473 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

It's not a hack & slash approach - kkthxbai. I think that's the appropriate level of response to a thread like this. I'm a "hardcore RPG" fan too, and they haven't lost me as yet, so speak for yourself.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 30 décembre 2010 - 08:19 .

[Dhiro]

I wonder if they changed the friendly fire to Nightmare so it could be really a Nightmare? Of course, there was friendly fire in DA:O's nightmare too, so... I can't understand Bioware's logic here.

[Cobrawar]

I don't eat dry steak lol

[jairohhh]

crimzontearz wrote...

jairohhh wrote...

-no toolset on realease
-no strategy camera (we get a hybrid camera)
-no origins
-limited creation?

+more graphics
+voice for main character

.........

-console player here....so it does not matter (and even when I gamed on a pc I never bothered)
-again console player here, the hybrid camera is better than what I had before.....the loss is lamented tho
-how does that impact the depth of the game since, you know, origins really did not impact the first game much at all aside for a few lines here and there?
-how is the creation more limited? you played the game already? or are you referring to the fact you cannot play as a dwarf or an elf?

+you are correct
+you are correct

Your a console gamer so I get where ur comming from
Im concerned about the pc version

What I meant with limited creation is not how many hair colors/styles you have:


Character creation in DAO - Elf- Dwarf-Human and a few choices after that  (very good)

Character creation in other RPGs- Elf-Dwarf-human-gnome-orc etc (very good)

Character creation in DA2- Human (?)

About the origins, even if the origin story didnt impact the main story in a big way ,it adds replayability.
 
I dont mind playing as a "default" character, but it seems the player gets less real options in every way (and more "flashy things")  in the new game 

[Dhiro]

Hm? Personally I think that the quality of the CC will be the same, with one or ten races.

[Cobrawar]

You hit the nail on the head jairohhh , I totally agree

[upsettingshorts]

I consider racial choice - since here you're explicitly differentiating them from origins by citing other games - as "flashy things."

There are other ways to impact replayability than giving the player a variety of origins, as well. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 décembre 2010 - 08:31 .

[Ziggeh]

jairohhh wrote...
I dont mind playing as a "default" character, but it seems the player gets less real options in every way (and more "flashy things")  in the new game 

One of the things they've said several times is that removing the origins allowed them to place more choice into the middle of the game rather than at the start. Without knowing what they mean by that, "it seems" is the worst we can level at them.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 30 décembre 2010 - 08:34 .

[Snoteye]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Snoteye wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Black splortches meant it was SPIRIT.

I was half-way through the game before I realised this; and that was by process of elimination, after several hours earlier having noticed that the splash effects varied and I had the crazy notion that maybe those splash effects meant something. Visuals can never substitute a combat log because I am horribly unobservant and can't make logical connections.

Fixed.

If you really have this much trouble making basic deductions, maybe you should stick with text-based games.

Just give me one good reason that spirit damage should be black/dark purple.

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Me, I'd rather have the visual/auditory clues because I can't read 10 lines of text in a quarter of a second.

A combat log that isn't colour coded is a text-based game. I don't want a text-based game. I want a combat log.

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Maybe they should just have a pop-up that yells "YOU'RE TAKING SPIRIT DAMAGE BOZO!!!"

It's certainly a lot less arbitrary than black puffs.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I consider racial choice - since here you're explicitly differentiating them from origins by citing other games - as "flashy things."

I'm actually glad we don't get multiple races in DA2. Reactions based on race tend to be shallow, which is especially felt when playing a race that is prejudiced against (I haven't played elf in DA:O so I'm not sure how BioWare handled that). It was pretty bad with drow in NWN2 (not that I expected any differently; that was mostly to confirm a suspicion). But then, I only play humans and dwarves anyway so it was never going to be a big a loss for me.

I also didn't think DA:O's camera was particularly great, so as long as DA2's doesn't suck more I'll be okay in that respect.

Modifié par Snoteye, 30 décembre 2010 - 08:43 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Peter Thomas wrote...

themageguy wrote...

oh so we get more trees than our companions?

Followers use their preferred style of weapon. Pretty sure Mike said that before. Isabella, for example, uses Dual Weapons only. This means that she wouldn't have the general tree for Archery.

I'm confident we didn't know that before Peter said so.

Mike had said something along those lines in a podcast, but he was really ambiguous about it.

This will make it even harder to spec out a party as you see fit.  The tactical options in DA2 are now severely limited when compared to DAO - I'd suggest this is a bigger change than anything we saw between ME and ME2.

[Ziggeh]

Snoteye wrote...
I'm actually glad we don't get multiple races in DA2.

Same, I highly value the potential positive effects it has upon the story.

That said, I believe the replayability argument is sound. There's definitely an argument to be made that it's a failure of imagination on the players part, but it helps people distinguish characters if nothing else, and that's a useful tool.

Snoteye wrote...
I also didn't think DA:O's camera was particularly great, so as long as DA2's doesn't suck more I'll be okay in that respect.

Indeed. The iso view had it's own problems, and while I can see potential issue with the character fixed view, it remains to be seen if it's a step in any given direction.

