299 réponses à ce sujet

[Liablecocksman]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I like the new combat animations. But then I am very flexible with adjusting to different RPG designs. /shrugs

Why even post something like that?
People who dislike the new animations don't necessarily do so because they are inflexible. Don't even infer that.

[AlanC9]

Liable****sman wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

I like the new combat animations. But then I am very flexible with adjusting to different RPG designs. /shrugs

Why even post something like that?
People who dislike the new animations don't necessarily do so because they are inflexible. Don't even infer that.

So he should have said he likes the new animations because he has better taste than you?

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 janvier 2011 - 03:53 .

[Liablecocksman]

AlanC9 wrote...
So he should have said he likes the new animations because he has better taste than you?

No. Stating that he or she liked it would have been fine with me, thank you.

[In Exile]

Liable****sman wrote...
Why even post something like that?
People who dislike the new animations don't necessarily do so because they are inflexible. Don't even infer that.

Okay, so if the view isn't that there is a narrow range of ''appropriate'' aesthetics for an RPG, then what justifies the opposition?

[Alyka]

Lusitanum wrote...

 And... wait, did Hawke just throw a flask into the air and then roundhouse kicked it into his enemies at 1:55?! They're called "arms", Hawke. You already used them to throw the thing into the air, why not just change the angle a bit and send it directly against your enemies instead of wasting time just to show off your new trick that should have just burst in your face when you kicked the highly fragile flask with a roundhouse! [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

I prefer to b!tchslap flasks....but that's just me.

Oh, and just as small aside, what's the brilliant "tactical" example used in this video? The good ol' "Get the Warrior to tank and draw aggro while everybody else supports and deals DPS" strategy that has become a cliché of RPGs.

Would you much rather prefer a mage tank?

And secondly... what's with all the excessive blood? Again, this is another thing that was really unecessary in the first game: putting blood everywhere so that the game becomes more "mature". If you're just going to spray buckets of blood (often in quantities that even surpass an enemies mass), and then make it your motif in your loading screens, your codex, your map trailings and your pet goldfish, then you're just being as mature as a game of Mortal Kombat.

If blood magic is involved,then yes,there would be vast quantities of blood spraying about.In the Destiny trailer, we see Hawke cutting his arm, so he might be using blood magic.Blood is the lifeforce.It's used in the Grey Warden joining,you spill it when you kill your enemies,it's used in magic,it's tainted in the Darkspawn,it's what determines who is heir in a monarchy of succession (Cailan).So blood does play a role in the DA universe.

And yet, acording to the videos, you're still insisting on that fake-looking "whole body covered in comical specks of blood" gimmick, which already looked awful in the fist game, but here, it just prevents from taking any scene I'm watching seriously.

You can turn it off in the the game settings.It gives realism to the game.If you were to stab or slice someone in real life,you would have blood on you.

[Liablecocksman]

In Exile wrote...
Okay, so if the view isn't that there is a narrow range of ''appropriate'' aesthetics for an RPG, then what justifies the opposition?

You mean beyond what justifies going along with it, too? Not much.
It's a matter of personal preference.

I can argue, I've realised, that I don't think it fits into the setting at all, and that I don't like it because of that... But some people are always going to disagree, and refuse to see it from my point of view.

What justifies the justification then, apart from the aforementioned personal opinion?

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 16 janvier 2011 - 04:07 .

[Maria Caliban]

AlanC9 wrote...

So he should have said he likes the new animations because he has better taste than you?

I laughed.

Liable****sman wrote...

No. Stating that he or she liked it would have been fine with me, thank you.

If you like both Dragon Age 2 and Dragon Age: Origin's aesthetics, then you are more flexible in that regards than someone who only likes DA:O's. I'm not sure how that's insulting.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 16 janvier 2011 - 04:12 .

[In Exile]

Liable****sman wrote...
You mean beyond what justifies going along with it, too? Not much.
It's a matter of personal preference.

No, I'm aware it's preference. I mean, we can quantify that preference in some way. Likes x,y,z, which is as set bigger or smaller than Steve, who only likes x,m, etc.

I can argue, I've realised, that I don't think it fits into the setting at all, and that I don't like it because of that... But some people are always going to disagree, and refuse to see it from my point of view.

What justifies the justification then, apart from the aforementioned personal opinion?

What I think that poster was saying is that, relative to his taste (or the taste of others) your personal opinion is more narrow re: what 'works' for an RPG.

Basically, it's a question of what precisely is that personal opinion.

[Liablecocksman]

In Exile wrote...

No, I'm aware it's preference. I mean, we can quantify that preference in some way. Likes x,y,z, which is as set bigger or smaller than Steve, who only likes x,m, etc.

So we are calling others inflexible for simply liking less things about something, regardless for their reasons? I don't think that's very fair.
We aren't talking about inability to adjust, we are talking about not liking to adjust, due to X reason.

What I think that poster was saying is that, relative to his taste (or the taste of others) your personal opinion is more narrow re: what 'works' for an RPG.

Basically, it's a question of what precisely is that personal opinion.

But that is still not the case.
I am not talking about what "works" for "An RPG". I am talking about what works in the setting of this particular RPG. I am by no stretch an inflexible person, not in relation to what games I play either. I hardly ever object to design-choices in games... Instead I find myself going "Yeah, I guess that makes sense because of X".

