473 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

...Oh. That's disappointing.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Part of the reason I like friendly fire is the ability to turn it back to the enemy.

Like the room with five fireball-happy mages in the Fade.

[jairohhh]

1-...Games have been pushed back to change/add features ( also patches do exist)

2-... The fact that something is unlikely to change doesnt mean people cant voice their concern or opinion about it



you can agree or dissagree with me but

Im not being disrespectful in any way , yet some people feel they need to call others (in this case me ) idiot or troll. If your not going to discuss the features of the game or post any other relevant information please don’t post anything

[Peter Thomas]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Part of the reason I like friendly fire is the ability to turn it back to the enemy.
Like the room with five fireball-happy mages in the Fade.

Ninja-ing in here for a sec. Enemies always have friendly fire on. I think you can see it in some of the gameplay vids, with the Ogre knocking around hurlocks. It's fun to lure them into his AoE attacks.

[Snoteye]

Peter Thomas wrote...

Ninja-ing in here for a sec. Enemies always have friendly fire on. I think you can see it in some of the gameplay vids, with the Ogre knocking around hurlocks. It's fun to lure them into his AoE attacks.

Do you know why the decision was made to have friendly fire for enemies but not players? Is it an AI thing?

[nightcobra]

Peter Thomas wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Part of the reason I like friendly fire is the ability to turn it back to the enemy.
Like the room with five fireball-happy mages in the Fade.

Ninja-ing in here for a sec. Enemies always have friendly fire on. I think you can see it in some of the gameplay vids, with the Ogre knocking around hurlocks. It's fun to lure them into his AoE attacks.

how about "friendly" npcs? in origins even though you could disable friendly fire on party members, it was always on for "friendly" npcs, is it like that in DA2 as well?

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 31 décembre 2010 - 11:01 .

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's just the designers forcing me to have the gameplay experience they want me to have.  That's a drawback, not a benefit.

Only because you want to see it that way. I imagine when you meet someone you are one of those that inherently want them to be what you like, isn't it? Same goes with relationships. It is one of the primary human faults, the one of always wanting the other to be like you want it to be, the one of having control on everything.

It is a drawback only because you want to see the negative aspects of it. I already elencated the benefits but you really didn't care. You only cared about that you couldn't customize the archetypes to your wanting, nor having control over them. This, however, de-personalize those archetypes, because it is ineherent in the act of controlling (read Kant).

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Again, that's a drawback, not a benefit.

So you are telling me that all people complaining about being unable to have a balanced gameplay with a party of all warriors (for example) is a benefit of gameplay?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They already felt like real people.  Only now they'll feel like the same real people every time I play.

No, they didn't felt like real people, they felt archetypes that you could customize to your whim. Real people are not like that. Now they have their inherent drawbacks and positives, and these are out of your control, as it happens in reality. I don't care much about realism when it breaks gameplay, but in this case it doesn't, it just changes it, with, again, drawbacks and benefits (depening on what you focus on).

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Right, so how does this new Isabela feel if I utilize her as an archer?

The "utilization" you talk about is tied to equipment, not on the inherent abilities (with positive and negative) of the character. There's a difference on the two. You tie utility with a specific arsenal, but that is not univoque. Isabela is a swashbuckler now, adept with daggers but not good with bows, why should she use one if it is not her style? If you are a fencing master I doubt you will use a bow (if you never trained on it) to fight someone, no matter the distance.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
See my response to your first point.

The response on your fist point has nothing to do with party sinergies. In all cases devs are forcing you, it is always the case in a crpg, one way or another, either if you get it or not. Naturally the amount of this "forcing" can change, but you must consider also why a thing is done, and you don't do this now.

Modifié par Amioran, 31 décembre 2010 - 11:46 .

[soteria]

Amioran wrote...

Only because you want to see it that way. I imagine when you meet someone you are one of those that inherently want them to be what you like, isn't it? Same goes with relationships. It is one of the primary human faults, the one of always wanting the other to be like you want it to be, the one of having control on everything.

