473 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I wasn't able to do it in ME1 (I had to use exploits for that to bump my Charm/Intimidate, though there may be programs out now I'm not aware of) but in ME2 I use the Gibbed Save Editor.

Thanks. I'm downloading it now. Can the save editor fix the bugged ME1 transfers, e.g. Conrad?

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...

Thanks. I'm downloading it now. Can the save editor fix the bugged ME1 transfers, e.g. Conrad?

Conrad's permanently borked.  

Anathemic wrote...

If you actually read it and analyzed it to a degree that one would do in a proper argument you would see the point I'm making is the speed and action on how killing takes places which eerily resembles hack-n-slash games like Diablo 3.

When do you get to the part where you explain how the fact it looks like a hack-n-slash game means it is a hack-n-slash game?

Keep in mind that Mike Laidlaw would take people saying it looks like an action game as a compliment, but vehemently deny that it has become one.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:06 .

[Dave of Canada]

Anathemic wrote...

And 'blink' is what makes said DA2 video eerily similar to the D3 one I posted, so I see no reason why your bringing DA:O up when obviously the Warden didn't have this 'blink' ability and had to manually shuffle around enemies, not to mention said Warden was slower to large degree compared to Hawke in the DA2 video.

Because, blink is the removal of shuffle and that seems your primary focus on what makes DA2 an action game. So Origins isn't an action game because it has shuffle, no? How does the removal of shuffle turn the game into an action game?

[Anathemic]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

And 'blink' is what makes said DA2 video eerily similar to the D3 one I posted, so I see no reason why your bringing DA:O up when obviously the Warden didn't have this 'blink' ability and had to manually shuffle around enemies, not to mention said Warden was slower to large degree compared to Hawke in the DA2 video.

Because, blink is the removal of shuffle and that seems your primary focus on what makes DA2 an action game. So Origins isn't an action game because it has shuffle, no? How does the removal of shuffle turn the game into an action game?

Lack of shuffle is a primary focus one of many, I've decided to focus down on it for that's what the video portrays mainly. Like I've stated my whole point is to emphasize how the speed and action of killing enemies in DA2 eerily resembles that of killing in common hack-n-slash games like Diablo 3.

This speed and action can derive from many things other than lack of shuffle like movement speed (In DA:O your character was considerably slower than shown in the video), attack speed (again considerably slower in DA:O), mobility (mixture of attack speed, movement speed, and quick-targetting speed, greatly focused in DA2 combat as seen in the video), and fighting stance (this can be onely solely based on the rogue-like class in the video but it does emhpasize the upgrade of a rogue from DA:O into a assassin-juggernaught type of class rather than an assassin-stealth class with a slightly hunched back seen in DA:O).

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

Which savegame editor do you use? This actually sounds like a great idea. I want to do the same for both ME1 and ME2 to be able to roleplay in a situationally coherent way and not be bound by the scores.

I don't think you need to change P/R points in ME1. Options are governed by Charm and Intimidate scores, not P/R rating, right? Of course, if you think those shouldn't be skills or should both be the same skill you will need an editor.

[upsettingshorts]

Anathemic wrote...

Lack of shuffle is a primary focus one of many, I've decided to focus down on it for that's what the video portrays mainly. Like I've stated my whole point is to emphasize how the speed and action of killing enemies in DA2 eerily resembles that of killing in common hack-n-slash games like Diablo 3.

So what?

The resemblance isn't eerie.  It's intentional.  That still doesn't explain anything about how the game works "under the hood" or how it feels to play.   Again, considering Mike Laidlaw explicitly draws a distinction between how the game looks and how the game plays, evidence that the latter has changed cannot be drawn from how similar the animations looks because that was the point.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:20 .

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
I don't think you need to change P/R points in ME1. Options are governed by Charm and Intimidate scores, not P/R rating, right? Of course, if you think those shouldn't be skills or should both be the same skill you will need an editor.

You need P/R points to fully invest in charm and intimidate. So if you don't accumulate enough points, you can't fully level the ability.

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Thanks. I'm downloading it now. Can the save editor fix the bugged ME1 transfers, e.g. Conrad?

Conrad's permanently borked.  

Anathemic wrote...

If you actually read it and analyzed it to a degree that one would do in a proper argument you would see the point I'm making is the speed and action on how killing takes places which eerily resembles hack-n-slash games like Diablo 3.

