1044 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But
that's not true.  You equip them, you tell what what skills and talents
to learn, you tell them where to go and when to wait in the camp
(interminably).  It's not that you only control them in combat, it's
that you only fail to control them in conversations, which are a much
smaller part of the game.

If I am the 'master player' and all characters are effectively made equal  with regards to playing capacity, then in terms of the story, I should have a choice at all times in terms of who I control which isn't the case. At the start of Dragon Age, I cannot be Morrigan, Alistair, or any other npc. When I enter the Fade, the tale is still told from my perspective. When I confront the Archdemon or whenever I leave camp, it's my character who is in required attendance. Contrary to DnD (where a DM attempts to make all characters feel happy/important), you are allowed to be the center of attention. When I play my Warden solo, there is not some player across the room skulking because the DM is taking time away from his character. All those other aspects, equipment, spells, etc, which you can control are simply there for gameplay purposes.

I suppose what Sylvius is saying is that the NPCs are his characters for some purposes but not others. It's a valid perspective. Even if I prefer to think of the NPCs as being played by other people -- in this case, whoever at Bioware wrote the character - I still sometimes must have control over that character that I shouldn't have if it isn't mine.

[Xewaka]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

I would just like to point out that having a character with a certain preferred progression shouldn't preclude the player to experiment within the setting. I mean, the player is already paying a penalty for going off the rails in the form of misplaced attributes and talent points, as well as a useless specialization tree. Most players will build to the strenght of the already hinted character, and thus the character remains consistent with its presentation.
I'd argue most players built Leliana to be an archer, Zevran to dual-wield, Oghren and Sten for twohand weapon fighting, etc. Allowing players the capability to experiment should they choose to in no way detracts from the character's stablished personality.

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote..
That's fair. But I believe that an informed argument should have all viewpoints available to all participants, so that people can check the background of those viewpoints and see if they have data to share that could cause the reconsideration of said viewpoints.

In that case, though, we have to be receptive to identifying the problem effectively. We've discussed localization in the past, and it seems to be that you cannot separate problems with the method of localization from problems with the dialogue system. I agree with you that as it stands, the way the game is localized poses a big problem for the paraphrase that isn't there for the full-text, but this does not prove that there is a problem with the paraphrase. It is an equivalent proof that the method of localization needs to change.

Well, that was a correlation-equals-causation brainfart on my part. As a chemist, I should know better than to apply that. Still, the problem exists and is made evident by the paraphrase in a way that full text didn't.

[_Aine_]

David Gaider wrote...

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!

Boredom and real or perceived lack of information can do funny things to one's perception of things, or at least point of view sometimes.  I am sure some will and some won't enjoy it, despite our opinions for and against some things.  Some will regret their optimism and likely even more will regret speaking prematurely.  Such is the way things go sometimes.  

I think many people view the new direction as minor hand-holding and Bioware instituting a new trend of lessened player freedom or control.  Fair enough from a certain point of view. Anything can be made logical with a clever enough mind and an unwillingness to accept change coupled with the fact *none of us has even tried it yet*

Yes, it *does* sound like the way the game is presented and played is *different* in DAII as opposed to DA:O.  Yes, it does sound like we can't change the armour, and the given characteristics and talents of each companion.  (Not too much different than RL, although there are days I STILL think I can train my husband to pick up his underwear off the bathroom floor *love is blind and all that*) but I think that this game, this *story* may in fact just be a different experience *if* (and it is a BIG IF) we are open to that experience.  We are being led through a tale, and yes we can adjust our main character, ourselves and therefore change the way the people in our world may perceive us and our relationships with the people in our lives, but we can't change other people to be who they are not.   We can't force Isabella to pick up a bow, and frankly she may indeed gut you if you may try to impose your will on her in that way.  As she should of course.  

People feel comforted by the familiar and uneasy by change that sets them against everything they enjoyed.  There will be change. Guaranteed.  That seems evident. All the info in the world though, will not negate the fact that you MAY in fact enjoy the bloody game despite every indication to the contrary.  When my husband first brought home Knights of the Old Republic years ago I thought he had lost his mind.  Until I played it and loved it.  Sometimes, having an open mind is good.  It opens the door to new experiences and still doesn't TAKE AWAY your preferences for different experiences.  

I completely understand the point of view of the detractors on this thread and others.  Even agree with some of it, in theory.  (not all of it mind you).  I also understand the point of views given by Bioware, as they are completely logical and even *smart* for this particular game in the points made.  

It all boils down to being open-minded enough to try something that branches away from the norms that you appreciate in a game, as well as preference.   You can't change personal preference, but you *can* choose to try something despite them. ( or not as the case may be.)  You never know, it may become one of your *new* "likes". 

Modifié par shantisands, 18 janvier 2011 - 02:25 .

[sevalaricgirl]

DA2 is very much like ME2. You're only able to change small aspects of the game but it all eventually ends the way Bioware wants it to end because the ending is at the beginning of the game and not at the end like DAO. More choices in DAO, certainly. More choices in other games, not really. In KOTOR, you either make Revan go to the dark side or not with predetermined endings. ME and ME2, predetermined endings. Only in DAO do you have the options of more endings. Alistair drunk vagrant, Alistair dead, Alistair GW, Alistair sold king, Alistair sole king with mistress, Alistair king with warden princess consort, Alistair king with Anora queen, Anora queen with warden prince consort.  Oh and I forgot PC dead.  DA2 is dumbed down to cater to the masses.  I'll play it anyway especially if the character development is as good as DAO.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 18 janvier 2011 - 02:32 .

[Maconbar]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

DA2 is very much like ME2. You're only able to change small aspects of the game but it all eventually ends the way Bioware wants it to end because the ending is at the beginning of the game and not at the end like DAO. More choices in DAO, certainly. More choices in other games, not really. In KOTOR, you either make Revan go to the dark side or not with predetermined endings. ME and ME2, predetermined endings. Only in DAO do you have the options of more endings. Alistair drunk vagrant, Alistair dead, Alistair GW, Alistair sold king, Alistair sole king with mistress, Alistair king with warden princess consort, Alistair king with Anora queen, Anora queen with warden prince consort.

DA:2 could have multiple endings just like DA:O. We just don't know enough right now.

[Jimmy Fury]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

DA2 is very much like ME2. You're only able to change small aspects of the game but it all eventually ends the way Bioware wants it to end because the ending is at the beginning of the game and not at the end like DAO. More choices in DAO, certainly. More choices in other games, not really. In KOTOR, you either make Revan go to the dark side or not with predetermined endings. ME and ME2, predetermined endings. Only in DAO do you have the options of more endings. Alistair drunk vagrant, Alistair dead, Alistair GW, Alistair sold king, Alistair sole king with mistress, Alistair king with warden princess consort, Alistair king with Anora queen, Anora queen with warden prince consort.  Oh and I forgot PC dead.  DA2 is dumbed down to cater to the masses.  I'll play it anyway especially if the character development is as good as DAO.

Those are epilogues, not endings. There's only one ending to DAO and that is: "The Archdemon Dies. Blight Ends. Someone becomes Ruler. The Warden's get a prize."
The epilogue slides are the things that occur after the ending. Comparing the epilogues of Origins to the ending of ME is unfair. ME doesn't have epilogue slides because the information that would be presented in them was going to be presented in ME2. The consequences of sidequests, what happened to companions, the general state of affairs, all of that gets covered in ME2 as a part of the game so there is no need for epilogue slides at the end of ME.

Indeed those very same slides you praise wraught havok on expansions and any attempt to further the story of Origins.
"Morrigan was never seen again*"
*unless you ignore this slide and purchase the Witch Hunt DLC in which case she is seen again, quite a bit.
Not having epilogue slides leaves much more room for the story to continue. I think it would have been less restrictive for the Origins team if they had left them out completely.

[obsessedwjpn]

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.

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.

Wait, wait, I have a mind-blowing answer: Why don't you just make your own video game? Then you can do whatever you want with it! Yeah! 

Video games are a work of art just like painting, photography, and many other things. They are there for people to enjoy them and interact with them through visuals, etc. Those who created Dragon Age obviously have their own aspirations and hopes they want to convey through their art medium. You can't just demand they give up all their creativity in favor of the player. There has to be a middle ground.

[tmp7704]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

But wouldn't acknowledging these "nigh-identical combatants" are in fact nigh-identical and as such turning them into a single melee class result in ability to make the same choices, with pretty much the same pros, cons and consequences... just the same?

I mean, i honestly can't see a functional difference between... "pick A or B, if you pick A you can pick between A1 and A2, and if you picked B you can pick between B1 and B2"... compared to "pick between A1, A2, B1 and B2"

To clarify, i don't mean it as if the option to make it single class would be universally better decision. I just don't see why there's connection drawn between the disctinct classes and choices as if there was some actual connection between these that wouldn't exist otherwise. It's the "because" in the provided answer that's... puzzling.

[Dubya75]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Haha, you told him Mike! You told that trouble maker! That'll teach 'em! He looks like a real idiot now don't he! Woohoo!
I wanna be like Mike! 

[Nozybidaj]

obsessedwjpn wrote...
Wait, wait, I have a mind-blowing answer: Why don't you just make your own video game? Then you can do whatever you want with it! Yeah!

Or, just wait for TES:V to come out.

This is just the kind of game BW makes.  You aren't creating your own story, you are being told BW's story.  Nothing inherently wrong or bad about that, it just is what it is.

[moilami]

shantisands wrote...

We can't force Isabella to pick up a bow, and frankly she may indeed gut you if you may try to impose your will on her in that way.  As she should of course.  

Professionals would use themselves the best tools to get the job done. To say Isaballa wont touch a bow is to portray her as a moron who should grow up.

[moilami]

obsessedwjpn wrote...

You can't just demand they give up all their creativity in favor of the player. There has to be a middle ground.

How can some then whine Morri doesn't have enough clothes?

[obsessedwjpn]

moilami wrote...

How can some then whine Morri doesn't have enough clothes?

Because people have opinions? I personally find nothing wrong with Morrigan or any Bioware female's clothes.

Modifié par obsessedwjpn, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:23 .

[Addai]

Uh... one person's "whining" is another person's "just stating my preference/ opinion." Everyone's got one.

[Addai]

moilami wrote...
I find it much easier to RP Shepard too (only on the second mission now but Shepard is very happy and waiting patiently when I have time to play). The Warden always felt like some kind of Jesus. Sucked very much too to have to chose between Leliana and Morrigan! I wanted both.

*scratches head*  You'll have to choose between Liara and Ashley, too.  Obviously I'm missing your point?  Or have you just not got that far?

[Jimmy Fury]

Addai67 wrote...

Uh... one person's "whining" is another person's "just stating my preference/ opinion." Everyone's got one.

Not really. Stating an opinion can be done without any whining at all. There are plenty of people who state their opinion in a reasonable, sometimes even constructive, fashion.

And then there are people who just whine.

[Nighteye2]

David Gaider wrote...

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!

People are mainly argueing the difference between a good game and a great game. They want the game to be great, but are afraid some of the changes will downgrade the experience to merely good.

[Beerfish]

moilami wrote...

shantisands wrote...

We can't force Isabella to pick up a bow, and frankly she may indeed gut you if you may try to impose your will on her in that way.  As she should of course.  

Professionals would use themselves the best tools to get the job done. To say Isaballa wont touch a bow is to portray her as a moron who should grow up.

To force her to use a bow when she is a duelist and that is where all her training is is to portray her as a mindless moron who should grow up.

[aksoileau]

I think the OP is failing to understand "intellectual property." It's biowares vision for all of DA and we are just along for the ride; which are usually awesome rides. These aren't D&D games anymore where you base a game on a pre-created world that's been around for 20 years.

[Ryzaki]

moilami wrote...
I find it much easier to RP Shepard too (only on the second mission now but Shepard is very happy and waiting patiently when I have time to play). The Warden always felt like some kind of Jesus. Sucked very much too to have to chose between Leliana and Morrigan! I wanted both.

Wow. And Shepad totally isn't anything like Jesus. It's not like he came back from the dead, headed to afterlife to pick up a dude named archangel and picked up a total of 12 followers.



And really play a paragon Shepard. Space Jesus is an apt description.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:30 .

[aries1001]

Let me ask you one thing: In Icewind Dale, (and in D&D) there are racial restrictions, certain races can't be wizards or mages, druids need certain stats they must have. And wizards can't wear armour. Isabella in Dragon Age 2 can't wear anything else than light armour (tunicas?)



Viewed from another point, I suspect this game maybe is going for the more adventure game aspect (and by adventure game, I mean games like Syberia, Monkey Island etc). In these games you also have a fixed protagonist, and sometimes you can choose more than one different path to achieve your goals in the game. You will always end up solving the mystery or doing the scripted ending that the devs. have made up for the game.



In DA2, your character will be Hawke, a fixed protagonist, and you will meet other people, like Isabella who doesn't change their appereance throughout the game, just like the main character in adventure games meets other people throghout the game who also doesn't change their appeareance.



Unlike adventure games, though, people playing DA2 can and will still succeed in defining who Hawke is and will be - in the past, future and present.

[AndarianTD]

aksoileau wrote...

I think the OP is failing to understand "intellectual property." It's biowares vision for all of DA and we are just along for the ride; which are usually awesome rides. These aren't D&D games anymore where you base a game on a pre-created world that's been around for 20 years.

And:

Nozybidaj wrote...

This is just the kind of game BW makes.  You aren't creating your own story, you are being told BW's story.  Nothing inherently wrong or bad about that, it just is what it is.

Both these points bear repeating. This is the kind of "game" that Bioware is making now: not a sandbox or a "traditional" RPG, but an interactive storytelling experience. It's not "your" story to "co-create," but theirs to tell. They're not making something central whose purpose is to facilitate your own personal adventure fantasizing. They're telling a specific story, and the parameters of player choice are defined and circumscribed by that purpose. If choices are provided, they're there to support and enhance that purpose: to create an interactive storytelling experiece.

I get that some fans of "traditional" (e.g., table-top derived and driven) RPGs don't prefer this kind of "modern" story-driven CRP Gaming. Many of the rest of us do, and even very strongly prefer it. There's nothing wrong with stating a preference, but when it escalates to the point of endless forum harangues about how one's own personal preferences are the one true faith of role-playing, then that simply becomes disrespectful to other players.

If you don't like the direction Bioware games are taking, then patronize other game developers whose offerings are more to your taste. There are more than enough of us who strongly prefer the new direction to keep them in business.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:05 .

[eyesofastorm]

AndarianTD wrote...

There are more than enough of us who strongly prefer the new direction to keep them in business.

This is exactly what I've been saying.  Of course it doesn't seem like good business to kick to the curb so many of your customers who have been loyal to you from the beginning, but in this brave new world of business, who I am to say what's smart and what's not.  Anyway, I realize the argument that, "I was here first" doesn't carry much weight, but it's one of the reasons that it's so hard to let go and largely why I feel that sense of betrayal... real or imagined.

[the_one_54321]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Uh... one person's "whining" is another person's "just stating my preference/ opinion." Everyone's got one.

Not really. Stating an opinion can be done without any whining at all. There are plenty of people who state their opinion in a reasonable, sometimes even constructive, fashion.

And then there are people who just whine.

And clearly you can't tell the difference.

[Nozybidaj]

aries1001 wrote...
Unlike adventure games, though, people playing DA2 can and will still succeed in defining who Hawke is and will be - in the past, future and present.

Probably not the best example to choose to make your point since Hawke's past, present, and future are already pretty well defined for you.  From what I've gathered you can pick the gender, look, and who you get jiggy wit it.  Most of the rest seems pretty set in stone already.