357 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRevanchist]

Thats not counting the ability to Zoom....

[Addai]

Saibh wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Not on this website, but pretty much every other gaming forum, this is the consensus, there is way more negativity for the changes than there is for people praising it, people are laughing at how bad the game looks, hopefully there will be some redemption for DA3, if there is one.

Right, I'm sure you can prove that.

Here, let me prove my point: You see the poll on this website?

You don't "prove" anything by citing a voluntary poll on a blog, other than that the people who read that blog and chose to respond had certain opinion.  It's no more or less reliable than anecdotal evidence.

It's obvious just from this forum that the reception of the game changes among current DAO fans is mixed.  If that's all you were trying to prove, fine.

[DebatableBubble]

XX55XX wrote...

I agree with you on two points, but disagree with all the rest:

No aerial tactical camera. This tells me the game doesn't require much
tactical management of your party members and will be more or less like a
hack and slash game.

Can't argue with that one. The lack of an aerial tactical camera strips away the ability to be strategic.

Approval. Either they love you or dislike you slightly. Can't be evil anymore.

Indeed, another great feature stripped away. In Origins, they'll leave you if they are angry enough. But, it seems that BioWare is taking a page from the ME playbook and making it impossible for characters to leave you if you commit evil acts and such.

Everything you need to know about the Friendship/Rivalry system is right here: http://social.biowar...ex/5353934&lf=8

[Meltemph]

You don't "prove" anything by citing a voluntary poll on a blog, other than that the people who read that blog and chose to respond had certain opinion. It's no more or less reliable than anecdotal evidence.



It's obvious just from this forum that the reception of the game changes among current DAO fans is mixed. If that's all you were trying to prove, fine.

She was proving her POINT, which she did with that poll. You can't claim that there is a large majority that don't like the changes. Yes, you can't prove that most like it either, but 9 out of 10 times its people who don't like the changes trying to claim there are "alot" of people who dislike the changes.



Something so relative like that, the only conclusion a rational person can make is that people are trying to make their positions more concrete by trying to speak for a majority or at least trying to speak for more then themselves(very popular thing to do on forums).

[TheRevanchist]

How the hell do you people find these long lost threads so quickly? booksmarks so you can point people at them? lol

[JrayM16]

Meltemph wrote...

You don't "prove" anything by citing a voluntary poll on a blog, other than that the people who read that blog and chose to respond had certain opinion. It's no more or less reliable than anecdotal evidence.

It's obvious just from this forum that the reception of the game changes among current DAO fans is mixed. If that's all you were trying to prove, fine.

She was proving her POINT, which she did with that poll. You can't claim that there is a large majority that don't like the changes. Yes, you can't prove that most like it either, but 9 out of 10 times its people who don't like the changes trying to claim there are "alot" of people who dislike the changes.

Something so relative like that, the only conclusion a rational person can make is that people are trying to make their positions more concrete by trying to speak for a majority or at least trying to speak for more then themselves(very popular thing to do on forums).

QFT

[XX55XX]

Meltemph wrote...

The lack of an aerial tactical camera strips away the ability to be strategic.

Umm no. I never used that camera angle because it make it to easy to make up red rover strategies and I used pause and play and strategy all the time. Not quite sure why you think that a camera angle determines if you can use strategy or not.

The overhead camera did make things easier, and hence it was easier to be strategic in the placement of spells and such that way. I don't get why BioWare wants to remove the camera from Origins in favor of a camera that is closer to the action. It is something so easy for the player to either enable or disable.

But, besides that, really, DA2 gets few complaints from me. I like nearly everything they have shown so far.

[JrayM16]

XX55XX wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

The lack of an aerial tactical camera strips away the ability to be strategic.

Umm no. I never used that camera angle because it make it to easy to make up red rover strategies and I used pause and play and strategy all the time. Not quite sure why you think that a camera angle determines if you can use strategy or not.

The overhead camera did make things easier, and hence it was easier to be strategic in the placement of spells and such that way. I don't get why BioWare wants to remove the camera from Origins in favor of a camera that is closer to the action. It is something so easy for the player to either enable or disable.

But, besides that, really, DA2 gets few complaints from me. I like nearly everything they have shown so far.

They didn't.

Look:

[Falls Edge]

JrayM16 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

You don't "prove" anything by citing a voluntary poll on a blog, other than that the people who read that blog and chose to respond had certain opinion. It's no more or less reliable than anecdotal evidence.

It's obvious just from this forum that the reception of the game changes among current DAO fans is mixed. If that's all you were trying to prove, fine.

She was proving her POINT, which she did with that poll. You can't claim that there is a large majority that don't like the changes. Yes, you can't prove that most like it either, but 9 out of 10 times its people who don't like the changes trying to claim there are "alot" of people who dislike the changes.

