various sentences. An example:
[Bingo Boyer]: ...And that's why I can stand pudding. Ugh! Even the thought of it sloshing through my toes, imbedding itself beneath my toenails can bring me to tears.
1. An interesting story, I have a similar one involving granola....
[*2. Truly unfortunate Bingo, but how can you blame pudding for all of that?*]
3. Mmm, pudding. Such a sweet delight....
4. Ugh pudding! A foul concoction, I've never liked it!
[Continue]
2.>
[*1. Pudding was not to fault for such a... tragedy. You're projecting.*]
2. I understand that you equate pudding with your loss, but....
3. To deny yourself something so delightful all because of this?
[Continue]
1.>
1. It's doubtful pudding alone to be the cause of all that.
2. The feel and smell of pudding is just what is most vivid in your mind.
[*3. Pudding is not cause for your problems, man up!*]
[Continue]
3.>
1. Find the actual culprit and punish them!
2. The rest of the party wants pudding, and I'm going to make them happy.
3. Stop running off and weeping like a little girl whenever I make pudding, dammit!
Etc. You get the idea. Let's call it player created monologues. Interactivity, what an amazing idea! But NO! It's so much preferable to have some character one has little to no connection with prattle off something 4 words and smiley without a doubt captured the 'essence' of.
[quote][...]the Dragon Age team decided to borrow a page from their colleagues across the hall.[/quote]Because the DA team seems to want to make z-grade movies just as much as the ME team!
See, that's the beauty of a game, it's interactive... not a boring trudge watching characters one has no connection with ramble on incessently between eachother.
[quote]
The conversation in DA2 plays out much like that in Mass Effect, with players selecting a paraphrase of a dialog option from various points on a wheel.[/quote]
*clenches jaw*
[quote]Hoping to avoid those situations where you think you're being flirty but end up sounding like a jerk, the wheel in DA2 adds an icon in the center to give you a better idea of the vibe you're about to convey. A heart is flirty, angel's wings indicate your goody-goody nature, and so on.[/quote]Once upon a time, I stated this about the dialogue wheel in my feedback for ME:
"Just have a little happy face on top, a neutral face in the middle, and an angry face on the bottom. Hell, this could be extended to a magnifying glass for Investigate and a little blue heart for charm and a little red flexing arm for intimidate. Why, you wouldn't even need to translate them to other languages!"
Good to know they've taken the idea inspired by InXile's "The Bard's Tale" and ran with it to try to fix the wheel.
But see, there's one major problem with the wheel, it's NEVER going to work in something that claims to be an RPG. It can't, because I'm in the dark about what my character says. You have to give me the option to see the text, or I can't roleplay. It's not an RPG if I can't roleplay.
[quote]There's still a bit of wiggle room, but you should always end up saying pretty much exactly what you meant to say.[/quote] "should always end up saying pretty much"
That just washes away all my doubts and arguments! I should always end up saying pretty much what I wanted to say! WOO HOO!
[quote](During my playthrough, I wanted to just tell someone I thought they were cute and ended up inviting them to bed, but flirting is open to all manner of interpretation, I suppose.)[/quote]Bah, anyone could mistake something like that. Hawke's not a sl*t, she just uses... intimate persuasion! That's it!
[quote]In Origins, your companions either approved or disapproved of just about everything you said and did, from how you handled quests to your conversations with them to the gifts you gave them. If they disapproved enough, they might decide not to follow your commands or just abandon you completely. In theory, it allowed for a lot of role playing, but if you wanted to have the strongest crew, you were pretty much obligated to keep them all happy. DA2 uses a similar mechanic, but with a far more interesting twist: Instead of approval and disapproval, you now have friends and rivals. Your companions will have your back no matter what, but if they're your rival, there will always be a bit of tension between you. Rivalry doesn't mean they're your enemy, merely that you don't see the world quite the same way. If you're an upstanding, rule-following, law-abiding kind of hero, then a companion with more flexible morality is more likely to be your rival. It's a particularly interesting choice because one of your earliest party members is your sibling (your brother or sister, depending on what class you chose), and as you might expect, a whole lot of baggage comes with them. Some options, such as combat moves or romance, will only become available with a rival, nicely removing the urge to just suck up to everyone following you around.[/quote]"Some options, such as combat moves or romance, will only become available with a rival"
This game needs romance feats. Everyone loves romance feats, just ask Obsidian! The DA2 feats need names that are far more risqué than MotB, "Dreamer’s Heart" and "Safiya's Love" were just too bland for an idea that was so amusing. They need names that are double entendres, without a doubt.
Or you can just spell it out:
You have obtained the Romance Feat: You Just Got to Second Base. Your Cunning has increased!
You have obtained the Romance Feat: Fellatio Performed. Your Willpower has increased!
You have obtained the Romance Feat: You Just Got Laid. Your Dexterity and Constitution have increased!
Excuse me, but that line just reminded me of my love of the concept of a "romance feat," and I had to go off on my lewd little tangent. I apologize if I have offended anyone.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
Which franchise? Mass Effect? If so, YES!
