1044 réponses à ce sujet

[bsbcaer]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Does it honestly surprise you that you can hand someone a sandbox and tell them to do whatever they want in it, and they'll be bored out of their mind? I wouldn't. But converstly..... sometimes I want to be told a story. And I want to play a game while I'm being told this story. I don't want to write it myself. I want a good writer to create it and present it to me without me giving any input on it at all. I don't want this all the time, but in some games it's awesome to have. And there are lots and lots of gamers that have at least a slightly similar view on that. Also, I edited the last post to add moer.

Honestly, this is me.  Actually, it all depends on the story hooks because in some sandboxes, Im more than happy to run around and play in (Fallout 3), while others I just drop rather quickly (Elder Scrolls 4). 

[RamonIAm]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The difference is in how they've done it this time.

It would appear, for example, that in DA2 Isabela doesn't have access to archery talents, and thus cannot under any circumstances equip a bow, despite being a Rogue.

As Mike said during a podcast "she's not much of a bow girl."  [/i]This is arguably even relevant to her personality.

But in DAO, these things were done using a far less restrictive talent system.  Sten was supposed to use a two-handed sword, but if the player wanted him to be an archer, or a S&S warrior, or frankly anything else, we could do that.  The game wasn't designed to go out of its way to force us to play him the way BioWare thought best.

But DA2 seemingly is designed like that.  Rather than Isabela having access to the full range of Rogue talents so that we could use her as an archer if we wanted, they've taken away our ability to make her an archer - even a bad archer - just because they think it doesn't suit her.

DA2 follows an entirely different design philosophy.

I may be wrong, but I see that "she's not much of a bow girl."[/i] [/i]as a way of telling us that Isabella`s unique specializations/abilities are DW abilities instead of archery ones, I am pretty sure you can equip daggers to Varric so he can defend himself when attacked in melee or equip a bow to Isabela so she can shoot an enemy until it gets in range.

I would bet she still have access to basic arrow skills, say, aim, rapid shot, rain of arrows etc. Like you will if you choose to be a rogue

[Blastback]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Then my point is that many of the can't or won't.

You're about to make me retreat to an armed compound.

Jeez, I thought my opinion of humanity was low...

Does it honestly surprise you that you can hand someone a sandbox and tell them to do whatever they want in it, and they'll be bored out of their mind? I wouldn't. But converstly..... sometimes I want to be told a story. And I want to play a game while I'm being told this story. I don't want to write it myself. I want a good writer to create it and present it to me without me giving any input on it at all. I don't want this all the time, but in some games it's awesome to have. And there are lots and lots of gamers that have at least a slightly similar view on that. Also, I edited the last post to add moer.

My problem is that Bioware always felt like they had struck the perfect balance between telling a structured story and feeling like they allowed for player contribution into the story in the past.  With Mass Effect, and now seemingly DA2, they have abandoned that balance,  in favor of new inovations. 

[RamonIAm]

bsbcaer wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Does it honestly surprise you that you can hand someone a sandbox and tell them to do whatever they want in it, and they'll be bored out of their mind? I wouldn't. But converstly..... sometimes I want to be told a story. And I want to play a game while I'm being told this story. I don't want to write it myself. I want a good writer to create it and present it to me without me giving any input on it at all. I don't want this all the time, but in some games it's awesome to have. And there are lots and lots of gamers that have at least a slightly similar view on that. Also, I edited the last post to add moer.

Honestly, this is me.  Actually, it all depends on the story hooks because in some sandboxes, Im more than happy to run around and play in (Fallout 3), while others I just drop rather quickly (Elder Scrolls 4). 

I don`t think DA would work like that, i mean, imagine being given all the freedom in the world in Origins, maybe you decide, YOU KNOW WHAT, I DON`T WANNA BE A GREY WARDEN! And go to Orlais or something.

Game over.

[TheCreeper]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

they are simply a tool or the god of the world to express what it desires to be expressed. Isabela is predefined to be a master duelist with no significant training in firing a bow,

I'm not complaining about that.  I'm complaining about her inability to learn to fire a bow.

That's the problem.  Isabella is not the PC, she is not the player character, she is not your character.  You can't force her to use a bow anymore than you can force her personality to change.

Exactly, you might as well complain about her not being able to shoot fireballs out of her hands. As I said before, This a Roleplaying game, and your role is not some sims-ish god that controls every aspect of everybody, you role is hawke.

[AlanC9]

But since cover mattered in ME1, it was useful to see targets from the viewpoint presented in ME1. Would a click-to-target system work from that POV? I've never really given it any thought, since my problem with ME1 was that Shepard had bad aim, not the way I controlled him shooting.