When do you get to the part where you explain how the fact it looks like a hack-n-slash game means it is a hack-n-slash game?

Keep in mind that Mike Laidlaw would take people saying it looks like an action game as a compliment, but vehemently deny that it has become one.

By basing my claims on another source IE the in-game video of D3? Obviously D3 is hack-n-slash no doubt about it, and the gameplay in DA2 resembles D3 which again is a hack-n-slash. Does this mean that DA2 is a hack-n-slash or action RPG? Maybe. Does this mean DA2 took concepts directly or indirectly from hack-n-slash games? Most definatly.

Think of Warcraft 3 where the implementation of heroes which can level up was in a RTS. This did not make Warcraft 3 a RPG but it did borrow elements from a RPG into the game, this implementation was very controversial and Blizzard decided not to put it into their next (and latest) RTS StarCraft 2 (with the exception of custom games).

Same thing applies to DA2. DA2 has the same speed of killing shown in D3 in-game vids. This does not mean it is truly a action-rpg or hack-n-slash but it does have concepts/features associated as such. The question is, is that if this similar characteristic is for the betterment of the game in it's current genre (RPG, classic RPG, etc.)?

Modifié par Anathemic, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:21 .

[upsettingshorts]

Anathemic wrote...

By basing my claims on another source IE the in-game video of D3? Obviously D3 is hack-n-slash no doubt about it, and the gameplay in DA2 resembles D3 which again is a hack-n-slash. Does this mean that DA2 is a hack-n-slash or action RPG? Maybe. Does this mean DA2 took concepts directly or indirectly from hack-n-slash games? Most definatly.

Visual concepts.  See my more recent post above.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:21 .

[AlanC9]

Anathemic wrote...

Lack of shuffle is a primary focus one of many, I've decided to focus down on it for that's what the video portrays mainly. Like I've stated my whole point is to emphasize how the speed and action of killing enemies in DA2 eerily resembles that of killing in common hack-n-slash games like Diablo 3.

This speed and action can derive from many things other than lack of shuffle like movement speed (In DA:O your character was considerably slower than shown in the video), attack speed (again considerably slower in DA:O), mobility (mixture of attack speed, movement speed, and quick-targetting speed, greatly focused in DA2 combat as seen in the video), and fighting stance (this can be onely solely based on the rogue-like class in the video but it does emhpasize the upgrade of a rogue from DA:O into a assassin-juggernaught type of class rather than an assassin-stealth class with a slightly hunched back seen in DA:O).

I'm not sure how we're going to get anywhere with this without some sort of coherent definition of action game or hack-n-slash. I guess it's on you since you're the one trying to prove something. What's your definition?

[Pwnsaur]

I can see how someone may look at the video of the Combat Walk-through and confuse it for a hack and slash game. If it can visually resemble a 'hank n slash' rpg, can it not be reasonable for someone to be concerned over the gameplay similarities that may or may not exist once the game is released?



This seems like a perfectly legitimate apprehension for people who prefer a more tactical combat experience.



*shrugs*

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Lack of shuffle is a primary focus one of many, I've decided to focus down on it for that's what the video portrays mainly. Like I've stated my whole point is to emphasize how the speed and action of killing enemies in DA2 eerily resembles that of killing in common hack-n-slash games like Diablo 3.

So what?

The resemblance isn't eerie.  It's intentional.  That still doesn't explain anything about how the game works "under the hood" or how it feels to play.   Again, considering Mike Laidlaw explicitly draws a distinction between how the game looks and how the game plays, evidence that the latter has changed cannot be drawn from how similar the animations looks because that was the point.

What distinction you mean this vague quote here?

"It's hard to communicate how this game still feels like Origins despite feeling compeltely different."

What kind of conclusion is one to make with that bull**** vague quote? "Oh it feels different but it also feels like Origins!"

Your argument is based on the term 'is' well Mr. Laidlaw here does not use the term' is' and explicity keeps using 'feels' so explain to me how you can derive the conclusion that DA2 is not or doesn't have similar aspects of that from a hack-n-slash without the term 'is' please.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I don't think you need to change P/R points in ME1. Options are governed by Charm and Intimidate scores, not P/R rating, right? Of course, if you think those shouldn't be skills or should both be the same skill you will need an editor.

