281 réponses à ce sujet

[JrayM16]

lv12medic wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

This thread is probably going to be closed. Howewer, I try to return on topic.
The party in DA2 have only one party member less than DAO, and this was including Dog. Plus Bioware said that we're going to get some temporary companions, which is a thing I like.

I'm hoping that we get temporary companions that have atleast some substance to them (less than main companions but more to them than the ones in Origins).  DA:O only had them in the Origin stories where they usually get a one way ticket to a horrible death (along with Daveth and Jory), or exist purely to have a full party for combat (Ostagar tower defense troopers).

Yeah, the Ostagar defense troopers were kinda the nadier of temporary companions.  I wish they had used some actual characters for those parts. 

[Mr_Steph]

I think it is a fine number. More partymembers to choose from doesn't make the game better imo.

[IAmTheVoid]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
You guys do it all the time with excuse after excuse, shorter dev cycle, less budget, yada yada yada. Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out, and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work.

If I recall, you're the one who started calling people fanboy's for liking the direction they're taking.

- Shorter dev cycle: A long development cycle does not make a good game. Besides, DA2 is leaping off of DA:O's foundations, as opposed to becoming an entirely new IP. What would they need to spend six years doing with DAII, may I ask? They have the lore, they have the basic mechanics and (unless I'm mistaken by Greg Zeschuk's comment about making Dragon Age's engine 'visually super hot), the same engine, just tweaked.  By your logic, Duke Nukem Forever will be the best game ever because it had a long dev cycle.

Some games don't take that long to make, especially when half the work is done already.

Less budget: I'd like to see the EA budget assignment report, since you're clearly an insider.

" Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out,
and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work. "

Maybe this happens because people disagree with your assertions and when you start calling them fanboys because they refute your argument? Just a thought.

[JrayM16]

IAmTheVoid wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
You guys do it all the time with excuse after excuse, shorter dev cycle, less budget, yada yada yada. Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out, and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work.

If I recall, you're the one who started calling people fanboy's for liking the direction they're taking.

- Shorter dev cycle: A long development cycle does not make a good game. Besides, DA2 is leaping off of DA:O's foundations, as opposed to becoming an entirely new IP. What would they need to spend six years doing with DAII, may I ask? They have the lore, they have the basic mechanics and (unless I'm mistaken by Greg Zeschuk's comment about making Dragon Age's engine 'visually super hot), the same engine, just tweaked.  By your logic, Duke Nukem Forever will be the best game ever because it had a long dev cycle.

Some games don't take that long to make, especially when half the work is done already.

Less budget: I'd like to see the EA budget assignment report, since you're clearly an insider.

" Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out,
and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work. "

Maybe this happens because people disagree with your assertions and when you start calling them fanboys because they refute your argument? Just a thought.

Shh.  I think we made her go away.  Let's get back on topic.

[The Elder King]

JrayM16 wrote...

lv12medic wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

This thread is probably going to be closed. Howewer, I try to return on topic.
The party in DA2 have only one party member less than DAO, and this was including Dog. Plus Bioware said that we're going to get some temporary companions, which is a thing I like.

I'm hoping that we get temporary companions that have atleast some substance to them (less than main companions but more to them than the ones in Origins).  DA:O only had them in the Origin stories where they usually get a one way ticket to a horrible death (along with Daveth and Jory), or exist purely to have a full party for combat (Ostagar tower defense troopers).

Yeah, the Ostagar defense troopers were kinda the nadier of temporary companions.  I wish they had used some actual characters for those parts. 

I agree. Howewer I believe they will be more like the Origins temporary companions than the Ostagar soldiers.

[Guitar-Hero]

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.

So you prefere empty souless vessels?
i guess it's about priority, i weigh the narrative elements the highest, how emmensive the world is, and how the story is being told through gamemechanics.
What do you find most important? i guess would be the question. 

[Morroian]

JrayM16 wrote...

Yeah, the Ostagar defense troopers were kinda the nadier of temporary companions.  I wish they had used some actual characters for those parts. 

Characters like Nathaniel and Anders would be perfect for this, I hope Anders isn't a permanent companion but I wouldn't mind seeing him as a temporary companion. 

[IAmTheVoid]

JrayM16 wrote...
Shh.  I think we made her go away.  Let's get back on topic.

Whoops! I'll be quiet. 

But yeah... seven companions is good with me, but I actually doubt that's the real number. I'm pretty sure BioWare have more up their sleeve, the crafty dastards.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

JrayM16 wrote...

IAmTheVoid wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
You guys do it all the time with excuse after excuse, shorter dev cycle, less budget, yada yada yada. Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out, and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work.