[marshalleck]

jairohhh wrote...

Hi, I've been playing rpgs since 85, I loved DAO because it had that baldurs gate -Icewind dale feeling, the strategy involved in combat in those games was a little deeper than in DAO but DAO did a great job in the strategy department.

I was hopping that DA2 would enforce the more tactical aspects of the game with the incusion of a

-COMBAT LOG (theres no way to know what kind of damage your enemies are doing to you without a combat log and this makes some of the potions in the game useless)

-ABILITY TO MOVE THE CAMERA IN STRATEGY MODE (the strategy camera is great in DAO but sometimes the player needs to be able to move it)

I know this cant be done for consoles , but it shouldnt be that hard to do in PC, the new camera in DA2 doesnt look good for strategy gameplay.

--PLEASE RECONSIDER THE HACK N SLASH aproach that you want to put in DA2, and please keep the PC VERSION OLD SCHOOL!!  

Dont loose your fanbase, if you make an Action rpgish game you loose the hardcore RPG fans and the Action adventures fans (because there are other action adventure games out there, like uncharted 3, god of war, thor,etc)

Put more security on your PC version or do something like battle.net to encourage players to buy an original copy of your game, dont try to please console gamers with an Action game.
 
I love Mass Effect but I dont want another Mass Effect

you're way too late

[nightcobra]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Peter Thomas wrote...

themageguy wrote...

oh so we get more trees than our companions?

Followers use their preferred style of weapon. Pretty sure Mike said that before. Isabella, for example, uses Dual Weapons only. This means that she wouldn't have the general tree for Archery.

I'm confident we didn't know that before Peter said so.

Mike had said something along those lines in a podcast, but he was really ambiguous about it.

This will make it even harder to spec out a party as you see fit.  The tactical options in DA2 are now severely limited when compared to DAO - I'd suggest this is a bigger change than anything we saw between ME and ME2.

i see this a bit differently than that, to me it feels like an opportunity for me to use every party member according to the situation instead of picking 3 and sticking with them.
i'm also guessing the "exclusive spec" companions get may be a way to counter the lack of a weapon tree.

[crimzontearz]

jairohhh wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

jairohhh wrote...

-no toolset on realease
-no strategy camera (we get a hybrid camera)
-no origins
-limited creation?

+more graphics
+voice for main character

.........

-console player here....so it does not matter (and even when I gamed on a pc I never bothered)
-again console player here, the hybrid camera is better than what I had before.....the loss is lamented tho
-how does that impact the depth of the game since, you know, origins really did not impact the first game much at all aside for a few lines here and there?
-how is the creation more limited? you played the game already? or are you referring to the fact you cannot play as a dwarf or an elf?

+you are correct
+you are correct

Your a console gamer so I get where ur comming from
Im concerned about the pc version

What I meant with limited creation is not how many hair colors/styles you have:


Character creation in DAO - Elf- Dwarf-Human and a few choices after that  (very good)

Character creation in other RPGs- Elf-Dwarf-human-gnome-orc etc (very good)

Character creation in DA2- Human (?)

About the origins, even if the origin story didnt impact the main story in a big way ,it adds replayability.
 
I dont mind playing as a "default" character, but it seems the player gets less real options in every way (and more "flashy things")  in the new game 

you "race" did not impact the game in any way shape or form aside for a couple of bonuses and a few different lines here and there. Amazing CRPGs were made where there was one single character WITHOUT any visual customization (PST to name one).

Origin Stories add replayability for those who want the achievements or the completionists  because if you  desired to replay the game for its story then the origin you chose did not change it enough to warrant another playthrough. most of the replayability came from the story permuations and different gameplay tacticts from different builds and not from  Origin Stories

as for "visual" customization you have not played the game therefore you really do not know how much visual customization we will be given, Dwarves and elves merely looked like shorter humans with disproportioned limbs, everything else could be achieved in every other race's character build minus a few hairdoes and tattoos. Not to mention that with two single models (femhawke and manhawke) to work with you can add more more customization options without them being bound by the 6 different body models (human male and female, Dwarf male and female, Elf male and female) you had before assuming the founding was similar

[bsbcaer]

jairohhh wrote...

Your a console gamer so I get where ur comming from
Im concerned about the pc version

What I meant with limited creation is not how many hair colors/styles you have:

Character creation in DAO - Elf- Dwarf-Human and a few choices after that  (very good)

Character creation in other RPGs- Elf-Dwarf-human-gnome-orc etc (very good)

Character creation in DA2- Human (?)

About the origins, even if the origin story didnt impact the main story in a big way ,it adds replayability.
 
I dont mind playing as a "default" character, but it seems the player gets less real options in every way (and more "flashy things")  in the new game 

What you're talking about is a lack of racial choice (which has been discussed in this thread before).  Now, can you choose your class in DAO/other RPGS/DA2?  Yup.  Can you decide where you put attribute points in DAO/Other RPGS/DA2?  Yup.  Can you decide what skills/talents you can take for your character in DAO/Other RPGS/DA2?  Yup. 

