174 réponses à ce sujet

[Karyuudan]

TMZuk wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Not IMHO, there weren't nearly enough small differences to keep me coming back. What sustained me through multiple playthroughs was different character builds, something which can still be done with DA2. Plus the friendship/rivalry system should make character interaction that much more interesting and lead to multiple playthroughs as well.

There we'll have to disagree. I see a strong lack of customization is character builds as well. Consider, in DA:O, you could make your warrior a dual-wielder, a sword and shield warrior, a two-hander, an archer, or any combination of the four. My favourite warrior was the dual-wielder with some archery skills as well. Gone. The only way I can do that is by playing a rogue. However, with a rogue they are the -only- paths to follow, now.

It is beyond me how you people can claim there will be more or as much customization, when all the information released points toward less customization, but perhaps you know something I don't know. And the tired argument about making the classes more "distinct", is excactly that; tired. I don't want distinct classes, I want freedom and customization. There's more to that than creating a pretty looking character.

^
Perfect , maximun freedom on everything you can , races, classes , choices , names , characters , etc.... is the way to go. In my opinion, being tied to one char sucks.... What if i dont like the name Hawke ? Or if i want to be as DA:O
a warrior with Dual wielding + some archery ? I wont be able too ><"
I don't know.... DA 2 will have to be like 11/10 to compensate the supposed lack of customization and freedon on DA:O. But hey... i may be wrong. We just can't forget about great games that got ruined after bad sequels, like Fable III for example... sad.

[Munkeytoto]

Personally, I think they are trying to make it like a fantasy version of ME2, where you can choose your class and gender (I hope) but are kinda limited in customisation, but if the storyline and voice acting are as good as ME2, all is forgiven as long as I can be a Mage

[DanaScu]

highcastle wrote...

There was never any indication the origin stories would continue past the first game, which is always why I imagined they named it "Origins." Customization is still intact, it's just the loss of an origin selection that we're facing, and I don't think that's as huge of a deal as some seem to think. For one, this means there's a greater likelihood Hawke's past will tie in with the main story. My only problem with DAO was that some of the origins failed to have much of an impact past Ostagar.

Just the loss of an origin selection? Customization is intact?

My warrior used to use a bow to do damage at range; farther away that her reach with a sword.
One warrior was a dual-wield fighter.
One rogue used a sword and dagger.
One rogue used axes.

Now I can "customize" my warrior to *not* use a bow, ever.
Now I can "customize" my warrior as a two hander, or sword and shield, but never dual-wield.
Now I can "customize" my rogue to not use a sword. Or, iirc, a shield either.
Now I can "customize" my rogue to not use axes.

Now I can "customize" my companions by giving them belts and jewelry, but the game decides when and if their outfit/armor will be upgraded.

I wish it was only the loss of an origin. I would be thrilled if it were only the loss of an origin. Being able do a cartwheel and backflip to kick a breakable flask the length of a battlefield and only have it break when it hits an enemy doesn't make up for it, to me.

[Thiefy]

i wonder if it ever occured to other people that maybe they took out the origins feature so they could work on something else and include something new to the franchise, a new gimmeck so to speak that they hope would catch out attention. you know, like the evolving timeline with multiple companions.



i got the idea that they didn't want each dragon age game to be a carbon copy of the last but pieces of story that flow together fluidly as well as work as a stand alone game in regards to each other.



sure, it was fun to see everyone with different beginnings but if you look at DA2, it looks like there's a possibility of different endings, which is more exciting. of course in origins there are the sliders but ultimately the ending was to defeat the archdemon and everything else was icing on the cake. i think there's a bigger impact here when you get to spend 10 years molding a city, and i would wager a guess that there is no one "ultimate" ending - hence the catch phrase "how will your hawke rise to power?" that they've been promoting.



i mean bioware never said they weren't ever going to have "origins" again, only that they wanted to try something different this time around.