If I recall, you're the one who started calling people fanboy's for liking the direction they're taking.

- Shorter dev cycle: A long development cycle does not make a good game. Besides, DA2 is leaping off of DA:O's foundations, as opposed to becoming an entirely new IP. What would they need to spend six years doing with DAII, may I ask? They have the lore, they have the basic mechanics and (unless I'm mistaken by Greg Zeschuk's comment about making Dragon Age's engine 'visually super hot), the same engine, just tweaked.  By your logic, Duke Nukem Forever will be the best game ever because it had a long dev cycle.

Some games don't take that long to make, especially when half the work is done already.

Less budget: I'd like to see the EA budget assignment report, since you're clearly an insider.

" Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out,
and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work. "

Maybe this happens because people disagree with your assertions and when you start calling them fanboys because they refute your argument? Just a thought.

Shh.  I think we made her go away.  Let's get back on topic.

Not really I just get bored arguing with idiots.

[Dhiro]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

IAmTheVoid wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
You guys do it all the time with excuse after excuse, shorter dev cycle, less budget, yada yada yada. Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out, and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work.

If I recall, you're the one who started calling people fanboy's for liking the direction they're taking.

- Shorter dev cycle: A long development cycle does not make a good game. Besides, DA2 is leaping off of DA:O's foundations, as opposed to becoming an entirely new IP. What would they need to spend six years doing with DAII, may I ask? They have the lore, they have the basic mechanics and (unless I'm mistaken by Greg Zeschuk's comment about making Dragon Age's engine 'visually super hot), the same engine, just tweaked.  By your logic, Duke Nukem Forever will be the best game ever because it had a long dev cycle.

Some games don't take that long to make, especially when half the work is done already.

Less budget: I'd like to see the EA budget assignment report, since you're clearly an insider.

" Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out,
and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work. "

Maybe this happens because people disagree with your assertions and when you start calling them fanboys because they refute your argument? Just a thought.

Shh.  I think we made her go away.  Let's get back on topic.

Not really I just get bored arguing with idiots.

You're a mean purple-haired WOW lady.

[Black_Warden]

IAmTheVoid wrote...

Duke Nukem Forever will be the best game ever because it had a long dev cycle.

this could very well be true. Hail to the king baby!

[JrayM16]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

IAmTheVoid wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
You guys do it all the time with excuse after excuse, shorter dev cycle, less budget, yada yada yada. Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out, and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work.

If I recall, you're the one who started calling people fanboy's for liking the direction they're taking.

- Shorter dev cycle: A long development cycle does not make a good game. Besides, DA2 is leaping off of DA:O's foundations, as opposed to becoming an entirely new IP. What would they need to spend six years doing with DAII, may I ask? They have the lore, they have the basic mechanics and (unless I'm mistaken by Greg Zeschuk's comment about making Dragon Age's engine 'visually super hot), the same engine, just tweaked.  By your logic, Duke Nukem Forever will be the best game ever because it had a long dev cycle.

Some games don't take that long to make, especially when half the work is done already.

Less budget: I'd like to see the EA budget assignment report, since you're clearly an insider.

" Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out,
and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work. "

Maybe this happens because people disagree with your assertions and when you start calling them fanboys because they refute your argument? Just a thought.

Shh.  I think we made her go away.  Let's get back on topic.

Not really I just get bored arguing with idiots.

[The Masked Rog]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

IAmTheVoid wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
You guys do it all the time with excuse after excuse, shorter dev cycle, less budget, yada yada yada. Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out, and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work.

If I recall, you're the one who started calling people fanboy's for liking the direction they're taking.

- Shorter dev cycle: A long development cycle does not make a good game. Besides, DA2 is leaping off of DA:O's foundations, as opposed to becoming an entirely new IP. What would they need to spend six years doing with DAII, may I ask? They have the lore, they have the basic mechanics and (unless I'm mistaken by Greg Zeschuk's comment about making Dragon Age's engine 'visually super hot), the same engine, just tweaked.  By your logic, Duke Nukem Forever will be the best game ever because it had a long dev cycle.

Some games don't take that long to make, especially when half the work is done already.

Less budget: I'd like to see the EA budget assignment report, since you're clearly an insider.

" Then get your underwear all in a bunch when someone points that out,
and start name calling. It happens every time just like clock work. "

Maybe this happens because people disagree with your assertions and when you start calling them fanboys because they refute your argument? Just a thought.

Shh.  I think we made her go away.  Let's get back on topic.

Not really I just get bored arguing with idiots.