I fail to see how DA2 will be more limited with character creation than the other game/genre you mentioned.  (just as an aside:  if you've been into RPG's since '85, you're old enough to not need to use net-speak like "ur" for "you are"...just a pet peeve of mine 

[Sharn01]

Stinkface27 wrote...

You don't *have* to use the in-your-face combat mode, you can use the tactical combat style. They aren't removing the things you enjoy, they are adding to them.

I respect your opinion, and your post was very eloquent, but to me it looks like:

"I like pie. I don't like cake. There shouldn't be cake because I like pie better. Others who might prefer cake over pie, or those who haven't decided, or those who would like to *try* the cake shouldn't be able to because I like pie better."

According to your anology, what is really occuring is someone saying,  I like pie, there is currently only one pie store left in the city and over 100 cake stores, so why are all the cake lovers trying to change my pie shop into a cake shop.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with the OP, its probably a mix of both actually, but the reality is a lot of the fans of the older style games are seeing one of the last companies that actually makes games geared towards them switching its style, with no other company in sight willing to pick up the empty space they are leaving behind.  You may disagree, but that doesnt change the way they feel, which is alienated by the game developers. 

[Cutlasskiwi]

jairohhh wrote...

 
I dont mind playing as a "default" character, but it seems the player gets less real options in every way (and more "flashy things")  in the new game 

I can understand that some people might not like being forced to play as a human but I don't really see it like a loss of options. Sure, not being able to choose a race is a loss from DAO but look at what we're gaining. We get part of an actual family that we can interact with, for me that far outweighs the loss of playing as a different race especially since they're going for more of a personal story this time. The closest thing I've seen to having a family in-game is the human noble and that didn't last very long and Imoen from Baldur's Gate.

[upsettingshorts]

JC Denton and Paul Denton!

[TMZuk]

nelly21 wrote...

Did OP not see the combat video where they show that the game can be played strategically?

The one with all the ridiculous over the top moves in? Don't know if he did, but I did. I could care less wether it can be played tactically or not, if I have to suffer those animations.

And the fanboys can say what they want, and call all those who loved DA:O haters, but that does not change the fact that this game -is- going the wrong way. Less customization, even more silly class-restrictions, companions wearing they same clothes over a ten year period, only one race, voiced protagonist, over the top combat, and Maker alone knows what else.

Calling an action-adventure like ME2 an RPG, is like calling the old Alone in the Dark games RPG's. They are not, and there's nothing that indicates that DA2 will be one either.

Oh, and by the way... charging into the middle of a group of armed enemies, swingin like a madman is not tactics, but idiocy.

[Dave of Canada]

I seem to be a big fan of Origins and I'm not a "hater".

Actually quite fond of the changes myself, actually.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

JC Denton and Paul Denton!

Yes! I forgot about Deus ex. Talk about badass.

[upsettingshorts]

TMZuk wrote...

The one with all the ridiculous over the top moves in? Don't know if he did, but I did. I could care less wether it can be played tactically or not, if I have to suffer those animations.

And that's fair.  Calling it hack and slash gameplay because it has those animations is nonsense.

TMZuk wrote...

And the fanboys can say what they want, and call all those who loved DA:O haters, but that does not change the fact that this game -is- going the wrong way.

The labels fanboy and hater are both stupid and biased.  People who loved DAO and want DA2 to be the same are conservatives!

TMZuk wrote...

Oh, and by the way... charging into the middle of a group of armed enemies, swingin like a madman is not tactics, but idiocy.

It's a tactic if it has a conceptual purpose and objective, and it works.  That's what tactics are.   Human wave tactics are still tactics, even if it is just "throw lots of soldiers at the problem until they run out."  It exploits a specific advantage (numbers) to achieve a specific goal (win a battle of attrition).

You'd be right if that tactic worked every time in every situation with every character on every difficulty, though.  And there's no evidence that it does, is there?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 décembre 2010 - 09:09 .

[Snoteye]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This will make it even harder to spec out a party as you see fit. The tactical options in DA2 are now severely limited when compared to DAO - I'd suggest this is a bigger change than anything we saw between ME and ME2.

I'm ambivalent about it. I concur that there will be unfortunate side effects as far as party composition goes, but am thrilled about the consistency with static clothing. The only considerable advantage to companion outfit control is that you get a lot of freedom when it comes to forming a party. The notion that you completely redefine their armor and weapon preferences is silly ("you're not fitting in, can I change your fighing style, y/y?").

[Ziggeh]

TMZuk wrote...

And the fanboys can say what they want, and call all those who loved DA:O haters, but that does not change the fact that this game -is- going the wrong way.

"I know it's all subjective, but I'm the subject so this is objective."

[TMZuk]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You'd be right if that tactic worked every time in every situation with every character on every difficulty, though.  And there's no evidence that it does, is there?

There is! It's the ONLY "tactic" available to warriors. Charge in, swing the the sword, and hit two and a half enemy with each swing. Missiles? No. Attempting to take the enemy one by one (aka: common sense) no. Dumb? Yes.