[ErichHartmann]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

And everyone loves BG+BG (me included), yet you were always a Bhaalspawn growing up in Candlekeep with the same foster father.

People always forget this fact when bashing DAII and ME.  Hell, Icewind Dale II has the deepest character customization of any Infinity based game but it always starts and ends the same with some minor choices in the middle.   

Modifié par ErichHartmann, 02 janvier 2011 - 03:25 .

[Aldandil]

DanaScu wrote...

highcastle wrote...

There was never any indication the origin stories would continue past the first game, which is always why I imagined they named it "Origins." Customization is still intact, it's just the loss of an origin selection that we're facing, and I don't think that's as huge of a deal as some seem to think. For one, this means there's a greater likelihood Hawke's past will tie in with the main story. My only problem with DAO was that some of the origins failed to have much of an impact past Ostagar.

Just the loss of an origin selection? Customization is intact?

My warrior used to use a bow to do damage at range; farther away that her reach with a sword.
One warrior was a dual-wield fighter.
One rogue used a sword and dagger.
One rogue used axes.

Now I can "customize" my warrior to *not* use a bow, ever.
Now I can "customize" my warrior as a two hander, or sword and shield, but never dual-wield.
Now I can "customize" my rogue to not use a sword. Or, iirc, a shield either.
Now I can "customize" my rogue to not use axes.

Now I can "customize" my companions by giving them belts and jewelry, but the game decides when and if their outfit/armor will be upgraded.

I wish it was only the loss of an origin. I would be thrilled if it were only the loss of an origin. Being able do a cartwheel and backflip to kick a breakable flask the length of a battlefield and only have it break when it hits an enemy doesn't make up for it, to me.

I agree with most of your complaints, but I don't really think they apply to the post you were quoting. The thread regards character creation, not the ruleset. It's not quite the same thing. The ruleset covers combat, character creation covers your character's character. They may be overlapping, but they are probably created separately.

[DanaScu]

Aldandil wrote...
I agree with most of your complaints, but I don't really think they apply to the post you were quoting. The thread regards character creation, not the ruleset. It's not quite the same thing. The ruleset covers combat, character creation covers your character's character. They may be overlapping, but they are probably created separately.

When you create your character you also choose what they are going to be. You run into restrictions immediately. You're going to do the same with Hawke; you want a dual axes rogue, you can't. You want a sword and dagger rogue, you can't. You have Hawke. You can't make Hawke the way you want to. You can make him or her look the way you want, of course. At least that is better than the presets for Jade Empire and KotoR. But as far as "customizing" goes, you're forced into the presets.

[Ziggeh]

DanaScu wrote...

You can't make Hawke the way you want to. You can make him or her look the way you want, of course. At least that is better than the presets for Jade Empire and KotoR. But as far as "customizing" goes, you're forced into the presets.

You're always forced into "the presets", because it's a game, you're just disputing the number of presets.

And while I agree there are less combat style options and no races, we've been told they've moved that loss of intial choice "into the middle", whatever that means, and without knowing, decrying the lack of customisation seems a bit premature.

[andar91]

I really do think the origins were mainly an illusion. Your race and origin affected very little in the game past the first two hours or so, probably because the fact that you were a Grey Warden supersedes your race/class to a large extent. Racial choice is okay, but I will be fine if every Dragon Age game from now on makes you a human. I would also be okay with being forced to be an elf. I wouldn't NOT be okay with being a dwarf because I always play mages and aren't that fond of dwarves. I think these last two unlikely; they'll probably stick with human.

[In Exile]

DanaScu wrote..
When you create your character you also choose what they are going to be. You run into restrictions immediately. You're going to do the same with Hawke; you want a dual axes rogue, you can't. You want a sword and dagger rogue, you can't. You have Hawke. You can't make Hawke the way you want to. You can make him or her look the way you want, of course. At least that is better than the presets for Jade Empire and KotoR. But as far as "customizing" goes, you're forced into the presets.