You know, Sylvius is an eccentric guy, but this is faulty logic. Just because someone wants something in a video game doesn't mean they want reality to work the same way. I don't even agree with him on this issue, but still, just because some people want to control everything about their companions in a video game doesn't mean they really try to control people on that level in real life. In fact, it's highly doubtful.

[Kail Ashton]

Clearly bioware should redue the entire game cause some guy from 85 had a personal computer (that's as sad as it sounds, get a nintendo and some friends, geez!)

But let's recap:
-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)

Ok was the dimeneshing bars for health & mana on the screen to complex to figure out? "this is not a cumbersum log of text detailing numbers!?! how do i figure this out!??" also: "tactics i program the party members to use health/mana potions?? is this some kind of crazy language!??"

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.

Yes cause clearly you're degree in video game programming makes you an expert to make that clai...oh right, you don't have one, do you?

Modifié par Kail Ashton, 31 décembre 2010 - 11:45 .

[Amioran]

soteria wrote...
You know, Sylvius is an eccentric guy, but this is faulty logic. Just because someone wants something in a video game doesn't mean they want reality to work the same way. I don't even agree with him on this issue, but still, just because some people want to control everything about their companions in a video game doesn't mean they really try to control people on that level in real life. In fact, it's highly doubtful.

It was a comparative metaphor, so pefectly logic. While it is not the same thing in itself, at the same time it is, because a game is a microcosm in a macrocosm (in this case real life), as everything else. So the two things are comparable in the specific also if the context is different and the logic behind the specific is the same.

No matter if it is a game, if you want to control the aspect of an archetype then this last is de-personalized, as it happens in real life with a real person.  If you take an aspect to mimic another then the laws of the latter are tied to the former. So above, so below.

It was a sort of provocation, with the intent of making him understand a point. The best way to do this is with a comparative metaphor using same laws as the concept in question.

Modifié par Amioran, 31 décembre 2010 - 12:03 .

[soteria]

Amioran wrote...

soteria wrote...
You know, Sylvius is an eccentric guy, but this is faulty logic. Just because someone wants something in a video game doesn't mean they want reality to work the same way. I don't even agree with him on this issue, but still, just because some people want to control everything about their companions in a video game doesn't mean they really try to control people on that level in real life. In fact, it's highly doubtful.

It was a comparative metaphor, so pefectly logic. While it is not the same thing in itself, at the same time it is, because a game is a microcosm in a macrocosm (in this case real life), as everything else. So the two things are comparable in the specific also if the context is different and the logic behind the specific is the same.

No matter if it is a game, if you want to control the aspect of an archetype then this last is de-personalized, as it happens in real life with a real person.  If you take an aspect to mimic another then the laws of the latter are tied to the former. So above, so below.

No, it's still bad logic.  Or, perhaps you're trying to use logic past the limits of what it can do.  We're talking about an RPG, a game in which people assume a role and act out a personality that isn't necessarily anything like their own.  Additionally, video games follow a set of rules that isn't remotely like real life, and because this is a fantasy game it also follows another set of tropes most of us are familiar with.  Saying that because people do a certain thing in a video game they do it in real life, too, is just nonsense.

[Xewaka]

Kail Ashton wrote...
But let's recap:
-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)
Ok was the dimeneshing bars for health & mana on
the screen to complex to figure out? "this is not a cumbersum log of
text detailing numbers!?! how do i figure this out!??" also: "tactics i
program the party members to use health/mana potions?? is this some kind
of crazy language!??"

If you believe combat logs cumbersome, you certainly have never played with real friends over a table. Numbers are fun. Toying with the system is very enjoyable. A combat log allows you to do it. Abstract bars don't.
I never used AI tactics. Not because I couldn't understand them, but because I actually prefer to keep control. I abuse the AI shamelessly, so I know how useless it is on your side. Even if you prepare it, AI will always be useless compared to direct control.

Peter Thomas wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
Part of the reason I like friendly fire is the ability to turn it back to the enemy.
Like the room with five fireball-happy mages in the Fade.

Ninja-ing in here for a sec. Enemies always have friendly fire on. I think you can see it in some of the gameplay vids, with the Ogre knocking around hurlocks. It's fun to lure them into his AoE attacks.

