281 réponses à ce sujet

[Annarl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That's good. They spread the butter too thin on the bread with ME2 I think

This. 

[7th_Phoenix]

Il Divo wrote...

I personally don't see a problem. Mass Effect had only 6 party members while Mass Effect 2 had a total of 12. Bioware games have never had a set number of party members. As long as DA2 provides a diverse, intereresting set of companions, I will be content with 7.

I agree. I would be just as happy with any number so long as those characters intrigue me into the game and story.

[Ardcaor]

If you look at the book pictured at 00:36 on this video, seems to suggest 6



http://dragonage.bio...om/da2/gallery/

[Sylvius the Mad]

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

[Guitar-Hero]

I think that 6 or 7 is more than enough, otherwise you'd probably end up with what happened in ME2.. now don't get me wrong ME2 is an amazing game, but lacked alot of dialogue, they never had anything new to say when you did the campfire thing.. or ship rounds, whatever you prefere

Modifié par Steffen, 28 janvier 2011 - 08:24 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

But more is costly. More means either a need for dramatically greater resource investment for each party member to have the same content as less, or less content for each party member.

There is a trade-off in design.

[Thiefy]

Cariborne wrote...

Morrigan, Alistair, Leliana, Sten, Oghren, Wynne, Zevran, Dog.

Origins only got what, 8? So, it's not that bad. And we might have unannounced characters still, unlikely, but maybe.

Wouldn't the secret companion make 9?

[Guitar-Hero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

More allows the gaming experience to tak a huge hit(in my opinion).. the narrative shapes around the characters you interact with.. ie your party 

[Haristo]

Far enough, let's add the Anon character at the end. we get less but we get better. It remember me Mass Effect first with his 6 (awesome) characters, and not KOTOR 2 with his 12 (Boring) ones.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

But more is costly. More means either a need for dramatically greater resource investment for each party member to have the same content as less, or less content for each party member.

There is a trade-off in design.

Yes there is, and its one I'd gladly pay.

I only hope it's as easy to mod in additional companions as it was in DAO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Steffen wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

More allows the gaming experience to tak a huge hit(in my opinion).. the narrative shapes around the characters you interact with.. ie your party 

The characters don't need to be that well developed.  I can roleplay them as well as BioWare can, and if I do it they don't have to be the same every time through the game.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes there is, and its one I'd gladly pay.

I know. I just wanted to point out the trade-off.

I only hope it's as easy to mod in additional companions as it was in DAO.

It depends on how much the toolset has changed, and whether Bioware will release an update.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

But more is costly. More means either a need for dramatically greater resource investment for each party member to have the same content as less, or less content for each party member.

There is a trade-off in design.

This is EA we're talking about, one of the biggest publishers in the industry, spare me the "it costs too much to make the game deeper" swan song.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 28 janvier 2011 - 08:44 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The characters don't need to be that well developed.  I can roleplay them as well as BioWare can, and if I do it they don't have to be the same every time through the game.

The relevant feature being that you feel it is an advantage for characters to be empty shells. Since this is a subjective evaluation, it does not accurately price the cost of more companions. This is why it is important to merely acknoweldge the fact that the cost is there.

[JrayM16]

I for one, think 7-8 party members is a good number. In a 3-class RPG, that's more than enough for the party variey I want and still maintains good depth on all characters.

[Haristo]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

But more is costly. More means either a need for dramatically greater resource investment for each party member to have the same content as less, or less content for each party member.

There is a trade-off in design.

This is EA we're talking about, one of the biggest publishers in the industry, spare me the "it costs too much to make the game deeper" swan song.

Indeed, 'em and Lucasarts gave 200M to BioWare for SW:TOR. They have a few money to spare to make a game deeper and better. This is not Activision : No one want to sleep on a bed made of Money like Bobby Kotick at EA, they are too many to rule to barely dream of it

[Merci357]

I prefer few, but more fleshed out companions anytime over the ME2 approach. Less is often more, simple as that.

[JrayM16]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

But more is costly. More means either a need for dramatically greater resource investment for each party member to have the same content as less, or less content for each party member.

There is a trade-off in design.

This is EA we're talking about, one of the biggest publishers in the industry, spare me the "it costs too much to make the game deeper" swan song.

Yeah, but EA isn't necessarily going to give them the money to do all that stuff.  While I'm sure BW could probably request some more money, they are working for EA on a budget, not to mention the time constriction.  If BW is like, "Hey, EA can we have more time and money to make the game deeper?" there's no way EA'll just do that.  Giving them more money and time thus pushing back the release will lose EA money, their not gonna do that.  Bioware can't control how much time or money they get.

