9 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

hey...go ahead! It's your game, after all.

The above quote is taken from the family resemblance thread.

Now, I love that Mike's saying that it's our game, and we can do with it what we will.  But much of DA2's design seems directly in conflict with this sentiment.

David Gaider says he's excited that the players can't change Isabela's garment to something less Isabela-like.  Why?  It's our game, right?  Why can't we do what we like?

One of the supposed benefits of the paraphrase system is that it prevents people from skipping dialogue.  As David said:

David Gaider wrote...

we want people to hear the lines and the VO.

But why do you care?  Again, isn't it "our game", after all?

DA2's design appears to be aimed at causing the players to experience the game as the designers would like it to be experienced, as yet whenever we learn of a feature that allows us greater freedom than that it is explained as Mike did above.  "Go ahead! It's your game, after all. 

These positions appear to be in conflict.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

hey...go ahead! It's your game, after all.

The above quote is taken from the family resemblance thread.

Now, I love that Mike's saying that it's our game, and we can do with it what we will.  But much of DA2's design seems directly in conflict with this sentiment.

I disagree. Sharply.

You are essentially claiming that any restrictions on your gameplay completely obliterate player agency. I would put forward that working within a rule structure that still allows for player agency is what defines a game from a complete sandbox made entirely from imagination.

If you cannot handle restrictions like, say, only rogues being able to duel weild, then you do not think that mages should have been restricted to only a certain class of weapons in D&D, or that you should be able to buy a hotel without paying for houses in Monopoly, or that warriors should start with as much humility as shepherds in Ultima 4 just becuase you want them to or, taken to its extreme, that you should be able to set up any board game in the world and say "I win!" without playing, because, hey it's your game.

To look at an example, I will never apologize for giving rogues a distinct role from warriors. We have started with a class-based system, and the decision was made to own that and turn them into proper classes, rather than nigh-identical combatants with slightly different fashion sense. Why? Because it makes you make choices. It makes those choices, with thier pros and cons matter.

So yes, it's your game. But it's still a game, and a game has rules so that you can work within them, feel smart when you find a way around them, and feel like you need to get better at them when it hands you your ass.

And if that's not something you enjoy, then I would suggest that gaming, as a whole will fail for you as a medium.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If she can't use a bow, where's the benefit?  What do the players get out of that restriction?  Where's the payoff?

The benefit is that a character who was defined in Origins as being a duelist, to the point where she was the only way to learn to be a duelist in the course of the main campaign, remains consistent in her preferred weapons, and thus remains a more consistent and defined character who comes with, again, her own pros and cons.

And if you consider it vital that you have a rogue in your party with a bow? Varric and he's again a character that is focused and defined. Very focused on Bianca, in his case.

In all honesty, arguments can be made for letting your followers use any weapons or restricted to only a certain class. You can argue that ANY game mechanic is better than it's exact opposite. For me, the important part is that we be consistent, and within DA II, we are.

And yes, I'm aware that DA II is inconsistent with the ruleset of DA: O. Decisions to make changes were not made lightly, in part because we knew that there would be backlash from Origins fans. Change always results in backlash, but if you're convinced that you're making changes for the right reasons, you steel yourself and put up with it, and believe, as I do, that the results speak for themselves.

[John Epler]

shayboy4 wrote...

I can see where you're coming from
But seriously? you cant skip dialogue? WHAT THE HECK!
what if you're restarting the game and dont wanna hear the story again.
very poor decision Bioware.

You can skip dialogue. I'm unsure what the original context was of the quote in question, but I can tell you that you are definitely able to skip lines.

I mean, we'd prefer that you didn't, but if you really want to, that's cool. We'll just, you know, be over here. Crying.

[Mike Laidlaw]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
As I understand it, your idea of roleplaying extends to the entire party, while Bioware's idea is focused on you, the player character.

No, Sylvius actually would prefer either complete control of all the party members or zero control of the party members. Roleplaying consistencty.

So, then I would recommend Final Fantasy or Storm of Zehir, depedning on mood.

Either way, Dragon Age II is its own beast, and the discussion between Sylvius and I will soon devolve into the fact that the things he sees as a negative are not things I see as a negative, and two distinctly opposed positions may as well not enter into the debate unless both sides are enjoying the rolicking discussion, and sadly, I'm too busy and tired to hold up my end of said enjoyment.

Crunch takes its toll, folks!

[John Epler]

Simply because someone posts something you disagree with, it does not make them a troll.



Let's avoid applying that label too casually.

[Stanley Woo]

I would like to remind folks that swearing is not permitted in our forum, so please cut it out. Thank you.

[David Gaider]

AlanC9 wrote...
More seriously, it seems kind of odd to be interested in companion customization if this is your starting-point.

Well, Sylvius approaches this from the point of view that he wants to play every party member as if they were his PC, including having them lead the party and take point in conversations. We haven't really done that since BG1, of course, but that's what he wants-- and each step we take away from that makes his pedantic little heart cringe.

I would argue his twisting of our words to suit his agenda, but there's no point. Most people doing that would be doing it out of narrow-minded jerkwad-ness, but Sylvius is very likely as earnest as ever, twisting himself up in his own logic until he can't see out of it. Which, in the end, means he just wants what he wants whether we're willing to make that game or not. So... more power to him, I guess.

As for the rest of the chest-beating going on in this thread, it's interesting. I don't think anyone should buy a game they're not interested in, and some people seem so certain that they'll dislike the changes that have been made I'm not sure they even would enjoy the game when they play it-- you'd need an open mind for that, whereas some of these folks will go in looking for reasons to back up their preconceptions and thus will surely find them.

Which is kinda sad, isn't it? As a reason to play a game, I mean. I hope I'm wrong on that point, and some of these folks will actually enjoy the game when they get it -- warts and all (for what game doesn't have a few?). C'est la vie!

Modifié par David Gaider, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:42 .

[David Gaider]

Night Prowler76 wrote...
I really hope this game goes down as a huge failure.

Huh.

Not wanting to buy a game because it's not for you is one thing, but wishing failure on us (as some kind of lesson, I suppose?) seems a little... petty.

Just had to throw that out there, amidst all the customary pedantism. Carry on.

[Stanley Woo]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Quit being a fanboy, dont assume that people will buy the game if it looks crappy, sorry you cannot comprehend that, and name calling is quite childish.

Then why do you do it?

Folks, let's keep it down to a dull roar, cut out the name-calling and insults, and don't turn this into yet another platform wars discussion, please. Thank you.