[quote]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.[/quote] Wait... what? Dragon Age? The spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate? Nah, you're confused, I think you mean Mass Effect.
[quote]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.[/quote] Heaven forbid you actually have to look at an item long enough to notice it isn't usable or equippable to figure out if it's actually junk, gotsta have it spelled out for you... well at least that proves the user is literate.... I guess.
[quote]It's also gorgeous, even on the Xbox 360; the visuals are something you'll actually enjoy as opposed to endure.[/quote]I was unaware I had to "endure" the visuals of Dragon Age. I did have to "endure" a whole lotta bonfires and open ceilings in the deep roads... just I think that was more an issue with level design and poor art direction in the area.
[quote]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.[/quote]I know! This Mass Effect spin off is going to be amazing!
[quote]
Susan Arendt thinks Commander Shepard should have a cameo in Dragon Age II somehow.[/quote]
Of course Shepard's going to get a cameo, this is a Mass Effect spin-off!
------------------
At the beginning of my little response, I said there was one statement that truly hit hard, I suspect it is not hard to see which, but I shall go over it in more detail now:
[quote]Which, as Laidlaw tells it, is not that many players. "People generally hated the silent protagonist,"[/quote] See, here's the problem, this statement... seems based in no evidence. One might say, "People generally prefered a voiced protagonist." And I might believe it. One might say, "Our internal statistics have shown people dislike the silent protagonist." And I might believe it.
But a statement that uses such a nebulous word as "generally" then immediately follows it up with such a vicious and strong word as "hate" just rings as someone trying to convince the audience or themselves of something that is "generally" not true.
Away from this being shoddy PR, I want to see the numbers. I want to see where this statistic comes from. I want proof. I see more and more people come out and say they prefer an unvoiced Player Character, this isn't like the days when Mass Effect was just released, and everyone treated it like it was the second coming. People have played these games, and for many the novelty has worn off, and they want to see a character that they can have a deeper connection with. I do not claim a majority, but I do claim a sizable chunk of the audience, enough that one should listen to their concerns. Not thrown aside and told everyone "generally hated" what we adore.
[quote]Mike Laidlaw wrote...
[quote]Brockololly wrote...
Yeah......not smooth Laidlaw, not smooth. >
[/quote]
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![/quote]
But that's not what you said. You said, "People generally hated the silent protagonist." It is one thing to say, "I know many are distressed by the change to a voiced protagonist for DA2, but we decided during the design process that it suited the gameplay we had in mind better than an unvoiced protagonist." That is respectable, it's something that can't be argued with on a conceptual level. The game may no longer be an RPG, people like me may find it unplayable, we may dissent- but it was a design decision guided by the designers' feelings on what would work best for their game. I may hate it, but I can't argue with the best intentions of the designers. But it is an entirely different thing to state a dodgy statistic. It's bad PR, and makes those that disagree, well, quite furious.
So again, I will state :Where is your proof of this statement?
------------------
Well, that's all I've got for now. I could prattle on for pages about the the horrors of the dialogue wheel and the positives of an unvoiced Player Character, of internalization of a character's thoughts, and of the joys of reading dialogue choices. But no, For now I've spent enough time typing reams in an attempt at catharsis.
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.
Modifié par Veilinn, 22 décembre 2010 - 11:13 .
#554
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:06
Piecake
-
- Members
- 1 035 messages
Veilinn wrote...
Opposed to more pressing issues with the game like p***-poor combat encounter design (that didn't make fights hard, just made them repetitive and boring), bad pacing (see the Deep Roads), poorly tested random encounter level scaling (wolves more powerful than the archdemon herself), uneven and confused art direction and level design (see the Deep Roads), occasional bouts of WTF in the plot (see arcane calculations behind the Landsmeet votes- and lets toss in trial by combat despite winning the landsmeet support, just because that all to common dreck deserves it), many choices but few substantial consequences, lack of patches (particularily for the toolset), and that travesty called the lightmapper (sorry, toolset thing, but it must be noted).BioWare is aware of all of these things, and is giving Dragon Age a near-complete overhaul.
I think I read about 1/10s of your post before I gave up, but how do you expect the previews to comment on DA2's plot, pacing, level scaling, consistency of its art direction and level design when they only played 4-5 hours of the game? Should they say DAO had these problems and we hope DA2 fixes them? What's the point in that? Its not a review of DAO.
#555
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:11
Aegeri-
-
- Members
- 3 messages
Line by line responses to previews are the best way of arguing on the internet.
#556
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:20
upsettingshorts
-
- Members
- 13 950 messages
Veilinn, your post's self-righteous indignation is matched only by its narrow-minded vitriol.
If you are offended I apologize; please consider my brief, exasperated reply my own form of catharsis.
If you are offended I apologize; please consider my brief, exasperated reply my own form of catharsis.
#557
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:25
Shepard Lives
-
- Members
- 3 883 messages
Veilinn wrote...
*snip*
Mother of God.
#558
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:30
Morroian
-
- Members
- 6 396 messages
Aegeri- wrote...
Line by line responses to previews are the best way of arguing on the internet.
Yeah because no-one can be bothered reading all of the dreck to provide an opposing viewpoint.