[Dhiro]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

But more is costly. More means either a need for dramatically greater resource investment for each party member to have the same content as less, or less content for each party member.

There is a trade-off in design.

This is EA we're talking about, one of the biggest publishers in the industry, spare me the "it costs too much to make the game deeper" swan song.

And where you thinking the money is going to, my purple-haired friend? Surely not Isabela's pants, maybe her breasts.

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
This is EA we're talking about, one of the biggest publishers in the industry, spare me the "it costs too much to make the game deeper" swan song.

EA is one of the biggest publishers in the in the indusry for a reason. They could take 4 years to make a 150 hour game with 12 deep companions and extensive mutually exclusive content that they would then retail for $50.... or they could take 2 years to make a 40 hour game with 7 deep companions and some exclusive content that would retail for $50.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

JrayM16 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

But more is costly. More means either a need for dramatically greater resource investment for each party member to have the same content as less, or less content for each party member.

There is a trade-off in design.

This is EA we're talking about, one of the biggest publishers in the industry, spare me the "it costs too much to make the game deeper" swan song.

Yeah, but EA isn't necessarily going to give them the money to do all that stuff.  While I'm sure BW could probably request some more money, they are working for EA on a budget, not to mention the time constriction.  If BW is like, "Hey, EA can we have more time and money to make the game deeper?" there's no way EA'll just do that.  Giving them more money and time thus pushing back the release will lose EA money, their not gonna do that.  Bioware can't control how much time or money they get.

Oh well, maybe they should have thought about that before they sold themselves out lock stock and barrel to EA then huh? Sorry they've kinda made their own bed in this whole thing.

[Dhiro]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

But more is costly. More means either a need for dramatically greater resource investment for each party member to have the same content as less, or less content for each party member.

There is a trade-off in design.

This is EA we're talking about, one of the biggest publishers in the industry, spare me the "it costs too much to make the game deeper" swan song.

Yeah, but EA isn't necessarily going to give them the money to do all that stuff.  While I'm sure BW could probably request some more money, they are working for EA on a budget, not to mention the time constriction.  If BW is like, "Hey, EA can we have more time and money to make the game deeper?" there's no way EA'll just do that.  Giving them more money and time thus pushing back the release will lose EA money, their not gonna do that.  Bioware can't control how much time or money they get.

Oh well, maybe they should have thought about that before they sold themselves out lock stock and barrel to EA then huh? Sorry they've kinda made their own bed in this whole thing.

Surely, you got more than that.

[JrayM16]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

But more is costly. More means either a need for dramatically greater resource investment for each party member to have the same content as less, or less content for each party member.

There is a trade-off in design.

This is EA we're talking about, one of the biggest publishers in the industry, spare me the "it costs too much to make the game deeper" swan song.

Yeah, but EA isn't necessarily going to give them the money to do all that stuff.  While I'm sure BW could probably request some more money, they are working for EA on a budget, not to mention the time constriction.  If BW is like, "Hey, EA can we have more time and money to make the game deeper?" there's no way EA'll just do that.  Giving them more money and time thus pushing back the release will lose EA money, their not gonna do that.  Bioware can't control how much time or money they get.

Oh well, maybe they should have thought about that before they sold themselves out lock stock and barrel to EA then huh? Sorry they've kinda made their own bed in this whole thing.

While obviously EA won't hand them a blank check, they are a steady source of funding for Bioware as EA is unlikely to fold anytime soon.  There aren't many publishers out there who are currently stable enough to provide like that and I guarantee you no publisher would be willing to give Bioware unlimited time and resources for a game.  Bioware didn't screw themselves out of anything. 

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

More than what? Thats just logic and truth. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the gameplan wasn't to be aquired by EA when the whole Elevation Partners deal happened in the first place considering John Riccitiello left EA to start EP only to go right back to EA shortly afterwards. That whole deal always screamed out shady to me.

[HTTP 404]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Steffen wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More is better. More allows us greater flexibility in party design, especially since each companion in DA2 has only one weapon style.

More allows the gaming experience to tak a huge hit(in my opinion).. the narrative shapes around the characters you interact with.. ie your party 

The characters don't need to be that well developed.  I can roleplay them as well as BioWare can, and if I do it they don't have to be the same every time through the game.

dont need to be that well developed?