Why the difference between player and enemies? Why can I abuse the AI carelessness but can be careless with my own troops?

Modifié par Xewaka, 31 décembre 2010 - 12:54 .

[soteria]

Xewaka wrote...

Why the difference between player and enemies? Why can I abuse the AI carelessness but can be careless with my own troops?

I can't speak for Bioware, but as one who as always lobbied for increased difficulty and tactical depth, I have no problem with the distinction. The way friendly fire affects the party is fundamentally different from how it affects the AI. If I carelessly toss fireballs around and kill all the enemies but half my party in the process, I have to live with the consequences and possibly expend resources to get back to where I'd be if I had played more efficiently. If the AI carelessly tosses fireballs around and kills my party and half the enemies as well, who cares? The player still loses. Friendly fire doesn't hurt the AI nearly as much as it hurts the player.

[Rixxencaxx]

Consolization gifts to pc version of dao



1) no more better textures than console like in origins...judging from the videos the textures applied are the same on all versions of the game

2) no party members composite equipment but a single armor not clear if there is more than one)

3) No free camera

4) bad UI

[TMZuk]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Hardcore Gamer For Life



Reactionary Force!

Sign me up!!

[Phaelducan]

soteria wrote...

Amioran wrote...

soteria wrote...
You know, Sylvius is an eccentric guy, but this is faulty logic. Just because someone wants something in a video game doesn't mean they want reality to work the same way. I don't even agree with him on this issue, but still, just because some people want to control everything about their companions in a video game doesn't mean they really try to control people on that level in real life. In fact, it's highly doubtful.

It was a comparative metaphor, so pefectly logic. While it is not the same thing in itself, at the same time it is, because a game is a microcosm in a macrocosm (in this case real life), as everything else. So the two things are comparable in the specific also if the context is different and the logic behind the specific is the same.

No matter if it is a game, if you want to control the aspect of an archetype then this last is de-personalized, as it happens in real life with a real person.  If you take an aspect to mimic another then the laws of the latter are tied to the former. So above, so below.

No, it's still bad logic.  Or, perhaps you're trying to use logic past the limits of what it can do.  We're talking about an RPG, a game in which people assume a role and act out a personality that isn't necessarily anything like their own.  Additionally, video games follow a set of rules that isn't remotely like real life, and because this is a fantasy game it also follows another set of tropes most of us are familiar with.  Saying that because people do a certain thing in a video game they do it in real life, too, is just nonsense.

Not to stoke the fire... but in truth there are logical fallacies being thrown around left and right in this thread. TOP starts with arguing from personal incredulity (I can't believe it, therefore it must be false), and there have also been false continuums, dichotomies, and inconsistency on both sides of the argument.

If you want the truth about opinions... and the truth about art/entertainment, then throw logic out of the window. I guarantee you won't find a single pro or con thread in here about DA2 that doesn't have hideous thinking errors throughout.

The premise of this thread is "please don't do X, or fanbase Y will do Z." None of that is quantifiable, no matter what anyone says. Free advice, as it's New Years Eve.... just raise a glass and say "more power to you,"

[In Exile]

Amioran wrote...
It was a comparative metaphor, so pefectly logic. While it is not the same thing in itself, at the same time it is, because a game is a microcosm in a macrocosm (in this case real life), as everything else. So the two things are comparable in the specific also if the context is different and the logic behind the specific is the same.

A comparative metaphor only works if the comparison is appropriate. In this case it isn't.

Sylvius considers an RPG as something that is in a state of flux. Think of it as a thought experiment. So long as something could be true, for Sylvius it is possible for it to be true in that particular playthrough.

So if Isabella could be an archer, for example, and there is no information on her background other than the fact that she is a pirate, because it could be true that she trained exclusively as an archer as opposed to a pirate, to Sylvius the character of Isabella could be a swashbuckler or an archer.

Of course, Isabella is a swashbuckler and does have this as part of her background. Nevertheless, Sylvius would still argue that almost (if not entirely) independent of how convoluted the argument could be, so long as you could make the case that it could be true that Isabella is an archer, that is enough for her to be able to be an archer in any playthrough.