There are apparently 6 distinct trees for each class. For rogues and warriors, 2 are the weapon combat trees. The other 4 trees are combat applicable but not weapon related. This is more than in DA:O. We have no idea what these trees are.

If we do have 6 trees per class, this is comparable to DA:O in terms of options.

[andar91]

In Exile wrote...

DanaScu wrote..
When you create your character you also choose what they are going to be. You run into restrictions immediately. You're going to do the same with Hawke; you want a dual axes rogue, you can't. You want a sword and dagger rogue, you can't. You have Hawke. You can't make Hawke the way you want to. You can make him or her look the way you want, of course. At least that is better than the presets for Jade Empire and KotoR. But as far as "customizing" goes, you're forced into the presets.

There are apparently 6 distinct trees for each class. For rogues and warriors, 2 are the weapon combat trees. The other 4 trees are combat applicable but not weapon related. This is more than in DA:O. We have no idea what these trees are.

If we do have 6 trees per class, this is comparable to DA:O in terms of options.

And that's not counting the specialization trees, which are separate.

[In Exile]

andar91 wrote...

And that's not counting the specialization trees, which are separate.

Do we have confirmation from a Dev that it is 6 trees + specialization or 6 trees with specialization? Just wondering. I was never sure of this myself.

[andar91]

In Exile wrote...

andar91 wrote...

And that's not counting the specialization trees, which are separate.

Do we have confirmation from a Dev that it is 6 trees + specialization or 6 trees with specialization? Just wondering. I was never sure of this myself.

http://social.biowar...1/index/5574949

In this thread on the first page, Peter Thomas says there are 6 mage trees plus specializations.  He goes on to mention that all classes have to exact same number of abilities as each other.

[Inzhuna]

In Exile wrote...

andar91 wrote...

And that's not counting the specialization trees, which are separate.

Do we have confirmation from a Dev that it is 6 trees + specialization or 6 trees with specialization? Just wondering. I was never sure of this myself.

I think it was just deduced from two different posts. One said that mages have 6 trees of magic (kind of like schools) and the other said all classes have same amount of trees. Could be wrong though.

edit: Ninja'd, as I was expecting

Modifié par Inzhuna, 02 janvier 2011 - 04:12 .

[SufferingTormentDarkness]

They watered down the sequel to mass effect and they watered down the sequel to dragon age im scared to see mass effect 3

[andar91]

Twelve posts down, he also talks about the trees in this thread. http://social.biowar...ex/4715441&lf=8

[Ziggeh]

SufferingTormentDarkness wrote...

They watered down the sequel to mass effect and they watered down the sequel to dragon age im scared to see mass effect 3

Wanna quantify that for us, chief? Or is that just a vague perjorative you have no evidence for?

[crimzontearz]

t's funny that people believe the lack of race selection is "lack of customization"



that's like saying there was a lack of customization in DAO because you were not able to play a Qunari. Or that ANY DnD game out there lacks customization because they do not allow you to play every single race out there



it's called "playable races pool, in DAO it was dwarves, humans and elves.....in DA2 it's just humans



and for that matter you could never change "who" your cousland, for instance, was anyway could you? isn't that lack of customization?



bah

[TMZuk]

In Exile wrote...

There are apparently 6 distinct trees for each class. For rogues and warriors, 2 are the weapon combat trees. The other 4 trees are combat applicable but not weapon related. This is more than in DA:O. We have no idea what these trees are.

If we do have 6 trees per class, this is comparable to DA:O in terms of options.

They can have all the trees they want. I am -still- unable to make a dual-vielding warrior with archery-skills. I am -still- unable to make a sword/buckler rogue, or a sword/dagger rogue. DA:O was already excessesively restrictive, and with much to few classes if we -must- have a class-based system. Now, instead of expanding on our choices, Bioware is limiting them. In character creation, as well as in character development.

