8659 réponses à ce sujet

[octopussoup]

I don't care for how the mobs over exaggerate their movements. It makes it look like something out of power rangers. It's either asian fight choreography or just the idea that non expressive faces need over expressive movements. I've never cared for it and don't see why its needed.

[Dlokir]

In Exile wrote...
Last I checked, Mike Laidlaw said we could customize statistically the armour of our companions to some extent. So I think that while visually the upgrade is automatic, I do think we have the ability to manipulate statistics.

Ha ok I didn't knew that, I think the live demo #2 mentionned the point briefly but I didn't follow well.

Re: your edit: If they were going to give you that option, a toggle (like the helmet toggle) could work. So if you enable it, companions keep a default apperance but also keep the stats of the new armour. If you don't and swap out the default, you get whatever generic apperance that armour has.

That'd be a compromise I'd be fine with, since I highly value unique apperances.

Yes that's a third option.

I like the idea to be able to make companions use a predefined armor set that upgrade automatically or possibly through some quests too. But that is compatible with the possibility to remove it and use standard equipements. And what you suggest is a third option, use default appearance but specific equipements.

Just allow remove or equip the special set (with one drag) or standard equipements would do the two first choices and an option for appearance to complete it.

If the standard set for the companion doesn't upgrade automatically it will be pointless because sooner or later you'll have to look at a serious upgrade through standard equipements. Well if the standard equipements are easilly better this will end in the same result, perhaps not that simple.

I'm not sure why they made this choice, for appearance in cinematics (but cinematics seem able to use current equipements), for simplifying equipement management (but it's just four items per companions so still 6 items per companions to constantly manage and upgrade), for managing better the difficulty setup by limiting companions boosting through equipments through this limit (but as all party RPG difficulty setting is just very rough because of the multiple very different choice of party and equipements), I wonder.

Modifié par Dlokir, 06 mars 2011 - 08:48 .

[Dlokir]

Kajukenbo wrote...

For the record, I've played the DA2 demo -several times as the different classes and sexes- on the 360.
I am not impressed....

What puzzle me with those whinning lists that pretend analyze the game is they always include just a series of complain, as if all is totally wrong and there's nothing good. that's a bit too much don't you think? You should try make a list of what's good in the demo. 

[dreadknott]

for the extra items unlocked from completing the demo, is it consol specific on how they are unlocked? ie. i play and finish the demo on my computer but want the items on the xbox?

[Ferelden92]

dreadknott wrote...

for the extra items unlocked from completing the demo, is it consol specific on how they are unlocked? ie. i play and finish the demo on my computer but want the items on the xbox?

Yeh you get it on what format u play it on, so your gunna have to download the xbox one im afraid. 

[dreadknott]

Ferelden92 wrote...

dreadknott wrote...

for the extra items unlocked from completing the demo, is it consol specific on how they are unlocked? ie. i play and finish the demo on my computer but want the items on the xbox?

Yeh you get it on what format u play it on, so your gunna have to download the xbox one im afraid. 

kk thnx for the info

[Ferelden92]

Ferelden92 wrote...

dreadknott wrote...

for the extra items unlocked from completing the demo, is it consol specific on how they are unlocked? ie. i play and finish the demo on my computer but want the items on the xbox?

Yeh you get it on what format u play it on, so your gunna have to download the xbox one im afraid. 

Ignore that!!! i just checkd my download list n i got hadons razor thingy for all platforms :happy:

[Stealthy Cake]

There were some minor stuff that were alot of different. The combat sustem is really cool, more intense and with that, more satisfying than whaiting until your character get into attack range. Im really looking forward to this, im problably gona go archer rouge first. But i just have a little question about the bows... where is the damn arrow bag?

[In Exile]

SuperMedbh wrote...
Well, props for using the word "conflate" in a sentence.  I thought I was the only one who did that.  But I while I'll agree with the notion that you can't willy-nilly break the already established rules of the world, I'll disagree with the concept that once realism is broken, all is fair game <insert silly analogy to virginity here>.

Simply because you have dragons doesn't mean that the players/readers won't be irritated when a horde of Orlesian Teletubbies show up to save Ferelden.  Everyone knows that Teletubbies have British accents.

My point wasn't that one unrealistic thing opens the floodgates. Only that "realism" can't be a defence of those gates. Something has to be internally coherent, but that isn't the same thing. The teletubbies wouldn't make sense in DA; but they would make perfect sense on their own show.

Dlokir wrote...
I like the idea to be able to make companions
use a predefined armor set that upgrade automatically or possibly
through some quests too. But that is compatible with the possibility to
remove it and use standard equipements. And what you suggest is a third
option, use default appearance but specific equipements.

Just
allow remove or equip the special set (with one drag) or standard
equipements would do the two first choices and an option for appearance
to complete it.

It's important, though, to not penalize players. The complaint (right now) is that fixed items might force characters into pre-defined roles, and reduce customization. Well, if unique armour is handled like DA:O Morrigain, that could (especially for tank) punish players due to poor gear progression.

So to please both camps you'd have to divide apperance from statistics entirely.

I'm not
sure why they made this choice, for appearance in cinematics (but
cinematics seem able to use current equipements), for simplifying
equipement management (but it's just four items per companions so still 6
items per companions to constantly manage and upgrade), for managing
better the difficulty setup by limiting companions boosting through
equipments through this limit (but as all party RPG difficulty setting
is just very rough because of the multiple very different choice of
party and equipements), I wonder.

Arguably, they did it for the sense of aesthetic. They want the clothing and apperance of each character to illustrate the flavour of that character's personality. In addition, this allows them to give each character a unique mesh.

