473 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

jairohhh wrote...

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

For someone calling themselves hardcore PC gamer you must not have played many rpgs. Plenty restrict race and character.

[IRMcGhee]

In Exile: True, I just meant that you're rarely playing one character in isolation.

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 30 décembre 2010 - 09:48 .

[Ziggeh]

crimzontearz wrote...
of course

that requires the damn formulas

Maybe it's just the logs I've been exposed to, but I've never found them very useful actually during the actual coarse of a game. One that actually gave you the calculations, let you make actual informed decisions about your statistical choices I would very much support however.

[Doveberry]

TheMadCat wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

People don't mind an opposing opinion when it's a real (instead of incorrect) opposing opinion and voiced correctly.

How can an opinion be incorrect?

I'd rather ask how an opinion could ever be correct. I personally try not to have opinions; I have observations based on the facts that are available to me. And as soon as more aspects come into play, and more facts are revealed, I will change my mind to align my observations with what is real and true as well as I am able. This whole idea that opinions should be respected just for being opinions bugs me. A lot. Opinions should be questioned and tested just like everything else in this world.

Also, that whole ramble I just put you through was rather unnecessary, I suppose, since Dave of Canada was not saying anything about incorrect opinions. He simply said that opinions can be voiced in more or less successful, coherent and/or truthful ways.

The topic of this thread has been nearly beaten to death, even though this OP does seem unusually sincere and fair in his post. My suggestion is this; try the game before you make up your mind. RPGs need to evolve as well, and when they do, some things will be left behind in the process. Instead of mourning lost features, try to appreciate the games as they are, and with all the new features they will bring. DA2 is not Baldur's Gate, but it may be just as good in a different way.

Modifié par Doveberry, 30 décembre 2010 - 09:53 .

[Sharn01]

Ziggeh wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
of course

that requires the damn formulas

Maybe it's just the logs I've been exposed to, but I've never found them very useful actually during the actual coarse of a game. One that actually gave you the calculations, let you make actual informed decisions about your statistical choices I would very much support however.

Thats the kind of logs I think most people are talking about, if you know that your rogue gets hit by a certain creature 70% of the time you will be cautious, but may be more flamboyant if you have learned its only 20% of the time.  If a creature resists a certain spell 90% of the time then its not a very good choice to cast on them.  This of course means they have to let you know the formula they use to calculate hit and miss chances, but you get my meaning. 

[sgreco1970]

Maconbar wrote...

What is a hardcore rpg gamer?

Someone who doesn't play "hidden object games" and call them RPGs
Someone who has played every major (and minor) RPG starting from pen and paper table-tops all the way to the present.
Someone who knows immersiveness and storyline matter more than "DPS"
Someone who doesn't think cyber sex as an elf constitutes RP

[Ziggeh]

What's a hidden object game?

edit: in before the "minesweeper".

Modifié par Ziggeh, 30 décembre 2010 - 10:07 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Unless you want that character to draw in all the aggro. Even without the force field exploit, sacrifical tactics worked very well in DA:O (especially with the dragon plate armour that was highly resistant to fire).

Sacrificial tactics have worked well in every BioWare game since they stopped letting characters die.

Even in KotOR it was often helpful to send Canderous charging it to do damage, draw fire, and die, thus allowing the rest of the party to survive for longer and get the job done.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sacrificial tactics have worked well in every BioWare game since they stopped letting characters die.

I meant without any knockout at all for the character. With resistance to fire, drawing aggro and then fireballing the area does not lead to any significant damage on the part of your companion at all.

So long as we have an HP mechanic, AoE bait tactics will work.

Even in KotOR it was often helpful to send Canderous charging it to do damage, draw fire, and die, thus allowing the rest of the party to survive for longer and get the job done.

Not really. KoTOR lacked significant AoE.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

That's what pausing is for.

And yes, I do pause that often.  And that's not going to change, regardless of whether there's a log.  I like the pace of combat more when I pause all the time, so I'd like more information available to me when I do.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And yes, I do pause that often.  And that's not going to change, regardless of whether there's a log.  I like the pace of combat more when I pause all the time, so I'd like more information available to me when I do.

As an aside, this is something I'm quite worried for re: DA2. With the sped up combat, it may make pausing after a 'turn' (which we can say is any one individual character action) much harder physically.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Not really. KoTOR lacked significant AoE.

I was referring to sacrificing a party member for any reason, but recall that KotOR did have both Grenades and Mines, plus Force Storm.  But Force Storm didn't have friendly fire.  I don't recall if mines or grenades did.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I was referring to sacrificing a party member for any reason, but recall that KotOR did have both Grenades and Mines, plus Force Storm.  But Force Storm didn't have friendly fire.  I don't recall if mines or grenades did.

I think both did, but I found neither particularly useful (beyond the extreme Malak killing of anihilation).

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

As an aside, this is something I'm quite worried for re: DA2. With the sped up combat, it may make pausing after a 'turn' (which we can say is any one individual character action) much harder physically.

Me too.  I fear I'll end up double-clicking the pause button to advance the action incrementally so I can survey the action.

In Exile wrote...

I think both did, but I found neither particularly useful (beyond the extreme Malak killing of anihilation).

I used grenades extensively against Bendak (because I refused to advance beyond level 4 on Taris, and grenade damage didn't scale), but that was a one-on-one fight.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Me too.  I fear I'll end up double-clicking the pause button to advance the action incrementally so I can survey the action.

The problem with the combat video is that the player is using pause in a way I never would. He picks out actions for all four and then has a scene play out. I don't play this way. I pause for one character, pick an action, pause, and move to the other character.