What we get in return is the animations. As these, IMO, are deplorable and ridiculous beyond words, I fail to see what is gained by taking this direction. Perhaps this over-simplification and OOT animations apppeals to some, but also, quite obviously, it has the direct opposite effect on others.

[crimzontearz]

DanaScu wrote...

highcastle wrote...

There was never any indication the origin stories would continue past the first game, which is always why I imagined they named it "Origins." Customization is still intact, it's just the loss of an origin selection that we're facing, and I don't think that's as huge of a deal as some seem to think. For one, this means there's a greater likelihood Hawke's past will tie in with the main story. My only problem with DAO was that some of the origins failed to have much of an impact past Ostagar.

Just the loss of an origin selection? Customization is intact?

My warrior used to use a bow to do damage at range; farther away that her reach with a sword.
One warrior was a dual-wield fighter.
One rogue used a sword and dagger.
One rogue used axes.

Now I can "customize" my warrior to *not* use a bow, ever.
Now I can "customize" my warrior as a two hander, or sword and shield, but never dual-wield.
Now I can "customize" my rogue to not use a sword. Or, iirc, a shield either.
Now I can "customize" my rogue to not use axes.

Now I can "customize" my companions by giving them belts and jewelry, but the game decides when and if their outfit/armor will be upgraded.

I wish it was only the loss of an origin. I would be thrilled if it were only the loss of an origin. Being able do a cartwheel and backflip to kick a breakable flask the length of a battlefield and only have it break when it hits an enemy doesn't make up for it, to me.

welcome to several years ago....

the devs specified that the warrior is NOT the only fighter in the game, Rogues are NOT thieves they are just a different kind of fighter, so, the Warrior uses 2 hands and sword and shield and the Rogue uses 2 weapons and long range

I could make it a really long post as per how this balances out but this is the jist of it

 THE ROGUE IS NOT A THIEF ARCHETYPE...at least not in the dev's mind. So they just basically differenciated the two fighter archetypes in a more pronounced way since they failed to do so in origins

Modifié par crimzontearz, 02 janvier 2011 - 04:45 .

[Ziggeh]

TMZuk wrote...

They can have all the trees they want. I am -still- unable to make a dual-vielding warrior with archery-skills. I am -still- unable to make a sword/buckler rogue, or a sword/dagger rogue. DA:O was already excessesively restrictive, and with much to few classes if we -must- have a class-based system. Now, instead of expanding on our choices, Bioware is limiting them. In character creation, as well as in character development.

Isn't that contradictory? What do you mean by character development if you don't mean the trees? Hawke's personality? Becaues we've been told there'll be more decision in the middle as a result of less at the start.

TMZuk wrote...
What we get in return is the animations. As these, IMO, are deplorable and ridiculous beyond words, I fail to see what is gained by taking this direction.

Increases the target audience without really impacting gameplay. This means more return, more investment, more money for development.

TMZuk wrote...
Perhaps this over-simplification and OOT animations apppeals to some, but also, quite obviously, it has the direct opposite effect on others.

Just means it's working.

[Matchy Pointy]

Karyuudan wrote...

Perfect , maximun freedom on everything you can , races, classes , choices , names , characters , etc.... is the way to go. In my opinion, being tied to one char sucks.... What if i dont like the name Hawke ? Or if i want to be as DA:O
a warrior with Dual wielding + some archery ? I wont be able too ><"
I don't know.... DA 2 will have to be like 11/10 to compensate the supposed lack of customization and freedon on DA:O. But hey... i may be wrong. We just can't forget about great games that got ruined after bad sequels, like Fable III for example... sad.

You couldnt chose your last name in DA:O either.

[TMZuk]

Ziggeh wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

They can have all the trees they want. I am -still- unable to make a dual-vielding warrior with archery-skills. I am -still- unable to make a sword/buckler rogue, or a sword/dagger rogue. DA:O was already excessesively restrictive, and with much to few classes if we -must- have a class-based system. Now, instead of expanding on our choices, Bioware is limiting them. In character creation, as well as in character development.

