1044 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

I would assume her fighting style for them, was part of her personality that was written for her, and they want that personality and concept kept true.

And that's the problem.

Players who want to keep that true can do that by not fiddling with her build and not giving her a bow.

But letting other players (like me) give her a bow costs that firtst group of players nothing at all.

I understand the justification for why they've done these things.  What I don't understand is why they made them all mandatory.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 janvier 2011 - 09:46 .

[Meltemph]

Who is the protagonist? I'm sure most people think the Warden is the protagonist of DAO, but do I really need to play it that way?



(indeed, I think every person is always the protagonist of his own story)

The protagonist by definition can not be you(the person) it would have to be you(the created character), it has to be who the writers choose for it to make literary sense.

[Saibh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Who is the protagonist?  I'm sure most people think the Warden is the protagonist of DAO, but do I really need to play it that way?

Well yes. The main character is the progatonist. Who makes the decisions? The Warden. Who must be in your party? The Warden. Whom do you play when there are no other party members? The Warden.

In Baldur's Gate, I could take Edwin, put him at the front of the party, and have his persona make all the decisions.  Now Edwin is the protagonist (indeed, I think every person is always the protagonist of his own story), and he gets to stomp around the Sword Coast being self-aggrandizing and advancing his own interests, and hey, it turns out he has a Bhaalspawn as a lackey.  That's pretty cool for Edwin.

No, CHARNAME is shouting orders to Edwin on where to go and how to attack, and has severe Edwin-superiority issues. You pretending that you're Edwin doesn't change the fact you are not, actually, Edwin. You just think you are.

But, if you want to roleplay a delusional Edwin-admiring nutcase, you've done so.

Modifié par Saibh, 17 janvier 2011 - 09:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

The protagonist by definition can not be you(the person) it would have to be you(the created character), it has to be who the writers choose for it to make literary sense.

But the story in an RPG is a collaborative effort of the writers and the player.

So the player can then decide who the protagonist is without harming the "literary sense".

[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.

[Meltemph]

And that's the problem.

Players who want to keep that true can do that by not fiddling with her build and not giving her a bow.

But letting other players (like me) give her a bow costs that firtst group of players nothing at all.

I understand the justification for why they've done these things. What I don't understand is why they made them all mandatory.

Probably for the scenes where they are present but you don't have control of them. That is my take on it anyway, I personally have no objections to allowing people to stray from the intended development but I also don't have a problem with the restriction either, since I have a tendency to wan't consistency in the design of characters.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 janvier 2011 - 09:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Saibh wrote...

Well yes. The main character is the progatonist. Who makes the decisions? The Warden.

No.  We don't see him make those decisions.  We don't hear his thoughts.  There's no reason at all for you to hold this position you've just described.

No, CHARNAME is shouting orders to Edwin on where to go and how to attack, and has severe Edwin-superiority issues.

Again, you're projecting.  These things you describe don't actually appear in the game. 

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

I imagine too the companion specific specializations wouldn't have been doable if we were able to pick whatever for the characters. They would have to be so broad to simply becoming bland, and well non-specific to the companion.

So not only do you lose some more gameplay options and unique abilities but also reduce the character's uniqueness even more.

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


I'd like to be able to have then act as party spokesman, certainly.  If Leliana is more charismatic than the Warden, it would make sense to have her be the one talking to people to convince them of things.

As for race and class, giving the player control over those things might be difficult within the game's lore unless the entire party starts together.  But, I'd also be willing to say, "Go ahead! It's your game, after all."

Hmm.  I've heard that somewhere before.

She should not object if you decide to defile some ashes in an urn either if you decide that is the proper choice.  Alistair should be totally alright with anything you tell him to do correct?  Shale and or Ohgren shouldn't go ape s*** at the anvil because you have decided to do things in a certain fashion.

Not being able to control your companions makes them individuals that you have to deal with and makes decisions meaningful. 

[shayboy4]

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.

[Meltemph]

No. We don't see him make those decisions. We don't hear his thoughts. There's no reason at all for you to hold this position you've just described.