Given that this is the exception rather than the rule, I took offense to being called inflexible(or being inferred as being, anyway)... And as I think I have valid reasons for not liking this, I don't think the term "flexible" should even be involved from the start. Maybe it applies to other poster, but I do not feel it describes my stance at all.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 16 janvier 2011 - 04:18 .

[AlanC9]

Liable****sman wrote...

So we are calling others inflexible for simply liking less things about something, regardless for their reasons? I don't think that's very fair.
We aren't talking about inability to adjust, we are talking about not liking to adjust, due to X reason.

What word would you prefer?

[Liablecocksman]

AlanC9 wrote...
What word would you prefer?

I would rather we stopped this fad of calling everyone that one word that may or may no be applicable. I would prefer a description to a single word.
You could say something like "That guy doesn't fance the art-direction the game is taking, not because he hates the animations or think they look stupid - he just do not feel they fit within the setting."

If you really want to, however, I suppose the two-worder "Less flexible" would work. I am certainly less flexible than some other people here - maybe yourself included?
There is a big difference, however, between being less flexible, and being inflexible.

I would probably be happy with that, too. Does that answer your question, or do you have more of these inane one-liners you need to spout in my direction?

[Maria Caliban]

Liable****sman wrote...

So we are calling others inflexible for simply liking less things about something, regardless for their reasons? I don't think that's very fair.

It doesn't matter if it's fair or not; it's true.

If someone is able to enjoy a wider range of something than you are, they're more flexible than you in regards to that something.

[Liablecocksman]

Maria Caliban wrote...

It doesn't matter if it's fair or not; it's true.

If someone is able to enjoy a wider range of something than you are, they're more flexible than you in regards to that something.

I agree that I may have gone a little overboard with inferred "Inflexible" rather than "less flexible" in the post I responded to, but I think that was due to me being fed up with these passive-aggressive posts that infer things instead of saying them outright.

That being said, some are now defending the term "inflexible" as opposed to simple bringing forth "less flexible", which I do not really understand.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 16 janvier 2011 - 04:30 .

[Liablecocksman]

filaminstrel wrote...

...He never used the word "inflexible." That was you. All he said was that he was very flexible. That leaves you anywhere between utterly inflexible and very flexible -1, i.e. "less  flexible."

I'm afraid you are a petty one post too late, I just ninja'd you. Sorry.

You're entirely correct.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 16 janvier 2011 - 04:31 .

[Dr. wonderful]

I want over the top.



I seriously just want to walk into sixty bandits and kill them all, soaked in blood and a witty quip if it can get in.

[Maria Caliban]

Fandango9641 wrote...

I propose bunny ears and tail for Hawke, nude party members and supervillan underpants for the games main antagonists. Those who disagree have little or no authority in discussing reasonable points made against the game because they are not being flexible and being flexible is really quite important.

No one is saying that you must be flexible. No one has even said that being flexible is a good thing. One person simply described himself as flexible in this manner.

[AlanC9]

Liable****sman wrote...
...but I think that was due to me being fed up with these passive-aggressive posts that infer things instead of saying them outright.

Just for clarity, are you including ErichHartmann's post in that category?

[AlexXIV]

So being flexible is a good thing unless it isn't. Good thing we cleared that up.

[AlanC9]

Being flexible is good for the person who is being flexible. It means you can like more games.



I don't think there's anything else to be said about it.

[AlexXIV]

AlanC9 wrote...

Being flexible is good for the person who is being flexible. It means you can like more games.

I don't think there's anything else to be said about it.

It could also mean that you don't give a damn which doesn't always need to be a good thing.

[Soul Cool]

Fandango9641 wrote...
And here’s the rub, because it appears that a great many fans of DA:O (myself included) really, really  don’t. Hey, at least we now have someone on the other side of the fence confident enough to acknowledge this shift in focus without muddying the waters with random talk of comic books, movies and manga. Kudos to you – I’m certain DA2 will deliver all the awesome stabbity-ness your heart desires.

I've been trying to think of a way to express why I don't mind over-the-top stuff, and it's really boiled down to people wanting realistic movements and attacks, but none of the realistic consequences that such entail.

"Yeah, full HP, all my buffs on, time to kick some darkspawn ass!"
*arrow in the neck from an archer that you have just barely or not even noticed*
"Oh dear, you have died."

[Kaellanen]

I have to admit this entire topic makes me giggle. 99% of any combat you see in games and movies would be defined as over the top. I've taken martial arts and done competitive fencing for over 20 years. The moves and techniques that are the most amazing and difficult? They're the ones you barely see. The hip throw that involved shifting your weight one inch. The stab to your opponent's wrist as they move their bell guard just a tad to much. But that kind of stuff is only exciting if you're actually in the moment and participating. If you are just WATCHING combat, certain levels of flash have to be there, otherwise it really does just look like two people poking at each other.



It also seems to me that everyone is freaking out about a rather small part of something completely larger. If the combat makes sense in the context of the game, why complain? The whole point of DA2 as I understand it is to tell the story of a larger than life character whose actions define the entire age, as told by know exaggerator of legend. Even at only one telling removed, there will be changes and larger than life moments. In that context, I think that the combat perfectly reflects what the story is trying to accomplish. And, as the game is probably finished with only minor tweaks at this point, I for one plan sit back, wait for the game to come out, and then enjoy the hell out of it.



Of course, it's possible I've taken one too many kicks to the head and gone loopy, but I'm cool with that.