1044 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If BioWare is telling the story they want to tell, and some players want to be told that story, why is BioWare forcing players who want to be told a more mutable story to be limited to BioWare's authored story when they don't need to do that in order to satisfy that initial group of passive story-receptive players?

What if the answer is just that they don't think supporting the players who want a mutable story is worth their time?

[Blastback]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Blastback wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You havn't ever seen a one-man act in your entire life have you? It's perfectly possible to play several different characters.

Right.  You just supported my position.

If you had bothered reading the rest of my post you would have realized I didn't. But meh, can't expect that from you...

What matters to Syl is that you can, which is what he wants.

... So he wants to play with himself?  (couldn't resist)

Bad Sahlertz!  Bad!  *Whacks with broom*

[bsbcaer]

Xewaka wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...
From what we know, the swashbuckler web replaces the archery web (ie. she will not be able to use a bow), that has nothing to do with specializations and, as a rogue, Im making the logical assumption (based on what devs have said in different threads) that Isabela will be able to access a specialization at level 7 and then a new one at level 14

Well, I understood from the different dev posts that Swashbuckler web replaced the Duelist specialization web. Hence my puzzling at randomly removing one spec tree from companions. I'll try to find out which case is true.

Let me know if you find the dev quote because I think we're talking about the same one (or same thread) but interpreting it slightly different.  I took from the dev posts that Swashbuckler replaced archery, not replacing the Duelist specialization web...

[Heimdall]

bsbcaer wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...
From what we know, the swashbuckler web replaces the archery web (ie. she will not be able to use a bow), that has nothing to do with specializations and, as a rogue, Im making the logical assumption (based on what devs have said in different threads) that Isabela will be able to access a specialization at level 7 and then a new one at level 14

Well, I understood from the different dev posts that Swashbuckler web replaced the Duelist specialization web. Hence my puzzling at randomly removing one spec tree from companions. I'll try to find out which case is true.

Let me know if you find the dev quote because I think we're talking about the same one (or same thread) but interpreting it slightly different.  I took from the dev posts that Swashbuckler replaced archery, not replacing the Duelist specialization web...

That would make a lot more sense, though then the question is whether Hawke can learn any Swashbuckling talents, and if so whether or not he has to sacrifice a talent tree for it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Blastback wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Blastback wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You havn't ever seen a one-man act in your entire life have you? It's perfectly possible to play several different characters.

Right.  You just supported my position.

If you had bothered reading the rest of my post you would have realized I didn't. But meh, can't expect that from you...

What matters to Syl is that you can, which is what he wants.

... So he wants to play with himself?  (couldn't resist)

Bad Sahlertz!  Bad!  *Whacks with broom*

Ow! so much for comedy

Lord Aesir wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...
From what we know, the swashbuckler web replaces the archery web (ie. she will not be able to use a bow), that has nothing to do with specializations and, as a rogue, Im making the logical assumption (based on what devs have said in different threads) that Isabela will be able to access a specialization at level 7 and then a new one at level 14

Well, I understood from the different dev posts that Swashbuckler web replaced the Duelist specialization web. Hence my puzzling at randomly removing one spec tree from companions. I'll try to find out which case is true.

Let me know if you find the dev quote because I think we're talking about the same one (or same thread) but interpreting it slightly different.  I took from the dev posts that Swashbuckler replaced archery, not replacing the Duelist specialization web...

That would make a lot more sense, though then the question is whether Hawke can learn any Swashbuckling talents, and if so whether or not he has to sacrifice a talent tree for it.

Swashbuckler is a web unique to Isabela. Every companion gets a spec unique to them. At least that's what I heard last.

[Heimdall]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Swashbuckler is a web unique to Isabela. Every companion gets a spec unique to them. At least that's what I heard last.

  There's your anwser Sylvius, Isabella doesn't get the same talents as Hawke because she is unique.

[Xewaka]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Swashbuckler is a web unique to Isabela. Every companion gets a spec unique to them. At least that's what I heard last.

Yes, every companion receives a web that is unique to them. However I was given to understand by dev posts that they replaced specialization trees, rather than basic trees. I think I do remember one of the devs saying "Isabela's particular brand of duelist is named Swashbuckler", which is what led me to think companion unique specializations replaced regular specializations.

Lord Aesir wrote...
There's your anwser Sylvius, Isabella doesn't get the same talents as Hawke because she is unique.

But which tree it supercedes is not clear yet.

Modifié par Xewaka, 19 janvier 2011 - 12:56 .

[Heimdall]

Xewaka wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Swashbuckler is a web unique to Isabela. Every companion gets a spec unique to them. At least that's what I heard last.

Yes, every companion receives a web that is unique to them. However I was given to understand by dev posts that they replaced specialization trees, rather than basic trees. I think I do remember one of the devs saying "Isabela's particular brand of duelist is named Swashbuckler", which is what led me to think companion unique specializations replaced regular specializations.