You need P/R points to fully invest in charm and intimidate. So if you don't accumulate enough points, you can't fully level the ability.

True, but does this really ever come up in ME1? You can take a skill up to the first breakpoint without using it ever. The only way you won't get past that breakpoint is if you aren't using the skill. You're really going to throw a lot of points in a skill you aren't using?

Of course, thinking like this is probably how they screwed up the implementation in ME2.

[upsettingshorts]

Pwnsaur wrote...

I can see how someone may look at the video of the Combat Walk-through and confuse it for a hack and slash game. If it can visually resemble a 'hank n slash' rpg, can it not be reasonable for someone to be concerned over the gameplay similarities that may or may not exist once the game is released?

This seems like a perfectly legitimate apprehension for people who prefer a more tactical combat experience.

I didn't say it wasn't legitimate. 

The visuals are supposed to evoke an action look.  However, basing how the game plays on the change in presentation style doesn't make a lot of sense.  Especially when the arguments simply keep refering back to the presentation. 

Anathemic wrote...

What distinction you mean this vague quote here?

I give up.  Yes.  Dragon Age 2 is a hack and slash fighting game.  Mike Laidlaw and every other developer on the board is deliberately misleading you with "vague" statements that are meant to be taken out of context. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:33 .

[AlanC9]

Anathemic wrote...
Your argument is based on the term 'is' well Mr. Laidlaw here does not use the term' is' and explicity keeps using 'feels' so explain to me how you can derive the conclusion that DA2 is not or doesn't have similar aspects of that from a hack-n-slash without the term 'is' please.

Huh? He's talking about the feeling so he says "feels." It ain't rocket science.

Edit: Suddenly I realize that I have no idea what the hell you're getting at.. Are you really not making any distinction between the look and feel of something and the actual mechanics? So anything that looks fast is a hack-n-slash?

This means that Laidlaw's stated goal for DA2 is logically impossible. It also means that looks are dominant over the actual mechanics. This is what you're saying; is it what you mean?

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:37 .

[Anathemic]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm not sure how we're going to get anywhere with this without some sort of coherent definition of action game or hack-n-slash. I guess it's on you since you're the one trying to prove something. What's your definition?

"Hack and slash or hack and slay refers to a type of gameplay that emphasizes close combat with short-range weapons. "Hack and slash" was originally used to describe an aspect of pen-and-paper role-playing games (RPGs)."

-http://dictionary.se...nd slash/en-en/

Obviously the only short-range weapons boudnary was removed with the introduction of Diablo but the fact remains it's a style of gamepaly which greatly focuses on close combat (waves of enemies, surrounding enemies, quick killing, massive killing, etc.)

Does DA:O qualify as HnS? No, because it was a much slower and tactical combat-game.
Does The Witcher qualify as HnS? No, because the combat was basic and not emphasized that much, not to mention repetetive.
Does StarCraft 2 qualify as HnS? No, because combat is emphasized on a much larger scale rather than focused battles.
Does Halo 3 qualify as HnS? Yes, because combat is heavily emphasized and focused on how one is to kill an opponent be it fast, 'cool', magnitude, etc.

See where I'm going here?

[Pwnsaur]

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not sure how we're going to get anywhere with this without some sort of coherent definition of action game or hack-n-slash. I guess it's on you since you're the one trying to prove something. What's your definition?

While I won't embarrass myself in trying to provide an explicit description of what it is, I can give some examples I think we can all agree on..

Hack n Slash - Diablo, Titan Quest, Torchlight, Champions Of Norath, etc.

[Tiax Rules All]

I've already stated before but I'll say it again.
Without using any labels, The direction of the combat and tactics system looks like a downgrade. I do not like or prefer the look of the combat in DA2, too flashy too over the top, to simplified. Just because a dev says it still CAN be played tactically doesnt mean anything. If the game is designed around a not tactical and action paced focus then the fact that you CAN play it pause and play becomes moot.

Please dont tell me that i dont know what i'm talking about because I havent actually played it because I have watched every video and played MANY games out there with similar elements. Anybody who has played enough games in the past can fairly accurately deduce what kind of game this will be after watching the vids and reading into the reveiws and dev comments.

