94 réponses à ce sujet

[John Epler]

That's it. I'm petitioning for the next game to include talking horses. And by 'include', I mean 'every PC and NPC is a talking horse'.



We'll call it... 'Dragon Neighge'.



LOOK WHAT YOUR HUBRIS HAS WROUGHT.



On a rather more serious note, though - when you bring in horses, you add an extra factor to the game (one that affects combat, conversations, content creation - the alliteration there was unintentional). And that takes resources from all corners of the team. As David said - it'd be nice to make a game where horses add more than the extra resources required would take away from other content. However, adding horses so we can say 'Now with HORSES!' on the back of our box isn't really the best allocation of resources.

[bsbcaer]

John, just admit it...your dream game stars Mr. Ed!

[Dudalizer]

JohnEpler wrote...

That's it. I'm petitioning for the next game to include talking horses. And by 'include', I mean 'every PC and NPC is a talking horse'.

We'll call it... 'Dragon Neighge'.

LOOK WHAT YOUR HUBRIS HAS WROUGHT.

.

Only if we can romance them. 

[drahelvete]

JohnEpler wrote...

That's it. I'm petitioning for the next game to include talking horses. And by 'include', I mean 'every PC and NPC is a talking horse'.

Yay! But our horses will need mounts...

[Soul Cool]

JohnEpler wrote...
On a rather more serious note, though - when you bring in horses, you add an extra factor to the game (one that affects combat, conversations, content creation - the alliteration there was unintentional). And that takes resources from all corners of the team. As David said - it'd be nice to make a game where horses add more than the extra resources required would take away from other content. However, adding horses so we can say 'Now with HORSES!' on the back of our box isn't really the best allocation of resources.

But I want my Mount And Blad-I mean DA 2...WITH HORSES!

[David Gaider]

Dudalizer wrote...
How do you guys plan on doing it in The Old Republic?  Aren't there going to be mounts/vehicles AND companions?

I have no idea what their plan is. Once again, however: if the payback is worth it, so is the expense. I imagine a large part of MMO's is traveling over vast areas... so transportation becomes much more impactful.

[Addai]

I'm having visions of the Mako and Hammerhead. Maker preserve us.

[Collider]

The horse should also be able to fly.

[Maugrim]

Why can we at least get nug mounts? The concept art has already been done!

Modifié par makenzieshepard, 07 janvier 2011 - 05:12 .

[drahelvete]

Collider wrote...

The horse should also be able to fly.

No. That's just silly. They use their pegasus mounts for that.

[Leonia]

I still support the idea of a Mount & Blade-style game in the Dragon Age universe at some point.



And I really don't know how they'll do mounts/vehicles for companions in TOR.. maybe they just won't show them on screen when your character using a mount/vehicle? Like they just show up when you jump off your speederbike. Could be immersion breaking but I don't know how else they'll pull it off. Besides TOR will have lots of "instant travel" and loading screens to make up for things.

[Face of Evil]

OH, TO HELL WITH HORSES! THERE, I SAID IT!



Just focus on making the story good and the game long and the combats awesome!

[Collider]

Nugs are the epic mounts.

[Soul Cool]

leonia42 wrote...
I still support the idea of a Mount & Blade-style game in the Dragon Age universe at some point.

Someone give this woman a medal.

[TurboTwistedFire]

JohnEpler wrote...

That's it. I'm petitioning for the next game to include talking horses. And by 'include', I mean 'every PC and NPC is a talking horse'.

We'll call it... 'Dragon Neighge'.

Shoot I'd  buy it. =D

JohnEpler wrote...
LOOK WHAT YOUR HUBRIS HAS WROUGHT.

On a rather more serious note, though - when you bring in horses, you add an extra factor to the game (one that affects combat, conversations, content creation - the alliteration there was unintentional). And that takes resources from all corners of the team. As David said - it'd be nice to make a game where horses add more than the extra resources required would take away from other content. However, adding horses so we can say 'Now with HORSES!' on the back of our box isn't really the best allocation of resources.

Yeah I see what you mean. Although, would even making a statue of a horse just to show that horses DO exist in the game cause all that? Or maybe just an unselectable horse grazing in a pasture behind a impenatrable fence?
I mean, even if you can't do anything with them, horses still make everything awesome.

*Owns two horses*

[Beerfish]

The horses are beautifully done in red dead redemption both their functionality and how they look but of course they would be a core feature of a western. Also of what I've played so far the world is pretty open and I've had only a few times with temp companions. I have no problem with them not being useable in these type of games but like others have stated it would be nice to have them around as a bit of a story element. They do have deer and halla.

[John Epler]

TurboTwistedFire wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

That's it. I'm petitioning for the next game to include talking horses. And by 'include', I mean 'every PC and NPC is a talking horse'.

We'll call it... 'Dragon Neighge'.

Shoot I'd  buy it. =D

JohnEpler wrote...
LOOK WHAT YOUR HUBRIS HAS WROUGHT.

On a rather more serious note, though - when you bring in horses, you add an extra factor to the game (one that affects combat, conversations, content creation - the alliteration there was unintentional). And that takes resources from all corners of the team. As David said - it'd be nice to make a game where horses add more than the extra resources required would take away from other content. However, adding horses so we can say 'Now with HORSES!' on the back of our box isn't really the best allocation of resources.

Yeah I see what you mean. Although, would even making a statue of a horse just to show that horses DO exist in the game cause all that? Or maybe just an unselectable horse grazing in a pasture behind a impenatrable fence?
I mean, even if you can't do anything with them, horses still make everything awesome.

*Owns two horses*

The argument there, unfortunately, quickly becomes 'HEY THERE'S A HORSE BEHIND THAT FENCE. Can I ride it? What? I can't ride horses! This game is stupid!' If you show players something that they can't use (that would make some logical sense for them to use), they're going to wonder why they can't use it.

If you don't bring it up, however, sure - some people will ask you 'why can't I ride a horse?' and ask all sorts of questions about what this perceived lack of horses means, but the majority of people won't ever give it a second thought. I've played games before where you couldn't use any vehicles, but there were (seemingly) functional vehicles scattered all over the landscape. And I wondered 'why can't I get into that truck that is apparently fully fuelled (as I just siphoned gas from it), hit the gas and just ram my way through the enemy checkpoint? Certainly it'd be easier than all this shooting nonsense'.

Sometimes, it's just better to avoid pointing out these things.

[Dudalizer]

David Gaider wrote...

Dudalizer wrote...
How do you guys plan on doing it in The Old Republic?  Aren't there going to be mounts/vehicles AND companions?

I have no idea what their plan is. Once again, however: if the payback is worth it, so is the expense. I imagine a large part of MMO's is traveling over vast areas... so transportation becomes much more impactful.

Good point.  Besides, DA2 is not going to be a freeroaming game amirite?  Using time and resources to program a mount feature would be rather pointless if that is the case. 

[slimgrin]

They don't have to program a mount feature they could just show horses in a cutscene. The assumption is, you use horses to travel to hub worlds. I don't really care one way or the other, but the complete absence of mounts in that type of setting seems a bit weird.

[Soul Cool]

JohnEpler wrote...
I've played games before where you couldn't use any vehicles, but there were (seemingly) functional vehicles scattered all over the landscape. And I wondered 'why can't I get into that truck that is apparently fully fuelled (as I just siphoned gas from it), hit the gas and just ram my way through the enemy checkpoint? Certainly it'd be easier than all this shooting nonsense'.

Sometimes, it's just better to avoid pointing out these things.

I eagerly await the day where that kind of adaptability becomes commonplace. Where you can play a shooter, and use that random truck you see off to the side as a sort of improvised barricade-smasher, or let your mage dig a hole under a wall in an RPG to infiltrate the bad guy's citadel (or something like it). Man, just imagining it burns me up with excitement.