Lord Aesir wrote...
There's your anwser Sylvius, Isabella doesn't get the same talents as Hawke because she is unique.

But which tree it supercedes is not clear yet.

  Yes, I know, I can read your posts too.

[Blastback]

Lord Aesir wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Swashbuckler is a web unique to Isabela. Every companion gets a spec unique to them. At least that's what I heard last.

  There's your anwser Sylvius, Isabella doesn't get the same talents as Hawke because she is unique.

*Sits and waits for Sylvius' reaction*

Popcorn?

Modifié par Blastback, 19 janvier 2011 - 01:18 .

[Heimdall]

Blastback wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Swashbuckler is a web unique to Isabela. Every companion gets a spec unique to them. At least that's what I heard last.

  There's your anwser Sylvius, Isabella doesn't get the same talents as Hawke because she is unique.

*Sits and waits for Sylvius' reaction*

Popcorn?

nomnom, it's mine! :innocent:

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


I never claimed to.  There are still NPCs over whom I have no control at all.  Teagan, for example, or Howe.

But that's the problem with the 'all or nothing' approach. What benefit is there to you (the player) taking control of the entire party? That's what I mean by you are now a writer. If I am effectively my whole party, from a narrative perspective the Morrigan romance does not exist. Instead, I (the player) am writing the relationship for both characters instead of taking the role of a particular character experiencing the relationship which changes the structure.

Absolutely, but previous BioWare games demonstrate that these changes in DA2 are not limitations of the medium, as we've seen these same designers not be bound by them.

I win again.

If you are playing DnD and your friend wants to play a dual wielding barbarian, aside from advice what impact do you have in how he chooses to implement his character?  Isabella is intended as an individual person with a personality independent of what I (player or character) may think of her. Bioware giving us less control over her weapons/outfits is a step forward in this direction. It gets us closer to the idea that you are not your party which I think is necessary.

If Bioware wants to let you impact how your companions equip themselves, a far better method is through conversation; force the PC to persuade Isabella to equip a bow, which then impacts the narrative. But as it is, simply equipping Isabella with any rogue weapon does contrast the tone of her character.

I'm not asking for a sandbox.  At no point here have I asked for a sandbox. 

Stop misrepresenting my position.

But with your position, a sandbox is the only possible style. That was my point with the Xzar/Monty being able to kill your character and you taking effective control of them instead since they will then be treated as 'your' characters. If Bioware actually allows you to kill your PC, only one of two things can happen:

1) A sandbox world so that the characters which you are now playing can complete various side quests without too large an impact on the world itself (TES style)
 
2) A main quest which takes into account all the various combinations which can result from the player. In other words, Xzar and Monty become the 'main characters' of the main quest.

# 2 is impossible from a cost standpoint for Bioware to implement. They cannot craft a main quest which takes into account your Warden dying halfway through with a companion picking up the slack.

I agree, it's unusual, which is why I mentioned the much more typical followers scenario, which you've completely ignored.

You pointed out that you have control of your followers 'all of the time'. If this is the case, how exactly do you go about talking to a follower in a tabletop session?

At no point have I asked for this.  You're not even trying to underrstnd my position, as you?  You're just spouting stock responses to complaint you've heard before.

If I recall, earlier I pointed out how you cannot take control of Xzar/Monty in attacking your PC, to which you responded that Baldur's Gate 'did not go far enough' in this direction. If I should have such open control over which characters I control, to the point which I can kill my PC, shouldn't I be able to then choose Xzar/Monty's respones, personality, etc? You also pointed out in tabletops how you either have control over a character 'all the time', or no control.

Now, if you really aren't suggesting that you want all companion characters to have their dialogue, actions, and personalities dictated by the player, then I will change my position.

Even accepting your poor representation of my position, what you say here isn't even true.  Absolutely it's possible for characters you control to have deep and meaningful relationships with each other.

In the City Elf origin, what is the relationship between the PC and Shianni?  Any answer you give here beyond what's actually shown in the game (which isn't much) is something entirely of your own fabrication.  But if you don't know what your PC's relationship to Shianni is, how do you know how your character will act with regard to her?

You missed my point. If you are playing a tabletop and you are playing both a Wizard and a Fighter, show me how you create a relationship between the two characters. It's utterly impossible. You are essentially talking to yourself. Your wizard can have a relationship with the party. Your fighter can have a separate relationship with the party. But they are effectively dead to each other for purposes of role-playing. Hence why you cannot be your whole party, otherwise you are effectively writing the entire dialogue between those characters.

[The Big Nothing]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

maybe you're reading too much in it?

If I've made an unreasonable leap I would welcome someone pointing it out.