Once again, will this game be fun? dont know yet. I have a feeling the shorter game, faster paced, more linear and over the top action features will not be as appealing as DAo for me, but as long as the companions and interactions and story stay Bioware quality i may be able to call it a good game.

Modifié par Tiax Rules All, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:39 .

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Pwnsaur wrote...

I can see how someone may look at the video of the Combat Walk-through and confuse it for a hack and slash game. If it can visually resemble a 'hank n slash' rpg, can it not be reasonable for someone to be concerned over the gameplay similarities that may or may not exist once the game is released?

This seems like a perfectly legitimate apprehension for people who prefer a more tactical combat experience.

I didn't say it wasn't legitimate. 

The visuals are supposed to evoke an action look.  However, basing how the game plays on the change in presentation style doesn't make a lot of sense.  Especially when the arguments simply keep refering back to the presentation. 

Anathemic wrote...

What distinction you mean this vague quote here?

I give up.  Yes.  Dragon Age 2 is a hack and slash fighting game.  Mike Laidlaw and every other developer on the board is deliberately misleading you with "vague" statements that are meant to be taken out of context. 

You wanted me to explcitly state how DA2 from the gameplay vid 'is' hack-n-slash. Well that is impossible consdiering the term 'is' is not thrown around but the term 'feels' is. So in proper argument etiquette I deserve some clarification here no?

There two goals of an argument: 1) To keep one's opinion or 2) to change one's opinion. Since you clearly are failing and do not want to pursue the #2 option, I'd say this argument is ended, unless you want to post a rebuttal?

And btw, sarcasm doesn't really work on a forum.

[Anathemic]

AlanC9 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
Your argument is based on the term 'is' well Mr. Laidlaw here does not use the term' is' and explicity keeps using 'feels' so explain to me how you can derive the conclusion that DA2 is not or doesn't have similar aspects of that from a hack-n-slash without the term 'is' please.

Huh? He's talking about the feeling so he says "feels." It ain't rocket science.

Edit: Suddenly I realize that I have no idea what the hell you're getting at.. Are you really not making any distinction between the look and feel of something and the actual mechanics? So anything that looks fast is a hack-n-slash?

This means that Laidlaw's stated goal for DA2 is logically impossible. It also means that looks are dominant over the actual mechanics. This is what you're saying; is it what you mean?

My argument was mainly directed on Upsettingshorts who demanded me to explain how DA2 'is' a hack-n-slash solely from the gameplay video. This is impossible for Mr. Laidlaw kept throwing around 'feels' instead of 'is' and so I based my argument on 'feels' and 'look's whislt Mr. Upsettingshort declared this not leginimate.

And if you want my view on what a hack-n-slash is, please look at my previous post.

[upsettingshorts]

Anathemic wrote...

So in proper argument etiquette I deserve some clarification here no?

You and I disagree wildly on what constitutes a "hack and slash" game.  

It appears you can actually describe a game as being one based solely on presenation.  In that case, feel free to call DA2 one.  

Anathemic wrote...

And btw, sarcasm doesn't really work on a forum.

That you detected it shows that it did.

Tiax Rules All wrote...

more linear

Bioware hasn't made a non-linear game since Baldur's Gate I? 

I do expect it will be "more linear" than DAO though, which is the price being paid for consequences of player decisions being made more substantial than epilogue cards.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:44 .

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

So in proper argument etiquette I deserve some clarification here no?

You and I disagree wildly on what constitutes a "hack and slash" game.  

It appears you can actually describe a game as being one based solely on presenation.  In that case, feel free to call DA2 one.  

Anathemic wrote...

And btw, sarcasm doesn't really work on a forum.

That you detected it shows that it did.

Considering the DA2 in-game glorified trailers and the gamepaly video, I've come to the conclusion that it has similar qualities to a hack-n-slash game. Note that this did not come from just one presentation but from multiple.

As for sarcasm, not really..

------------------------
sar·casm   /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spel[sahr-kaz-uhm] –noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. 2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

-dictionary.com

------------------------

Sarcasm doesn't work on a forum for it is meant as a taunt, jibe, etc. So by clearly using sarcasm you were taunting me? Will you really stoop so low to taunting in an argument?

I'm right now putting up an honest argument, you may not see it as such and if that's the case please say so.

[AlanC9]

Anathemic wrote...