#559
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:35
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Veilinn, your post's self-righteous indignation is matched only by its narrow-minded vitriol.
If you are offended I apologize; please consider my brief, exasperated reply my own form of catharsis.
Veilinn was one of my favourite part of the old DA:O boards. The sheer venom you could feel once Bioware started the ''Violence Trailer'' marketing was hilarious.
Also, Veilinn, you had a name for the stock feature of Shepard. I can't recall it now. But it was a funny name. Eddie or something?
#560
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:47
Stanley Woo
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 8 368 messages
[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.
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.
#561
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:49
Malanek
-
- Members
- 7 838 messages
Veilinn, do you honestly expect anyone to read that? Far too much rambling.
#562
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:51
jesuno
-
- Members
- 491 messages
shepard_lives wrote...
Veilinn wrote...
*snip*
Mother of God.
Littering and.....littering and.....littering and
#563
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:54
The Masked Rog
-
- Members
- 491 messages
A atomic bomb of misinformation just hit the forum!Veilinn wrote...
*snip*
#564
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:55
Maria Caliban
-
- Members
- 26 094 messages
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?
#565
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:57
upsettingshorts
-
- Members
- 13 950 messages
Maria Caliban wrote...
Am I close?
Throw in something about how they reapportioned the voting district to disenfranchise PC users in order to shore up their console user base and I think you'd have it surrounded.
#566
Posté 22 décembre 2010 - 11:58
Winter Wraith
-
- Members
- 185 messages
shepard_lives wrote...
Veilinn wrote...
*snip*
Mother of God.
If ever a post was born for the reply: TL:DR.
#567
Posté 23 décembre 2010 - 12:04
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Throw in something about how they reapportioned the voting district to disenfranchise PC users in order to shore up their console user base and I think you'd have it surrounded.
Let us not forget that the PC ubermensch has discovered all of this, and now braverly rallies agains the evil console overlord on the tubes of the internets.
#568
Posté 23 décembre 2010 - 12:14
Piecake
-
- Members
- 1 035 messages
Well, to be honest, I really can't see any company making a Dwarf PC only game. I just can't imagine that it would sell nearly as well, so why would any company do that? *insert my obligatory demand for future multiple PC game here*
#569
Posté 23 décembre 2010 - 12:35
Mike Laidlaw
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 765 messages
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.
#570
Posté 23 décembre 2010 - 12:38
Mike Laidlaw
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 765 messages
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.
#571
Posté 23 décembre 2010 - 12:38
upsettingshorts
-
- Members
- 13 950 messages
That's clearly marketing making you say that.
#572
Posté 23 décembre 2010 - 12:41
Xewaka
-
- Members
- 3 739 messages
The Masked Rog wrote...
A atomic bomb of misinformation just hit the forum!Veilinn wrote...
*snip*
I actually read carefully Veilinn's post and I find myself in agreement with what he/she exposed, if not with the general tone of the post, save for the Deep Roads Bashing part.
Piecake wrote...
Well, to be honest, I really can't see
any company making a Dwarf PC only game. I just can't imagine that it
would sell nearly as well, so why would any company do that? *insert my
obligatory demand for future multiple PC game here*
That would require a much more open story than what David Gaider and his crew wanted for DA2. And I still believe an infiltration game on the deep roads playing as Sigrun (think Arkham Asylum) would be awesome and highly sellable.
Modifié par Xewaka, 23 décembre 2010 - 12:44 .
#573
Posté 23 décembre 2010 - 12:45
Ziggeh
-
- Members
- 4 360 messages
It occurs that the reason for this is the same reason people would ask for one. Bear with me here, I might make sense of that statement in a minute.Piecake wrote...
Well, to be honest, I really can't see any company making a Dwarf PC only game.
People want to play dwarves and elves on the basis that they have preconceived notions of what that means, sure it is inherently different to humans, but it is different in specific ways. People aren't (unless I'm mistaken) asking to be a character who happens to be 4'3" or has pointy ears, they're asking to "dwarfy" or "elfy" in a fairly tolkien sense of the word. (Reminds me, must see where that conversation about elf romances went after I went to bed.)
In order to market that concept, you would pretty much have to generate a complete stereotype. Sure, you could play with it a little, but unless your dwarf protagonist was a heavy drinking beard wielder, ideally with a scottish accent, much of it's audience are going to take the view that this is not a "real dwarf", no matter how much you insist that dwarves don't all need to be this way. The preconcieved notions would severely limit the protagonist's personality because any marketing that requires an explanation is instant failure.
#574
Posté 23 décembre 2010 - 12:46
Ziggeh
-
- Members
- 4 360 messages
They have eyes everywhere.Upsettingshorts wrote...
That's clearly marketing making you say that.
I for one welcome our new marketing overlords.
#575
Posté 23 décembre 2010 - 12:47
Xewaka
-
- Members
- 3 739 messages
Ziggeh wrote...
They have eyes everywhere.Upsettingshorts wrote...
That's clearly marketing making you say that.
I for one welcome our new marketing overlords.
All glory to the marketoad.