How'd we get off onto that tangent, anyway?

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:20 .

[the_one_54321]

Blastback wrote...
My problem is that Bioware always felt like they had struck the perfect balance between telling a structured story and feeling like they allowed for player contribution into the story in the past.  With Mass Effect, and now seemingly DA2, they have abandoned that balance,  in favor of new inovations.

I don't know whether I agree with this yet. I do know that I loved DA:O and it's mechanics, and the same goes for NWN. I like the idea of getting a more tailored story in DA][, but there are other aspects of the game that make me certain I won't be buying it until there's an "ultimate edition" or some such. So... yeah... I don't know. In my mind it could still go either way.

[Melness]

If Isabela's character favors melee dual wielding, then that is what she should use. Saying that she should be able to become a worthy archer is like saying that a Wynne Blood Mage makes sense.

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Then my point is that many of the can't or won't.

You're about to make me retreat to an armed compound.

Jeez, I thought my opinion of humanity was low...

If they're like me, they aren't playing to be given a sandbox of any kind.  If I didn't want to follow the directed path in an RPG I'd just shut it down and write fanfiction or my own story.  It's just not why I'm playing the game. 

[Morroian]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Does it honestly surprise you that you can hand someone a sandbox and tell them to do whatever they want in it, and they'll be bored out of their mind? 

That was me and Oblivion, didn't last an hour. I have higher hopes for Skyrim since Arkane is also working on it as well as Bethesda.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
But since cover mattered in ME1, it was useful to see targets from the viewpoint presented in ME1. Would a click-to-target system work from that POV? I've never really given it any thought, since my problem with ME1 was that Shepard had bad aim, not the way I controlled him shooting.

How'd we get off onto that tangent, anyway?

Issues of how mechanics effect the feel and perception of a game.

Related, I also hated that it had to be 3rd person with cover. This is my opinion, but I feel cover systems in shooters was one of the dumbest ideas ever applied to shooter games. Give me FEAR with crouch and lean any day overy a 3rd person cover system. The body takes up room on the screen and instead of being inventive and exciting with regard to using protection and placement all you need to do is find the right cover spot and leapfrog. Sometimes it mattered little, but once in a while it made the gameplay downright boring.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Blastback wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Then my point is that many of the can't or won't.

You're about to make me retreat to an armed compound.

Jeez, I thought my opinion of humanity was low...

Does it honestly surprise you that you can hand someone a sandbox and tell them to do whatever they want in it, and they'll be bored out of their mind? I wouldn't. But converstly..... sometimes I want to be told a story. And I want to play a game while I'm being told this story. I don't want to write it myself. I want a good writer to create it and present it to me without me giving any input on it at all. I don't want this all the time, but in some games it's awesome to have. And there are lots and lots of gamers that have at least a slightly similar view on that. Also, I edited the last post to add moer.

My problem is that Bioware always felt like they had struck the perfect balance between telling a structured story and feeling like they allowed for player contribution into the story in the past.  With Mass Effect, and now seemingly DA2, they have abandoned that balance,  in favor of new inovations. 

How is you giving Isabela a bow contributing to the story in any way?

[Blastback]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Blastback wrote...
My problem is that Bioware always felt like they had struck the perfect balance between telling a structured story and feeling like they allowed for player contribution into the story in the past.  With Mass Effect, and now seemingly DA2, they have abandoned that balance,  in favor of new inovations.

I don't know whether I agree with this yet. I do know that I loved DA:O and it's mechanics, and the same goes for NWN. I like the idea of getting a more tailored story in DA][, but there are other aspects of the game that make me certain I won't be buying it until there's an "ultimate edition" or some such. So... yeah... I don't know. In my mind it could still go either way.

Like I said, "Seemingly" DA2.  I'm certain I'll still enjoy the game, but it seems like enough "it ain't broke but we're fixing it anyway" changes have been made that I might very well not enjoy it as much as previous Bioware games.

[Il Divo]

TheCreeper wrote...

Exactly, you might as well complain about her not being able to shoot fireballs out of her hands. As I said before, This a Roleplaying game, and your role is not some sims-ish god that controls every aspect of everybody, you role is hawke.

And you just described it perfectly. In an RPG, you are not the 'puppetmaster' controlling all these characters like mere puppets on strings. The goal is always to allow you to take the personality of one specific character. This, I think, is more in the spirit of actual DnD and defies the mechanics.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:25 .

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...

It's a single-player game.  There aren't any other players.