Who cares? I understand you're a huge fan, but you've got to have something better to do with your time than this.

It's their game because they created it, and it becomes our game as we play it and personalize the experience.

You've made no unreasonable leaps; you are simply reading too much in to it. Give your existential crisis an intermission and go get some sunlight.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm not asking for a sandbox.  At no point here have I asked for a sandbox. 

Stop misrepresenting my position.

Sylvius complaining about being misrepresented. Oh the sweet irony...

Can I have some of them popcorn? Or did Lord Aesir nom them all?

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 19 janvier 2011 - 01:16 .

[Heimdall]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

maybe you're reading too much in it?

If I've made an unreasonable leap I would welcome someone pointing it out.

Who cares? I understand you're a huge fan, but you've got to have something better to do with your time than this.

It's their game because they created it, and it becomes our game as we play it and personalize the experience.

You've made no unreasonable leaps; you are simply reading too much in to it. Give your existential crisis an intermission and go get some sunlight.

You know he's just going to either ignore or dismiss this right?

[Blastback]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm not asking for a sandbox.  At no point here have I asked for a sandbox. 

Stop misrepresenting my position.

Sylvius complaining about being misrepresented. Oh the sweet irony...

Can I have some of them popcorn? Or did Lord Aesir nom them all?

I'll get some more.

[Morroian]

Saibh wrote...

Here's my confession:

It's my game.

All those people posting on this forum, with the blue logo under their names? I hired them. Yes, I hired them to do interviews, go to press conferences, show up at cons. Why? Because I wanted to live out my life as a Secret Dev in peace.

If I have one regret, it's that every time I make a game, some hooligans come in and steal it from my Game Laboratory when I'm putting the bird seed out in the yard (they always know when I'm feeding the birds...note: birds are suspect), and publish it for the world to see.

Unfortunately, this means I never collect royalty checks, and instead have to pay my decoy devs with my billion-dollar Wayne Enterprises fund.

I'm also Batman.

I'm Spartacus

[Heimdall]

Morroian wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Here's my confession:

It's my game.

All those people posting on this forum, with the blue logo under their names? I hired them. Yes, I hired them to do interviews, go to press conferences, show up at cons. Why? Because I wanted to live out my life as a Secret Dev in peace.

If I have one regret, it's that every time I make a game, some hooligans come in and steal it from my Game Laboratory when I'm putting the bird seed out in the yard (they always know when I'm feeding the birds...note: birds are suspect), and publish it for the world to see.

Unfortunately, this means I never collect royalty checks, and instead have to pay my decoy devs with my billion-dollar Wayne Enterprises fund.

I'm also Batman.

I'm Spartacus

No, I am Spartacus...  and also Revan.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 19 janvier 2011 - 01:44 .

[TheCreeper]

I'm the Blue Ranger

[Rake21]

I AM ZUUL!

[Blastback]

Rake21 wrote...

I AM ZUUL!

You said the line wrong.

It's "There is no Rake, only ZUUL!"

[Rake21]

Blastback wrote...

Rake21 wrote...

I AM ZUUL!

You said the line wrong.

It's "There is no Rake, only ZUUL!"

My bad.

As a reward, you may now choose the form of your destroyer.

[Havokk7]

I think the question is demostrated well by the difference between the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games.

In IWD you created and had complete control over a party of characters. No companion banter, no companion quests, in fact no concept of a "main character" or "companion" at all.

In BG you picked companions from the ones provided. You had some control over them in that you could choose their equipment (along class restrictions of course) and you could choose their class (for example, multi-classing Imoen from Thief to Mage in BG1).

Personally, I don't have a preference between the two as they were two different types of games.

[Images]

*sings*
So this is your game,
Oh no that's my game,
Oh wait thats your game,
No wait that's my game.



When a thread like this goes on this long, this Just springs to mind.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If BioWare is telling the story they want to tell, and some players want to be told that story, why is BioWare forcing players who want to be told a more mutable story to be limited to BioWare's authored story when they don't need to do that in order to satisfy that initial group of passive story-receptive players?

You make 2 assumptions that are incorrect.

One is that "BioWare wants to tell a story" is not enough of a reason all by itself. (Bryy mentioned a couple pages back how BioWare has the only objective opinion as the only party that actually creates the content) Let's say that I wanted to tell a story. No game mechanics, I just got some people together and said "I'm going to tell you a story." Then one of those people says "I don't want you to tell a story. I want you to give me paper and let me write my own." What possible reason could I have to give this person what he's asking for?

The other is that all of the "passive story-receptive players" are passive. As I mentioned to you earlier, some of them need to be forced or else they wont experience it. And so they want to be forced. BioWare is not catering to passive players. BioWare is catering to players that want/need to be forced.

[packardbell]

The OP certainly has a wild imagination.