What Sylvius does not like is more defined content in an RPG as a consequence. This is the source of his objections.

Modifié par In Exile, 31 décembre 2010 - 01:30 .

[Phaelducan]

As much as I enjoyed the CRPG golden era... (and I did), that ship has sailed. I no longer have the time nor the patience to enjoy a 60+ hour game where I have a strong chance of dieing on most of the encounters. Was Baldur's Gate awesome? Yes, it was... when I could spend 4 hours a night gaming without a care in the world. Now, I don't want extreme difficulty. I don't want some jackhole level 3 mage hitting my whole party with a fear spell which miraculously EVERYONE fails their save against and then get two shotted by Magic Missiles.



Challenge has it's place in games, don't get me wrong (I played and finished DA on Nightmare start to finish as well as both ME on Insanity and enjoyed them both), but this idea that somehow an RPG isn't meant to be enjoyed unless anything can kill you half the time is absurd.



TOP spoke about Bioware's fanbase... and I won't presume to speak for the majority of those who buy Bioware games... but at least myself and my friends who still game simply don't have the time or the inclination to reload twenty times to support a dated model of "pure" rpg. We grew it, have kids, and just want to play a game for our token 45 minutes a night.

[TMZuk]

Peter Thomas wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Part of the reason I like friendly fire is the ability to turn it back to the enemy.
Like the room with five fireball-happy mages in the Fade.

Ninja-ing in here for a sec. Enemies always have friendly fire on. I think you can see it in some of the gameplay vids, with the Ogre knocking around hurlocks. It's fun to lure them into his AoE attacks.

It just keeps getting better.

It's like the orginal civilization, where enemies could mysteriously spawn out of nowhere behind your lines. AI cheating, only this time in favour of the player.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Peter Thomas wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Part of the reason I like friendly fire is the ability to turn it back to the enemy.
Like the room with five fireball-happy mages in the Fade.

Ninja-ing in here for a sec. Enemies always have friendly fire on. I think you can see it in some of the gameplay vids, with the Ogre knocking around hurlocks. It's fun to lure them into his AoE attacks.

Oh, it is fun alright. Watching enemies shoot themselves to death never gets old. I'm glad enemies still having friendly fire all the time (personally I wouldn't play it on anything below Nightmare, so it's all the same to me, but that's another story) and I do hope we'll get more opportunities to make enemy mages fry their own asses in their own Inferno like I'm fond of doing to Caladrius.

[Xewaka]

soteria wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Why the difference between player and enemies? Why can I abuse the AI carelessness but can be careless with my own troops?

I can't speak for Bioware, but as one who as always lobbied for increased difficulty and tactical depth, I have no problem with the distinction. The way friendly fire affects the party is fundamentally different from how it affects the AI. If I carelessly toss fireballs around and kill all the enemies but half my party in the process, I have to live with the consequences and possibly expend resources to get back to where I'd be if I had played more efficiently. If the AI carelessly tosses fireballs around and kills my party and half the enemies as well, who cares? The player still loses. Friendly fire doesn't hurt the AI nearly as much as it hurts the player.

The italiced part is a direct contradiction. Friendly fire adds another layer of difficulty and tactical depth: It makes you utilize the terrain better, as AoE effects must be applied in conjunction with terrain, such as on chokepoints; it makes you evaluate the terrain for maximum benefit. No friendly fire means a layer of tactical depth removed.

Modifié par Xewaka, 31 décembre 2010 - 03:37 .

[crimzontearz]

I think part of the reason why FF is on only on nightmare is because all warriors by default do AOE damage with melee attacks even with 1 hand weapons



I may be wrong of course but it makes sense

[soteria]

Xewaka wrote...

The italiced part is a direct contradiction. Friendly fire adds another layer of difficulty and tactical depth: It makes you utilize the terrain better, as AoE effects must be applied in conjunction with terrain, such as on chokepoints; it makes you evaluate the terrain for maximum benefit. No friendly fire means a layer of tactical depth removed.

A direct contradiction? I was stating my bias. Friendly fire for the player does what you said. Friendly fire for the AI is another matter and does not have the same effects. My post was about the latter.