I believe it is you who is attempting to argue from the perspective of tabletops. In a typical tabletop, you have control of one character "your character" at all times, not 9 characters as Dragon Age allows you.

If I may, Sylvius believes CRPGs to be atypical tabletop games, where the player controls more than one character. Though I'm not exactly sure what kind of tabletop game has a player with one PC he creates himself and a bunch of others that the DM hands to him -- and then takes back whenever the DM feels like it.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

If I may, Sylvius believes CRPGs to be atypical tabletop games, where the player controls more than one character. Though I'm not exactly sure what kind of tabletop game has a player with one PC he creates himself and a bunch of others that the DM hands to him -- and then takes back whenever the DM feels like it.

I see what he's trying to say, but I still think it's in defiance of the 'grand old tradition', as it were. A sandbox world is a world without focus. Dnd, as much as anything else, is also about meaningful character interactions which isn't possible when you are all the characters; you're effectively talking to yourself. So although he might see it as an atypical tabletop, the end result is something far worse and lacking in depth. You cannot build a meaningful romance, friendship, etc, when you are taking the role of both characters in each relationship.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:30 .

[KIrving]

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.

It just sounds like Mr Laidlaw's usual silly marketing speak.  I don't believe for a second that it's my game.
I'm glad that you point out these inconsistencies in message though Sylvius, although I don't how you find the energy.

I'm already so bored with the proposed awesomeness of DA2 that I can't even find my rant hat.

[Blastback]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Blastback wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Then my point is that many of the can't or won't.

You're about to make me retreat to an armed compound.

Jeez, I thought my opinion of humanity was low...

Does it honestly surprise you that you can hand someone a sandbox and tell them to do whatever they want in it, and they'll be bored out of their mind? I wouldn't. But converstly..... sometimes I want to be told a story. And I want to play a game while I'm being told this story. I don't want to write it myself. I want a good writer to create it and present it to me without me giving any input on it at all. I don't want this all the time, but in some games it's awesome to have. And there are lots and lots of gamers that have at least a slightly similar view on that. Also, I edited the last post to add moer.

My problem is that Bioware always felt like they had struck the perfect balance between telling a structured story and feeling like they allowed for player contribution into the story in the past.  With Mass Effect, and now seemingly DA2, they have abandoned that balance,  in favor of new inovations. 

How is you giving Isabela a bow contributing to the story in any way?

Defining the character as someone who is willing and able to do more than just flip around with daggers?  It alows me to decide just what role in the group and therefore story, Isabela has, aside from her charater interactions.

It's also a gameplay issue.  I like being able to have charatcters with more than just one function or skillset.  My first warden was a warrior who both duel wielded and used a sword and shield.  He was never as good as Alistar at tanking, or Sten at DPS, but he could fill whatever role I needed filled at the moment.  Most of my companions in BG2 were multi/dual class. 

[Heimdall]

Blastback wrote...

Defining the character as someone who is willing and able to do more than just flip around with daggers?  It alows me to decide just what role in the group and therefore story, Isabela has, aside from her charater interactions.

It's also a gameplay issue.  I like being able to have charatcters with more than just one function or skillset.  My first warden was a warrior who both duel wielded and used a sword and shield.  He was never as good as Alistar at tanking, or Sten at DPS, but he could fill whatever role I needed filled at the moment.  Most of my companions in BG2 were multi/dual class. 

  But she isn't your character, so why should you be able to decide what she can do?  She isn't yours to define.

[Melness]

Sure, if you wanted to spec Sten as something other than a dual-wielder you could - but it doesn't necessarily make sense. To learn a different style of fighting should take quite sometime.

This is worse if you wanted your Isabela to learn archery. It takes years to master the bow and that was one of the major reasons why it was so quickly outclassed by firearms, I'm told.

Another good example is Wynne. Sure, you could certainly turn her into an overkilling arcane warrior or even a Blood Mage. But do either of those things really make sense, specially if you bring in the fact that Wynne, as a character, isn't really prone to melee or, even worse, forbidden magic?

The game didn't really limit you back then, but it should have.

Modifié par Melness, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:40 .

[Blastback]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Defining the character as someone who is willing and able to do more than just flip around with daggers?  It alows me to decide just what role in the group and therefore story, Isabela has, aside from her charater interactions.

It's also a gameplay issue.  I like being able to have charatcters with more than just one function or skillset.  My first warden was a warrior who both duel wielded and used a sword and shield.  He was never as good as Alistar at tanking, or Sten at DPS, but he could fill whatever role I needed filled at the moment.  Most of my companions in BG2 were multi/dual class. 