So I can't say how the game would really feel because of the dramatic difference in playstyle.

I used grenades extensively against Bendak (because I refused to advance beyond level 4 on Taris, and grenade damage didn't scale), but that was a one-on-one fight.

I forgot about Bendak completely. I did the same - bought plasma grenades and poison grenades from the merchant near the bar.

Though I also refused to use equipment beyond starting, to preserve the unique appearance, which added yet another layer of difficutly.

[soteria]

In Exile wrote...

The problem with the combat video is that the player is using pause in a way I never would. He picks out actions for all four and then has a scene play out. I don't play this way. I pause for one character, pick an action, pause, and move to the other character.

So I can't say how the game would really feel because of the dramatic difference in playstyle.

I don't think that's really going to make a difference. I could be wrong, but I don't think the combat will be that hard to follow once we're used to it. It's a matter of seeing past the illusion, the animation.

[Malanek]

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

You could play DA:O without pausing as well. The improved gameplay just makes that a more viable option. The game can still be just as tactical as DA:O.

You can't really say that until you play it. It could be as tactical as DA:O, but designing the game around an inferior camera (and presumably because of that without friendly fire) is not a good start. DA:O was not a highly tactical game, so it can definately be matched, but friendly fire was probably the most tactical part to it. I'm concerned you might just play through the game spamming your most powerful abilities kind of like KotOR which had extremely simple combat. It was still a very enjoyable game of course.

I hoped they would use the DA:O system and improve on it to make it more tactically engrossing, but that doesn't look like the approach.

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
I don't think that's really going to make a difference. I could be wrong, but I don't think the combat will be that hard to follow once we're used to it. It's a matter of seeing past the illusion, the animation.

It's not a matter of following. It's a matter of reacting. I pause after each event (i.e. damage, spell cast, etc.). If this interval is sped up to make the game more appealing, then it makes it physically harder for me to pause. I have to react better to pause at the same pace I wanted to.

That's my concern. If the combat actually is faster, pausing will be harder.

[soteria]

My speculation after watching the PC gameplay video is that the combat isn't as much faster as first appears. I may yet be proven wrong, but we'll see.

[wolfsite]

Can people at least wait until the game is out before acting like they know better than Bioware?

[Schneidend]

In Exile wrote...

That's my concern. If the combat actually is faster, pausing will be harder.

As far as I know, only attack speeds have been speed up. The characters still move at the same speed.

[Amioran]

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.

For how I see it they are making these changes to have more personalized individuals, instead of generic archetypes that you define.

Both approaches have advantages and disavantages. You can like one more than another, but you should consider the benefits this approach give, namely:

- More gameplay balance (it is much easier to balance a gameplay when you have setted parameters, and one of the issue of DAO, and many other rpgs, either systems as dnd that have been around for years and years, is just balance)
- Related: no very bad parties or impossible runs that can destroy the balance if you are not cautious or an expert player
- Characters that feel more like real persons instead of a general archetypes that you create/define/change yourself (I think this is the fundamental difference and what Bioware approach is aiming too, this in turns brings a lot of structural changes both in gameplay and story). This point brings some sub advantages and disavantages in itself, but nothing is univoque here. Remember that every statemtent possess a contradiction in itself, fundamental truth doesn't exist here more than in reality.
- A different form of customization, characterized more by how the individual is utilized instead on how it is equipped
- More sinergy between skills of party members (related to point 1 and 2) since devs can, again, balance those to work in a presetted manner instead of having to consider all possibilities (that's impossible by itself and so it willl always create an imbalance sowhere, see, again, dnd or similar).

The drawbacks you know already, I think, so no need to elencate them. Anyway, this is to show that I don't think what you say is correct: i.e. that this type of approach is inherently worser than the other.

Modifié par Amioran, 30 décembre 2010 - 11:31 .

[Malanek]

Schneidend wrote...
As far as I know, only attack speeds have been speed up. The characters still move at the same speed.

I have to admit, speeding up the basic attacks is a good thing. Some of them were painfully slow and unrealistic in origins. Attack speed cap needs to be much higher as well so that slower weapons are balanced throughout the game.

I understand there are abilities to "close the gap" which will increase characters movement speeds and possibly make ranged attacks weaker. They can still be improved in other ways to balance that of course.

[crimzontearz]

Amioran wrote...

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.

For how I see it they are making these changes to have more personalized individuals, instead of generic archetypes that you define.

Both approaches have advantages and disavantages. You can like one more than another, but you should consider the benefits this approach give, namely:

- More gameplay balance (it is much easier to balance a gameplay when you have setted parameters, and one of the issue of DAO - and many other rpgs, either systems as dnd that have been around for years and years, was just this balance)
- Related: no very bad parties or impossible runs that can destroy the balance if you are not cautious or expert
- Characters that feel more like real persons instead of a general archetype that you create yourself (I think this is the fundamental difference and what Bioware approach is aiming too, this in turns brings a lot of structural changes both in gameplay and story). This point brings some sub advantages and disavantages in itself, but nothing is univoque here.
- A different form of customization, characterized more by how the individual is utilized instead on how it is equipped
- More sinergy between skills (related to point 1 and 2) since devs can, again, balance those to work in a presetted manner instead of having to consider all possibilities (that's impossible by itself and so it willl always create an imbalance sowhere, see, again, dnd or similar).

The drawbacks you know already, I think, so no need to elencate them. Anyway, this is to show that I don't think what you say is correct: i.e. that this type of approach is inherently worser than the other.

www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2590-Choice-and-Conflict

midway through there is some interesting thoughts about RPG builds and archetypes