Funny, I think so does everyone else. And that's pretty much the reason people are relieved you left. Obnoxious troll.

[Dave of Canada]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Not really I just get bored arguing with idiots.

Must be hard being the smartest person in the universe.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 28 janvier 2011 - 10:06 .

[Blze001]

Dave of Canada wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Not really I just get bored arguing with idiots.

Must be hard being the smartest person in the universe.

Now that thats out of the way, how about we head back over to what the topic is about. Shiny?

Personally, I'm okay with 7 party members. Beyond that and it's like you're leading a travelling circus of ass-whoopage around the wilderness. Plus, it allows you to actually get to know the party members, beyond the "Hi! My name is _____. I am a _____. Lets go kill darkspawn!" you get at the beginning.

Modifié par Blze001, 28 janvier 2011 - 10:11 .

[JrayM16]

Seven is a very good number indeed. I felt like KOTOR did very well with nine back in the day though. But there was something lacking about certain members of teh party. SOme of them just weren't very fleshed out.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The relevant feature being that you feel it is an advantage for characters to be empty shells.

On balance, I don't think that's true.  There are advantages to the characters being empty shells, yes, and there are advantages to the characters being detailed and fleshed out.

But one of those designs requires a much lower limit on the number of companions.  Since each design offers advantages, and I don't really think either is superior, I'd rather the decision were based on the opportunity costs of that design choice rather than the subjective benefits of one over the other.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Blze001 wrote...

Personally, I'm okay with 7 party members. Beyond that and it's like you're leading a travelling circus of ass-whoopage around the wilderness.

That would only be true if you collected them all and kept them handy somewhere.

Instead, they could give you possible party members that you couldn't get all at once - that would prevent the travelling circus problem.

BG did it this way.

[Saibh]

Blze001 wrote...

[snip]

Well, isn't that seven different levels of insensitive jerkassery? <_<

[Annarl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Shorter game, far far less customization, paraphrasing & voice overs, the list of questionable design decisions and "streamlining" for the masses goes on and on.

Dragging the thread off-topic into a discussion about what makes an RPG by citing design decisions as objectively Y despite their being subjectively X, goes on and on...

...anyway, I'd like to make an on-topic comment, but I think I said my piece in my first post in the thread.  Obviously I hope that the lower number of companions directly correlates with more content per companion, but that is by no means assured.  

This is what I'm hoping too.  More content per companion, ME2 was a good game but the companion content was sadly lacking...I now hate calibrations.  

[Leanansidhe]

Blze001 wrote...
Horrible picture

That is beyond jerkassery...

Modifié par SKRemaks, 28 janvier 2011 - 10:22 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Steffen wrote...

i guess it's about priority, i weigh the narrative elements the highest, how emmensive the world is, and how the story is being told through gamemechanics.

What do you find most important? i guess would be the question. 

The setting and its mechanics.  That should come first.

Those mechanics drive the gameplay, and any story should be constrained by the rules of the setting expressed through gameplay.

Also, if we're being given a party, I want the design of that party to be part of the game.  If BioWare only gives us enough characters to design a small set of parties, then that set will be the parties they expect people to want to play.  Idiosyncratic party design then gets left out in the cold.

In DAO, we could design the following parties:

All male
All female
All human
All Warrior
All dual-wield
All 2-hander
All Archer
All Sword & Shield

But we could not design:

All elf
All dwarf
All Rogue
All Mage

Overall, DAO did a pretty good job of allowing us freedom of party design.

How many of the above categories work in DA2?

[HTTP 404]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The setting and its mechanics.  That should come first.

Those mechanics drive the gameplay, and any story should be constrained by the rules of the setting expressed through gameplay.

I actually see and respect your point of view Sylvius but I disagree.  I think story should come first then setting and mechanics.  I think story drives gameplay not mechanics.  difference of priorities here, but I do agree about the importance of mechanics that you state.

[Sylvius the Mad]

HTTP 404 wrote...

I actually see and respect your point of view Sylvius but I disagree.  I think story should come first then setting and mechanics.  I think story drives gameplay not mechanics.  difference of priorities here, but I do agree about the importance of mechanics that you state.

If the story violates the mechanics, then the setting doesn't make any sense and I cease caring about the story.  If their world is nonsensical, why bother saving it?

[John Epler]

Vitriol, name-calling and ad hominems are not acceptable on this forum.



Bans and warnings handed out. Frankly, I'm tired of some folks deciding that the rules of polite and civil conversation don't apply to them. If everything on this site makes you so angry that you can't help but be rude and unpleasant, then I suppose you won't miss posting here.