Until then, I'll just have to make do with awesome games like I hope DA 2 will be. From what I've seen, it will be.

[HolyAvenger]

Bugger the horses, they don't matter enough frankly for the resources you'd have to spending adding them.

[TurboTwistedFire]

JohnEpler wrote...

TurboTwistedFire wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

That's it. I'm petitioning for the next game to include talking horses. And by 'include', I mean 'every PC and NPC is a talking horse'.

We'll call it... 'Dragon Neighge'.

Shoot I'd  buy it. =D

JohnEpler wrote...
LOOK WHAT YOUR HUBRIS HAS WROUGHT.

On a rather more serious note, though - when you bring in horses, you add an extra factor to the game (one that affects combat, conversations, content creation - the alliteration there was unintentional). And that takes resources from all corners of the team. As David said - it'd be nice to make a game where horses add more than the extra resources required would take away from other content. However, adding horses so we can say 'Now with HORSES!' on the back of our box isn't really the best allocation of resources.

Yeah I see what you mean. Although, would even making a statue of a horse just to show that horses DO exist in the game cause all that? Or maybe just an unselectable horse grazing in a pasture behind a impenatrable fence?
I mean, even if you can't do anything with them, horses still make everything awesome.

*Owns two horses*

The argument there, unfortunately, quickly becomes 'HEY THERE'S A HORSE BEHIND THAT FENCE. Can I ride it? What? I can't ride horses! This game is stupid!' If you show players something that they can't use (that would make some logical sense for them to use), they're going to wonder why they can't use it.

If you don't bring it up, however, sure - some people will ask you 'why can't I ride a horse?' and ask all sorts of questions about what this perceived lack of horses means, but the majority of people won't ever give it a second thought. I've played games before where you couldn't use any vehicles, but there were (seemingly) functional vehicles scattered all over the landscape. And I wondered 'why can't I get into that truck that is apparently fully fuelled (as I just siphoned gas from it), hit the gas and just ram my way through the enemy checkpoint? Certainly it'd be easier than all this shooting nonsense'.

Sometimes, it's just better to avoid pointing out these things.

But then you can laugh when you read all the threads of players trying their darndest to get to that unreachable horse. Ok, ok I won't argue. But what about a pack mule to carry all the player's stuff? Most people wouldn't think about riding their pack mule and it could still be there looking cute and (somewhat) horselike. You could put something in the codex about "Your pack mule doesn't mind carrying stuff, but is just too stubborn to be ridden." It could also act as the player's own personal storage chest. He can just chill out at camp or follow the player. I don't know if you've ever played the Dungeon Siege games, but in the second one your mule will actually attack baddies with the rest of the party. Had it's own little set of abilities and everything. And mules are pretty smart and have been trained to attack mountain lions in real life so it's not even that far-fetched.

P.S: I wanted to ride a Hala but couldn't.
Jk!

Also, thanks for the response!

[The Gentle Ben]

JohnEpler wrote...

I've played games before where you couldn't use any vehicles, but there were (seemingly) functional vehicles scattered all over the landscape.

Was this game Mass Effect 2? I kid, I kid.

I guess the whole: If they see it, they will want it, argument has merit, but it did seem peculiar that models for halla, oxen, mabari and bears were created and given animations, yet horses were so conspicuously absent. Not that I'm advocating particularly for horses. (I think attempting to feature them might actually prove detrimental. Their implementation within an RPG engine typically feels forced. I'm looking at you Oblivion, and that was a single character.)

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 07 janvier 2011 - 06:00 .

[tmp7704]

Saibh wrote...

I don't even care about horses. I just don't. Why is this such a fixture from some fellas? If being able to ride around on my pretty princess pony takes away from resources devoted to, say, make my Lady Hawke's hair look nicer, I don't want horses.

Shh, getting horses in the game is obviously step 1 for getting the truly awesome.

That is, the unicorns.

[David Gaider]

tmp7704 wrote...
That is, the unicorns.

And give the alicorn competition? The hell you say.