Something so relative like that, the only conclusion a rational person can make is that people are trying to make their positions more concrete by trying to speak for a majority or at least trying to speak for more then themselves(very popular thing to do on forums).

QFT

Don't you think that maybe you're defeating your own point by making up statistics, and then not citing them?

Well, it's a figure of speech but you're kind of proving his point, even though you disproved his point, which is confusing.

[Meltemph]

XX55XX wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

The lack of an aerial tactical camera strips away the ability to be strategic.

Umm no. I never used that camera angle because it make it to easy to make up red rover strategies and I used pause and play and strategy all the time. Not quite sure why you think that a camera angle determines if you can use strategy or not.

The overhead camera did make things easier, and hence it was easier to be strategic in the placement of spells and such that way. I don't get why BioWare wants to remove the camera from Origins in favor of a camera that is closer to the action. It is something so easy for the player to either enable or disable.

But, besides that, really, DA2 gets few complaints from me. I like nearly everything they have shown so far.

I have no problem with people prefering it, it just gets a little old when I here that you can't play strateigic w/o the camera view.  IMO, it made it less stratigic because of how easy the top down view made the game, even on nightmare.  IMO, I shoudln't be able to look down a corridor I have no chance of seeing as my character.

[JrayM16]

Falls Edge wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

You don't "prove" anything by citing a voluntary poll on a blog, other than that the people who read that blog and chose to respond had certain opinion. It's no more or less reliable than anecdotal evidence.

It's obvious just from this forum that the reception of the game changes among current DAO fans is mixed. If that's all you were trying to prove, fine.

She was proving her POINT, which she did with that poll. You can't claim that there is a large majority that don't like the changes. Yes, you can't prove that most like it either, but 9 out of 10 times its people who don't like the changes trying to claim there are "alot" of people who dislike the changes.

Something so relative like that, the only conclusion a rational person can make is that people are trying to make their positions more concrete by trying to speak for a majority or at least trying to speak for more then themselves(very popular thing to do on forums).

QFT

Don't you think that maybe you're defeating your own point by making up statistics, and then not citing them?

Well, it's a figure of speech but you're kind of proving his point, even though you disproved his point, which is confusing.

It's quite clear at this point that opinion is split, regardless of what either "side" (for lack of a better word) shows or says.  Opinion is divided, that is pure fact.

[Addai]

Meltemph wrote...
She was proving her POINT, which she did with that poll. You can't claim that there is a large majority that don't like the changes. Yes, you can't prove that most like it either, but 9 out of 10 times its people who don't like the changes trying to claim there are "alot" of people who dislike the changes.
 

Right, and like I said, if all she was trying to say was that there is a mixed reception to the changes, that's fine.  But it's no more or less reliable to use a voluntary blog poll than to cite anecdotal evidence from different forums.

[JrayM16]

Filament wrote...

The tactical camera the OP is referring to is specifically the ability to raise the camera to a high angle and detach it from your currently controlled character, which has been removed. Though, like I said before, the OP's conclusion that this necessarily means fights will be less tactical is questionable.

Ah, I was misinformed.  Apologies.

[TheRevanchist]

Meltemph wrote...

XX55XX wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

The lack of an aerial tactical camera strips away the ability to be strategic.

Umm no. I never used that camera angle because it make it to easy to make up red rover strategies and I used pause and play and strategy all the time. Not quite sure why you think that a camera angle determines if you can use strategy or not.

The overhead camera did make things easier, and hence it was easier to be strategic in the placement of spells and such that way. I don't get why BioWare wants to remove the camera from Origins in favor of a camera that is closer to the action. It is something so easy for the player to either enable or disable.

But, besides that, really, DA2 gets few complaints from me. I like nearly everything they have shown so far.

I have no problem with people prefering it, it just gets a little old when I here that you can't play strateigic w/o the camera view.  IMO, it made it less stratigic because of how easy the top down view made the game, even on nightmare.  IMO, I shoudln't be able to look down a corridor I have no chance of seeing as my character.

Y-you don't mean it was....GASP...Immersion breaking do you!?!?! -screams in horror and flees- lol

[Meltemph]

Falls Edge wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

You don't "prove" anything by citing a voluntary poll on a blog, other than that the people who read that blog and chose to respond had certain opinion. It's no more or less reliable than anecdotal evidence.

It's obvious just from this forum that the reception of the game changes among current DAO fans is mixed. If that's all you were trying to prove, fine.

She was proving her POINT, which she did with that poll. You can't claim that there is a large majority that don't like the changes. Yes, you can't prove that most like it either, but 9 out of 10 times its people who don't like the changes trying to claim there are "alot" of people who dislike the changes.

Something so relative like that, the only conclusion a rational person can make is that people are trying to make their positions more concrete by trying to speak for a majority or at least trying to speak for more then themselves(very popular thing to do on forums).