Only reason you shouldn't hold that position is if you don't think consistency in story is important. However, what makes a good story is exactly that, imo, and without it it becomes a bad story. The way you describe how you play the game, to me, makes the stories, literally, worse.

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

The protagonist by definition can not be you(the person) it would have to be you(the created character), it has to be who the writers choose for it to make literary sense.

But the story in an RPG is a collaborative effort of the writers and the player.

So the player can then decide who the protagonist is without harming the "literary sense".

You are taking a piece of chalk here and conveniently drawning a line on the ground at the exact point that suits you.  Now this would okay if you talked about personal preferences in your posts but you talk far too much in absolutes and logic and 'this is the way it should be'.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
I would assume her fighting style for them, was part of her personality that was written for her, and they want that personality and concept kept true.

And that's the problem.

Players who want to keep that true can do that by not fiddling with her build and not giving her a bow.

But letting other players (like me) give her a bow costs that firtst group of players nothing at all.

I understand the justification for why they've done these things.  What I don't understand is why they made them all mandatory.

It's mandatory because they are trying to establish a certain tone or atmosphere in the game, mechanically. What you like to see in the game is a mechanical completely lack of atmosphere. They are quite literally trying to construct a game that is mechanically styled almost completely contradictory to what you prefer. This is why I said earlier that to enjoy this game you were going to have accept a completely different style of play.

[Saibh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No.  We don't see him make those decisions.  We don't hear his thoughts.  There's no reason at all for you to hold this position you've just described.

Yes we do.

Not having a voice does not negate the Warden has done so. Saying "I pick Harrowmont" is picking Harrowmont.

There is no way around it.

Again, you're projecting.  These things you describe don't actually appear in the game. 

Considering that your character is always the one speaking, sure.

I will concede that it's possible your character says "Edwin, you lead in battle", and he is leading. Because at some point you must make the conscious decision to move between CHARNAME and Edwin, you've made that decision. Because you are playing CHARNAME, CHARNAME made that decision.

In terms of dialogue, CHARNAME is always making the decisions.

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Who is the protagonist?  I'm sure most people think the Warden is the protagonist of DAO, but do I really need to play it that way?

Well after the Tower of Ostagaar when the group comes to the first village they have this discussion there where Alistair assumes PC is the protagonist, and Morri certainly thinks that better it is PC than Alistair. Morri was also plotting her own things so I am quite confident she would be happy to just hangaround and do her best to help PC beat the demon. About the rest of the characters, they seem to share more or less the same goal and chose/accept PC is the leader. In my opinion DA was very succesful in putting life on NPC.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...In Baldur's Gate, I could take Edwin, put him at the front of the party, and have his persona make all the decisions.  Now Edwin is the protagonist (indeed, I think every person is always the protagonist of his own story), and he gets to stomp around the Sword Coast being self-aggrandizing and advancing his own interests, and hey, it turns out he has a Bhaalspawn as a lackey.  That's pretty cool for Edwin.

"Everyone is star in their own movie", as the song goes. You can do that in DA too, just imagine it is Morrigan or Alistair or whoever talking in the dialogues and make appropriate choises. It is really no different to BG.

[Malanek]

This whole thread seems completely flawed to me. It is Biowares game. What they produce is the game as they intend it. The individual copy you buy is yours, if you want to mod it, all power to you. They are not going to compromise their vision of THE game to fit YOUR game. They are different things.

[Dave of Canada]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Change always results in backlash

Though, had you not changed anything, people would still be complaining that you didn't change anything and  they are paying for "an expansion pack". You can never win on these boards.

Never.

[Saibh]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Change always results in backlash

Though, had you not changed anything, people would still be complaining that you didn't change anything and  they are paying for "an expansion pack". You can never win on these boards.

Never.

A-ha, Mr. Canada, has anyone ever complained about the second "i" in BioWare?

Your move, Canada.

[Black_Warden]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Black_Warden wrote...

*snip*

I absolutely concede that, which is why I don't typically ask for the features that make their gameplay fun to be removed just to force them to play the game my way.