Isn't that contradictory? What do you mean by character development if you don't mean the trees? Hawke's personality? Becaues we've been told there'll be more decision in the middle as a result of less at the start.

TMZuk wrote...
What we get in return is the animations. As these, IMO, are deplorable and ridiculous beyond words, I fail to see what is gained by taking this direction.

Increases the target audience without really impacting gameplay. This means more return, more investment, more money for development.

TMZuk wrote...
Perhaps this over-simplification and OOT animations apppeals to some, but also, quite obviously, it has the direct opposite effect on others.

Just means it's working.

That has to be one of the most strange replies I have ever had.

To the first part: Developing you character is, E.G., deciding wether you are going to continue specializing your character in dual-wieding, or do you want him/her to pick up some skill in two-handers. In fact, it would be great, if Bioware had decided to expand on these choices, so it could also be learning magic, or picklock, or whatever else you would feel like.

To the second part: Taking away my choices in character development is not affecting gameplay? I'll be damned. You must have a rather different idea than I about what gameplay is. And wether it is increasing the target audience, that remains to be seen, does it not???

To the final part: It is... -working- ? Like **** it is. It's making several of the posters in this very thread extremely unsatisfied with the direction the development of this game has taken.

Modifié par TMZuk, 02 janvier 2011 - 04:56 .

[TMZuk]

crimzontearz wrote...

welcome to several years ago....

the devs specified that the warrior is NOT the only fighter in the game, Rogues are NOT thieves they are just a different kind of fighter, so, the Warrior uses 2 hands and sword and shield and the Rogue uses 2 weapons and long range

I could make it a really long post as per how this balances out but this is the jist of it

 THE ROGUE IS NOT A THIEF ARCHETYPE...at least not in the dev's mind. So they just basically differenciated the two fighter archetypes in a more pronounced way since they failed to do so in origins

What you apparantly fail to understand is this: We are quite a few who do -NOT- wish archetypes, but freedom in character development. And to your remark about several years ago; what is new in the fact that a rogue is sneaky backstabber who can pick locks? The only "news" here is that in DA2, he can do it while back-flipping, and kicking bottles created out of nothing in the direction of the enemy.

[In Exile]

TMZuk wrote...
They can have all the trees they want. I am -still- unable to make a dual-vielding warrior with archery-skills. I am -still- unable to make a sword/buckler rogue, or a sword/dagger rogue. DA:O was already excessesively restrictive, and with much to few classes if we -must- have a class-based system. Now, instead of expanding on our choices, Bioware is limiting them. In character creation, as well as in character development.

But this is absolutely up for debate. In both cases. You and I will not agree on VO; but to me VO makes character development possible in a living world versus giving us a hypothetically sound emiting automaton. This is highly subjective.

We know we have the same amount of talent trees. We have less weapons usable per class. Does this mean less choice? Only if you happen to think using different weapons is a meaningful choice.

Frankly, I think DA:O did a great job making melee not suck compared to say D&D games where all your warriors did was hack away with their sword 900 times. If they have more unique talents now with a reduced weapon pool, that can make combat utility choices better, not worse.

What we get in return is the animations. As these, IMO, are deplorable and ridiculous beyond words, I fail to see what is gained by taking this direction. 

A more pleasant aesthetic for those who like it. Frankly, I had to tolerate an ugly art-style and horrendous looking faux realistic combat in western fantasy RPGs since NWN went 3D 9 years ago. Now that I have a game looking how I'd like it to, I have a hard time caring.

Perhaps this over-simplification and OOT animations apppeals to some, but also, quite obviously, it has the direct opposite effect on others.

It's entirely up for debate whether the game is being simplified. Like with ME/ME2. I certainly think ME2 was more complex than ME1. But people get really attached to how information is presented instead of what the tangible differences in gameplay are.