QFT

Don't you think that maybe you're defeating your own point by making up statistics, and then not citing them?

Well, it's a figure of speech but you're kind of proving his point, even though you disproved his point, which is confusing.

You are just trying to poke holes now.  I just used that as a figure of speech to drive the point that more often then not, I see people who don't like the changes on this forum go to that tactic.  The fact that you responded with essentially a "lolhypocrisy" post just show's you don't really have anything to add and you just wanted to try and discredit my overall point.

[JrayM16]

Addai67 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
She was proving her POINT, which she did with that poll. You can't claim that there is a large majority that don't like the changes. Yes, you can't prove that most like it either, but 9 out of 10 times its people who don't like the changes trying to claim there are "alot" of people who dislike the changes.
 

Right, and like I said, if all she was trying to say was that there is a mixed reception to the changes, that's fine.  But it's no more or less reliable to use a voluntary blog poll than to cite anecdotal evidence from different forums.

I think that's exactly what she was trying to prove.  That's what I'm trying to prove anyway...

[XX55XX]

Filament wrote...

The tactical camera the OP is referring to is specifically the ability to raise the camera to a high angle and detach it from your currently controlled character, which has been removed. Though, like I said before, the OP's conclusion that this necessarily means fights will be less tactical is questionable.

Well, I did make a mistake on my part on saying that "combat would be less tactical", but nonetheless, why would they remove such a feature? Using such a camera made the game easier for me, and I was disheartened to see it taken away.

[AlanC9]

Addai67 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Not on this website, but pretty much every other gaming forum, this is the consensus, there is way more negativity for the changes than there is for people praising it, people are laughing at how bad the game looks, hopefully there will be some redemption for DA3, if there is one.

Right, I'm sure you can prove that.

Here, let me prove my point: You see the poll on this website?

You don't "prove" anything by citing a voluntary poll on a blog, other than that the people who read that blog and chose to respond had certain opinion.  It's no more or less reliable than anecdotal evidence.

It's obvious just from this forum that the reception of the game changes among current DAO fans is mixed.  If that's all you were trying to prove, fine.

Note that NightProwler76 is claiming that there exists a consensus that DA2 will be a disappointment. I think Saibh's evidence is proof enough that no such consensus exists.

[JrayM16]

AlanC9 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Not on this website, but pretty much every other gaming forum, this is the consensus, there is way more negativity for the changes than there is for people praising it, people are laughing at how bad the game looks, hopefully there will be some redemption for DA3, if there is one.

Right, I'm sure you can prove that.

Here, let me prove my point: You see the poll on this website?

You don't "prove" anything by citing a voluntary poll on a blog, other than that the people who read that blog and chose to respond had certain opinion.  It's no more or less reliable than anecdotal evidence.

It's obvious just from this forum that the reception of the game changes among current DAO fans is mixed.  If that's all you were trying to prove, fine.

Note that NightProwler76 is claiming that there exists a consensus that DA2 will be a disappointment. I think Saibh's evidence is proof enough that no such consensus exists.

QFT

[Meltemph]

But it's no more or less reliable to use a voluntary blog poll than to cite anecdotal evidence from different forums.

Which she obviously was not doing. You were the one who created the straw man for no other reason then to say "well you don't know if most are fine with it either", which obviously was not the point of the post.

[Meltemph]

Y-you don't mean it was....GASP...Immersion breaking do you!?!?! -screams in horror and flees- lol

No, I was not implying that at all. I think people use that word so out of context, anymore with video games, that it almost has no meaning to me in this context. All I meant was that it was nonsensical to me to allow that kind of camera in a non RTS game, imo.

Modifié par Meltemph, 06 février 2011 - 09:42 .

[Falls Edge]

No, I wrote that you had a point and that I agreed with it, and making a false statistic inside of it hurt your point, if you disagree that it hurt your point then okay, that's fine.

I'm not poking holes it was more of a correction you're right in my opinion, though infact I disagree that many people are not upset and that it is the (very small) minority, but instead of a minority of around 15% or so.

Modifié par Falls Edge, 06 février 2011 - 09:44 .

[PrinceOfFallout13]

i doubt the 3million + dragon age fan hate the changes maybe less than half but not the majority


the exact same argument happened with me2 and everyone saw how that turned out

Modifié par PrinceOfFallout13, 06 février 2011 - 09:45 .

[Meltemph]

Falls Edge wrote...

No, I wrote that you had a point and that I agreed with it, and making a false statistic inside of it hurt your point, if you disagree that it hurt your point than okay, that's fine.

I'm not poking holes it was more of a correction you're right in my opinion, though infact I disagree that many people are not upset and that it is the (very small) minority, but instead of a minority of around 15% or so.

ITT:  I didn't really have a point and I want to make up a statistic I believe in.

Ok, got it.