What's happening now, though, appears to be the features I like being removed just to force me to play the game their way, and their way doesn't get any better as a result, so why are they bothering to fence me in?

i'm going to take into account that you seem, to me, to be too intelligent to believe that any decision they've made in regards to this, or any, game has been made with the express desire to decrease your enjoyment. but i think it all comes down to what Saibh just said.

Saibh wrote...

BioWare is not making your game. They are making their game...

Bioware is, in my opinion, one of the few remaining developers who still create games based on what they want to play (which shows in many different facets of the background lore, main stories, and gameplay). the alternative is for developers to make games for the lowest common denominator, catering to their biggest demographic (Call of Duty comes to mind, which has it's good sides, or so i'm told, but there's very little creativity between iterations, and no sense of the *love* that's been put into that IP).

for me, that means i'm willing to accept that there may be individual aspects of a game i dislike, decisions made i won't agree with, because i know that i'll be playing a game that's been crafted with care and attention.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

What's the pro?  That's what I'm asking.  What's the benefit in making Isabela's consistency mandatory?

We hardly saw Isabela in Origins.  For all we knew she was a master of all weapons.

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.

And if I consider it vital that all of the rogues in my party use bows, then I'm out of luck.  I don't understand why.

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.

Really?  Can Hawke use more than one type of weapon?  If so, is that not inconsistent with the mechanics governing all of the other characters?

Can Hawke have a single appearance throughout the game?

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 don't mind that they're different.  I mind that they don't make any sense.  I mind that the design of DA2 takes away a bunch of gameplay freedom and gives nothing back in return.

I'd like to point out that a DAO player could have each party member use only the class of weapons with which they were equipped when first encountered.  The only difference was that in DAO this wasn't mandatory.  Why is it mandatory in DA2?

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Well yes. The main character is the progatonist. Who makes the decisions? The Warden.

No.  We don't see him make those decisions.  We don't hear his thoughts.  There's no reason at all for you to hold this position you've just described.

The Warden does all the talking, if you want to imagine that Alistair is telling him what to do behind the scenes or Morrigan is controlling him with Blood magic you can and you can probably pull the same thing in DAII but no matter what you do the Warden is for all apearances the leader and it is only the Warden's words and story actions that you can control.

[Not...Mordin]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I absolutely concede that, which is why I don't typically ask for the features that make their gameplay fun to be removed just to force them to play the game my way.

What's happening now, though, appears to be the features I like being removed just to force me to play the game their way, and their way doesn't get any better as a result, so why are they bothering to fence me in?

The thing is though for some of us we do think it is getting better as a result. We like that we have more defined characters, that they will be more unique visually, stats wise and personality wise. On a purely gameplay level too the companion specific specializations also is another benefit of this restriction. We get more unique gameplay abilities and also make the character more unique.

Seconded.:innocent:
  

[the_one_54321]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Change always results in backlash

Though, had you not changed anything, people would still be complaining that you didn't change anything and  they are paying for "an expansion pack". You can never win on these boards.

Never.

Someone would. And some would maintain some consistency in their arguments. Thus far the only concrete "improvemnet" I've seen so far is in the quality of the animation. (skill trees still seem kind of up in the air, until they are actually seen in action) Everything qualifies only as different and not as better or worse, though it will go with or against all kinds of sprecific preferences for different people.

[Kane-Corr]

I whole-heartedly agree with Bioware on this. Just like in Mass Effect 2...it makes MORE sense that you are restricted in dressing your companion, and limited to giving them certain weapons in some respect. Think about real life...you're NOT going to babysit your allies by dressing them, equipping them, bathing them etc! OP, you must discover for yourself that Bioware did the right thing here. Just worry about your own character, Hawke, and enjoy the company of your companions as you move forward in your quest.

[nightcobra]

Saibh wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Change always results in backlash

Though, had you not changed anything, people would still be complaining that you didn't change anything and  they are paying for "an expansion pack". You can never win on these boards.

Never.

A-ha, Mr. Canada, has anyone ever complained about the second "i" in BioWare?

Your move, Canada.

minsk complained, he wanted the company to be named Booware:whistle: