1044 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I mind that the design of DA2 takes away a bunch of gameplay freedom and gives nothing back in return.

Sometimes mechanics are sacrificed for style, and some people see that as a distinct impvement.

[Merci357]

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.

If you ever wanted a reason why I prefer a voiced PC, there it is, in your very own words. I want to see her making the decisions, not only the reactions to them. I want to hear her thoughts, not only in my imagination.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Probably for the scenes where they are present but you don't have control of them.

I don't think those should ever happen.

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.

I also like consistency in the design of the characters.  But I also want some say in what that design is.

[FieryDove]

Kane-Corr wrote...

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.

If you bring in real life you will fail.

(ME2)
People running around exposed on vaccum frozen planets does not = real life.

[the_one_54321]

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.

But you are given a concrete mechanical indication that the character is the one making the decisions. Similarly, as BioWare intends that the character is the main protagonist of the story, they have now made it such that you are even going to see and hear the character saying these things and deciding these things.

Again, it's loss of control in exchange for a certain atmosphere in the game. It's the opposite of what you want to see. But it's not an objectively bad design choice. It's just thoroughly different from open role playing. You're not writing the story this time. BioWare is. And if you think you'll like the story then you can play their game.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:07 .

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Probably for the scenes where they are present but you don't have control of them.

I don't think those should ever happen.

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.

I also like consistency in the design of the characters.  But I also want some say in what that design is.

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

[the_one_54321]

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.

[Saibh]

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...me, say, not letting my best friend dress me, but allowing her to influence my decisions on how to handle a clingy boyfriend is somehow inconsistent of me?

Real life has limitations and so does the game. But, since a developer has to program these privileges and limitations, they can't make every variable possible. They can choose which ones to set, and have consistent reasons for doing so.

Modifié par Saibh, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:13 .

[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.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

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.

They might have been less applicable for some builds, but that was true of some specialisations in DAO, as well.

Some of the Duelist talents, for example, didn't work with bows, but a bow-focussed Rogue could still become a Duelist.

Beerfish wrote...

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.

I didn't say that the party members shouldn't have aspects of their own personalities, but I wouldn't object if they didn't.

I like that the party talks amongst itself.

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

The decisions are already meaningful if they mean something to you or your character.  We don't need the gams to react to us just to give us legitimacy.

Meltemph wrote...

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.

I don't see the inconsistency.  Show it to me.

Beerfish wrote...

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'.

I am only describing gameplay that has been accommodated by CRPGs in the past.

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But that would be optional.  Any player could experience the game as BioWare intended it.  As Mike is describing it.  I'm not taking that away.

They are quite literally trying to construct a game that is mechanically styled almost completely contradictory to what you prefer.

Right, and I want to know why, given that they could have done otherwise without damaging the story they want to tell.

[Saibh]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

And we'll be over here. With jars.

Vengeance!

[nightcobra]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

let me guess, the button for skipping dialog is square on the ps3 and x on the xbox;)

[moilami]

Malanek999 wrote...

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.

This was more true in '80s or so when this kind of forums were nonexistent. Now people can do suggestions and requests and developers can benefit of it. With these kind of forums devs don't have to do market researches and other queries, so to say.

Take these forums as politics. Groups requesting this and that and then government (the devs) doing what they want, many times doing what some group want them to do.

[Heimdall]

Saibh wrote...

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...me, say, not letting my best friend dress me, but allowing her to influence my decisions on how to handle a clingy boyfriend is somehow inconsistent of me?

Real life has limitations and so does the game. But, since a developer has to program these privileges and limitations, they can't make every variable possible. They can choose which ones to set, and have consistent reasons for doing so.

I think Sylvius confuses gameplay mechanics with roleplaying.

[Ryzaki]

Please tell me the key to skip dialogue isn't the same to select options.



Please.



God was that annoying in ME.

[Meltemph]

I don't see the inconsistency. Show it to me.

Because the game's story is framed around the character they choose. Sure, you can choose to ignore the intentions of the writers dialog and framework, but that makes things inconsistent with the structure of the story. You are essentially "making it work" and that, if it is not considered inconsistent, then it at the very least is a bad story(which is the worst offense to me).

[Black_Warden]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

The decisions are already meaningful if they mean something to you or your character.  We don't need the gams to react to us just to give us legitimacy.

I fully disagree with you on that one.

[the_one_54321]

Saibh wrote...

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...me, say, not letting my best friend dress me, but allowing her to influence my decisions on how to handle a clingy boyfriend is somehow inconsistent of me?

Real life has limitations and so does the game. But, since a developer has to program these priveleges and limitations, they can't make every variable possible. They can choose which ones to set, and have consistent reasons for doing so.

The difference is that in these games the party members can't make equipment or combat decisions. In terms of equipment they literally have zero control (or they did in DA:O, anyway. Not so much anymore). But they do have control over other decisions and opinions and so on and so forth. For example, in DA:O you can tell Wyne what to wear, where to stand and what spells to cast, but you can't tell her what her opinion is on your relationships with other characters.

This is a role playing inconsistency. For contrast, in a table top game, the other characters are controled by other players or by the DM, and you can't make decisions of any kind for any of them. That is role playing consistency. If, in contrast, you are allowed control of 2 or 3 characters, you are the only one that makes any decision regarding what those charcters do or think. Also consistent role playing.

I'm not arguing that any kind of style is better than any other. But what Sylvius wants to see in an RPG is role playing consistency.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Saibh wrote...

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.

Show me.  Show me where in DAO I can see the Warden making a decision.

You can't do that, because it's not there.

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

No, saying "I pick Harrowmont" is saying "I pick Harrowmont."  Why the Warden is saying that is up to you.  Maybe he's doing Morrigan's bidding.

And even that assumes that you take the option from the dialogue UI to be a literal representation of what the Warden actually says, which is also not mandatory.

There is no way around it.

I just showed you the way around it.

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

Actually, no.  In BG (and BG2) you could have any party member do the talking.  In BG2 this appears to have been a legacy feature left in from BG but not really intended, but in BG it was explicitly mentioned in the manual.  BioWare encouraged the player to use the character with the highest Charisma in the spokesperson role.

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.

Your reasoning here is entirely circular, as you rely (explicitly, actually - I'm surprised you didn't notice) on the presupposition that the player is playing just the one character.

[StormbringerGT]

Can you imagine if they made the game for everyone Sylvius the Mad? It would never work. There are too many people who all want too many things. This is why it is not the game you want, but maybe the game someone else wants. They could not poll everything and have the audience make the game, because if 60% wanted A and 40% wanted B. Then A won. What if you were that 40%? Then then the game is no longer made for you.



I see where you are coming from but I don't agree with it. Your expectations seem unrealistic and almost unfair. I can only assume that since you spend so much time hear and are so passionate in your opinions, its because secretly deep down inside you care. Unless of course you go to every RPG board and heckle there as well. If thats the case I look forward to seeing what you have to say about Skyrim on the forums over there.



For instance. You may want them to have dual wield for warriors. Thats perfectly fine. But I don't. I never used that feature in the first game so I didn't miss it in the second. I'm fine with them refining it for rogues. Mind you that the inclusion doesn't ruin the game for me either. I dual wield for warriors was included in Dragon Age Origins and it didn't bother me I just only tended to use it for rogues. but if they excluded it to focus time and resources on making it better for a rogue, then thats where my vote goes.



Are you saying they should make the game for you and not for me?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Right, and I want to know why, given that they could have done otherwise without damaging the story they want to tell.

Because they wanted rogues to feel different from warriors. That means less freedom in constructing a class, because each class now does more specialized, less open ending things.

That's just an example. The point is that you are presented with a game that functions and feels a certain way based on the limitations created within the mechanics. Less freedom, more atmosphere.

[Sylvius the Mad]

moilami wrote...

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,

Leader of the group does not equal protagonist, but even if it did all this shows is Alistair's opinion.  And he might be wrong.

Black_Warden wrote...

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.

That's why I'm asking what the benefit is.  Maybe I'll really enjoy the feature once I see the upside, but so far I just don't see that upside.

[Sandtigress]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

*hands the devs a box of tissues*  If it makes you feel any better, I promise to only skip dialogue after I've heard it a million times because I keep dying and have to repeat a scene over and over again.  :-)

Seriously though, as a life-long gamer who grew up playing old-school JRPGs which are more like animated storybooks than Western RPGs, Bioware games offer a lot of choice and I find that to get the most out of it I really have to role-play a character.  Any one playthrough is not identical to any other that I do precisely because the characters themselves are unique.  

That's markedly different from most JRPGs where it's the same story over and over, with some potentially different endings based on a few choices or when you face the final boss or whatever. And any one of my plays is different than many other peoples' plays.  So my game, my way?  I think you guys are doing a pretty good job of it.  Bioware taught me how to really get into my character's head, and I appreciate that!

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
....

You find no value in atmosphere. You only want to role play.

BioWare has made a game that revolves around atmosphere. The mechanics function for this purpose and you are forced to see your character actually act things out in a manner consistent with the atmoshpere they are creating.

Lots of people find value in atmosphere. They are able to create an empathic conection with their characters and become emotionally involved in the game as a result, specifically, of the atmosphere the game creates.

There is no concrete "better or worse" in that. No objective upside or downside. Not unless that objective upside and downside is that some players will be allowed to become more emotionally involved with the game at the expense of other players experiencing a great deal less freedom in how they play it.