  But she isn't your character, so why should you be able to decide what she can do? 

Cause it's fun!

It's less about defining her, than her role in the group.  Hawke is the leader, he, and thus the player, controls what role the others have in combat.  If your in a military unit, and your leader tells you to use a grenade launcher even though your a machine gunner, you grab the grenade launcher.  And while I realise that Hawke's party isnt a disiplined military organisation (or is it?) Hawke should be able to control how the others fight.  After all, we control what they do in combat, what powers they use, who they attack.  Why not what weapon they use?  It worked great in Baldur's Gate, KotOR, and Origins.

Melness wrote...

Sure, if you wanted to spec Sten as something other than a dual-wielder you could - but it doesn't necessarily make sense. To learn a different style of fighting should take quite sometime.

This is worse if you wanted your Isabela to learn archery. It takes years to master the bow and that was one of the major reasons why it was so quickly outclassed by firearms, I'm told.

Another good example is Wynne. Sure, you could certainly turn her into an overkilling arcane warrior or even a Blood Mage. But do either of those things really make sense, specially if you bring in the fact that Wynne, as a character, isn't really prone to melee or, even worse, forbidden magic?

The game didn't really limit you back then, but it should have.

Given that DA2 takes place over 10 years, how much of an obstical is that really?  Besides, that's a degree of realism that has never been a big deal to me.

Modifié par Blastback, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:47 .

[Morroian]

Il Divo wrote...

I see what he's trying to say, but I still think it's in defiance of the 'grand old tradition', as it were. A sandbox world is a world without focus. Dnd, as much as anything else, is also about meaningful character interactions which isn't possible when you are all the characters; you're effectively talking to yourself. So although he might see it as an atypical tabletop, the end result is something far worse and lacking in depth. You cannot build a meaningful romance, friendship, etc, when you are taking the role of both characters in each relationship.  

QFT, excellent point.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Blastback wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Blastback wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Then my point is that many of the can't or won't.

You're about to make me retreat to an armed compound.

Jeez, I thought my opinion of humanity was low...

Does it honestly surprise you that you can hand someone a sandbox and tell them to do whatever they want in it, and they'll be bored out of their mind? I wouldn't. But converstly..... sometimes I want to be told a story. And I want to play a game while I'm being told this story. I don't want to write it myself. I want a good writer to create it and present it to me without me giving any input on it at all. I don't want this all the time, but in some games it's awesome to have. And there are lots and lots of gamers that have at least a slightly similar view on that. Also, I edited the last post to add moer.

My problem is that Bioware always felt like they had struck the perfect balance between telling a structured story and feeling like they allowed for player contribution into the story in the past.  With Mass Effect, and now seemingly DA2, they have abandoned that balance,  in favor of new inovations. 

How is you giving Isabela a bow contributing to the story in any way?

Defining the character as someone who is willing and able to do more than just flip around with daggers?  It alows me to decide just what role in the group and therefore story, Isabela has, aside from her charater interactions.

That isn't contributing to the story. That is changing the setting. Isabela is quite clearly a woman who can't shoot a bow. Aside from the fact that she got breasts in the way, she probably havn't had a lot of training shooting a bow, and for you to want her to equip and use a bow effectively is just breaking her character. A bit like making Wynne a Blood Mage (though that was actually allowed).
BioWare, in reducing our customization of party member equipment, have in no way lessened our impact on, and contribution to the story. We still get to be Champion of Kirkwall in our own way, wether or not Isabela is carrying a bow or not.

[Melness]

Hawke is the leader, he, and thus the player, controls what role the others have in combat. If your in a military unit, and your leader tells you to use a grenade launcher even though your a machine gunner, you grab the grenade launcher.

If you're the leader, you'll tell the engineer to do this deal and the soldier to fight. Not try to 'shape' them by swapping their roles.



Same thing with a gal who knows and prefers to fight in melee and potentially doesn't know a thing of archery - which takes years to master.

[AlanC9]

RamonIAm wrote...
I don`t think DA would work like that, i mean, imagine being given all the freedom in the world in Origins, maybe you decide, YOU KNOW WHAT, I DON`T WANNA BE A GREY WARDEN! And go to Orlais or something.

Game over.

NWN1 fans may remember an early fan mod  -- I don't remember the name -- which starts in a tavern with the player being recruited to do something nefarious. The player can say no, and go back to his ale. At which point the mod... ends.

SoZ does something similar by letting the player retire his party at any point he pleases, whether the main plot has been solved or not. This can lead to total disaster for the Sword Coast, which is kinda fun.