"Hack and slash or hack and slay refers to a type of gameplay that emphasizes close combat with short-range weapons. "Hack and slash" was originally used to describe an aspect of pen-and-paper role-playing games (RPGs)."

-http://dictionary.se...nd slash/en-en/

Obviously the only short-range weapons boudnary was removed with the introduction of Diablo but the fact remains it's a style of gamepaly which greatly focuses on close combat (waves of enemies, surrounding enemies, quick killing, massive killing, etc.)

Does DA:O qualify as HnS? No, because it was a much slower and tactical combat-game.
Does The Witcher qualify as HnS? No, because the combat was basic and not emphasized that much, not to mention repetetive.
Does StarCraft 2 qualify as HnS? No, because combat is emphasized on a much larger scale rather than focused battles.
Does Halo 3 qualify as HnS? Yes, because combat is heavily emphasized and focused on how one is to kill an opponent be it fast, 'cool', magnitude, etc.

See where I'm going here?

Sure. It's incoherent.

DAO fails to be hack-n-slash because it's slower and tactical. Slower than what? Too tactical -- why? Speed and lack of tactics aren't in the definition you post, and suddenly they're critical to it.

The Witcher fails because it had repetitive combat? Again, not in the definition you post. Lack of emphasis on combat might be workable, but I'd need to see real figures on how we spend the percentages of our time in TWand DAO before accepting that one.

Starcraft 2 fails because it has a larger scale? Again, not in the definition you posted.

Edit: you could save the definition by declaring that a lack of tactics is a component -- I think that would get Pwnsaur's examples into the category, and it would get TW and DAO out. But then DA2's out of the category too

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:51 .

[Pwnsaur]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I didn't say it wasn't legitimate. 

The visuals are supposed to evoke an action look.  However, basing how the game plays on the change in presentation style doesn't make a lot of sense.  Especially when the arguments simply keep refering back to the presentation. 

Basing how the game differentiates itself from a genre that it greatly resembles on a lack of information is also an unsound position. The presentation is similar to that of a HnS game, and no one from BioWare has explicitly stated it *is* or *is not* what it appears to be (HnS). I personally don't think it will be a HnS game, but I can understand why there would be concern.

If we are not talking about whether or not the consideration of this topic is legitimate, what are we talking about? No one has played it, and so no one knows. It is the only sensible argument there is...unless someone here is a fortune teller..

[Anathemic]

AlanC9 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

"Hack and slash or hack and slay refers to a type of gameplay that emphasizes close combat with short-range weapons. "Hack and slash" was originally used to describe an aspect of pen-and-paper role-playing games (RPGs)."

-http://dictionary.se...nd slash/en-en/

Obviously the only short-range weapons boudnary was removed with the introduction of Diablo but the fact remains it's a style of gamepaly which greatly focuses on close combat (waves of enemies, surrounding enemies, quick killing, massive killing, etc.)

Does DA:O qualify as HnS? No, because it was a much slower and tactical combat-game.
Does The Witcher qualify as HnS? No, because the combat was basic and not emphasized that much, not to mention repetetive.
Does StarCraft 2 qualify as HnS? No, because combat is emphasized on a much larger scale rather than focused battles.
Does Halo 3 qualify as HnS? Yes, because combat is heavily emphasized and focused on how one is to kill an opponent be it fast, 'cool', magnitude, etc.

See where I'm going here?

Sure. It's incoherent.

DAO fails to be hack-n-slash because it's slower and tactical. Slower than what? Too tactical -- why? Slowness and lack of tactics aren't in the definition you post, and suddenly they're critical to it.

The Witcher fails because it had repetitive combat? Again, not in the definition you post. Lack of emphasis on combat might be workable, but I'd need to see real figures on how we spend the percentages of our time in TWand DAO before accepting that one.

Starcraft 2 fails because it has a larger scale? Again, not in the definition you posted.

The definition I posted was the definition that most people widely agree to. I thought I declared this flawed by stating that this standard definition was expandable by the introduction of Diablo where short-sword combat doesn't necassarily equal hack-n-slash.

And since said definition is flawed and expandable, then this concept of hack-n-slash will never have a coherent/standard defintion applied to it, but instead a general consensus of what type of game fits that genre.

This whole argument is to determine based off in-game vids whether DA2 fits in this genre.