Essentially, you have to build a skeleton for each character. If you want them to equip all armour, they use that genetic skeleton. With a fixed apperance, you can have them move in broadly unique ways (e.g. Isabella throwing the dagger). If she's equipped with a bow, you potentially have her use magic daggers (like Shepard in ME2 casting "Mass Summon Assault Rifle").

[Ferelden92]

Stealthy Cake wrote...

There were some minor stuff that were alot of different. The combat sustem is really cool, more intense and with that, more satisfying than whaiting until your character get into attack range. Im really looking forward to this, im problably gona go archer rouge first. But i just have a little question about the bows... where is the damn arrow bag?

AND where is the bow string!!!!! lool

[sreaction]

I dislike that Bioware has taken the genre a step backwards (perphaps
multiple steps) instead of forward. DAO was the perfect balance of
simplicity and complexity, though I default to the later, I really
enjoyed it. Now, Bioware is taking steps towards  the numerous action rpgs that clutter the console market. They are moving toward mediocrity.

In
a separate thread someone suggested that the complainers need to
evolve. I see it slightly different , the action rpg console gamer needs
to evolve and play games that are actually challenging.

There is hope though, though EA/Bioware does not provide it.
There is still Fallout 3, FO3 New Vegas, The Witcher 2, The Elder
Scrolls V and hopelfully more.

[greyman33]

My 2 cents:

The character models looked quite a bit crisper. The textures and effects in general looked improved over DA:O, which was nice. I also liked the addition of all the derived stats being more prominently displayed on the character sheet.

Unfortunately, for me personally, that's about where the positives ended. The text was small and a little difficult to read, and I really didn't like what they've done with the skill trees on the character record page. Those trees, for me anyway, were a bit muddled and neither as fast or easy to deal with as the previous skill screens from DA:O. The small font and graphic sizes didn't help matters either.

Combat was another thing that stuck out for me. I'm really not a fan of the new combat animations. Too many pointless flourishes for my taste. Again, that much is something I can easily get over, and is really just a matter of personal taste. The bigger issue I had was that the tiny fonts and larger numbers of 'fodder' enemies milling about, made quickly and easily targeting spells and bow skills from a distance at a specific enemy more difficult than it needed to be.

The conversation wheel isn't something I'm all that thrilled with either, but it is what it is I suppose. Between that, and the story being based all around one specific person's rise to hero/legend status sort of makes this feel more like Midieval Mass Effect. Not in itself a terrible thing, but again, just personally, I like having a little more of at least the impression of choice or options.

I'm sure it's going to be an enjoyable enough game, just not quite what I was hoping for/expecting for a followup to Origins.

[In Exile]

sreaction wrote...
In
a separate thread someone suggested that the complainers need to
evolve. I see it slightly different , the action rpg console gamer needs
to evolve and play games that are actually challenging.

DA2 on nightmare is looking like it will be harder than DA:O on nightmare. Which is good, because DA:O on nightmare was not very hard and certianly not "challenging".

There is hope though, though EA/Bioware does not provide it.
There is still Fallout 3, FO3 New Vegas, The Witcher 2, The Elder
Scrolls V and hopelfully more.

The Fallouts were certainly not challenging. If TW2 is a reflection of TW, it won't be either.

We're not talking Hearts of Iron 3 here.

[Ferelden92]

Just for people who dont know.. To check your downloads list :

Go onto profile and then "your registered game promotions"
and it will tell you what you will get and on what platform 

[Ferelden92]

Just for people who don't know to check your downloads list:

Go on to Profile and then "your registered game promotions"
And it will tell you what you are getting and what platform

[Ferelden92]

oops double post  lol

[SteveStubborn]

My impression of the demo is that DA2 has the potential to be Bioware's first mediocre game.

EA, if you're reading this; I know you wanna be the big beast of the industry, but you aint winning with mediocrity.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dlokir wrote...

Thanksfully it seems they bring some improvements like:

• Longuer potions cooldown to force you use more tactical fighting and abusing less of potions.

I'll never understand that attitude... why would I want a game to force me to do something?

[sreaction]

In Exile wrote...

sreaction wrote...
In
a separate thread someone suggested that the complainers need to
evolve. I see it slightly different , the action rpg console gamer needs
to evolve and play games that are actually challenging.

DA2 on nightmare is looking like it will be harder than DA:O on nightmare. Which is good, because DA:O on nightmare was not very hard and certianly not "challenging".

There is hope though, though EA/Bioware does not provide it.
There is still Fallout 3, FO3 New Vegas, The Witcher 2, The Elder
Scrolls V and hopelfully more.

The Fallouts were certainly not challenging. If TW2 is a reflection of TW, it won't be either.

We're not talking Hearts of Iron 3 here.

I said that DAO was the perfect mixture of simplicity and complexity, meaning the combat was challenging enough to keep me interested. The lore and the story were the strong suits of DAO, they added to the level of immersion which made it a great game to play.

I also said I default to complexity meaning I wish DAO was more complex and challenging not that it is.

I am playing FO3 right now, yes the quests are not very challenging but I find the combat immensely fun i.e. good mixture of action and tactics, vats, sneaking realism etc.

We really dont know what TW2 is going to be though I have a feeling it may be more simplified, i.e.  appeal to a mass market, which will be a bummer, but like I said .... hope.

And I looooove HOI3, a bit rough around the edges but complexity galore...

[Killjoy Cutter]

Sidney wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Don't get so caught up in the programming that you miss what the changes mean to the player. 

Nothing? Seriously art style and such don't makie it a hack n' slash or "non-tactical".

Even if you did have to mash the button to attack bad news kids: Morrowwind, Oblviion, Fallout 2, Fallout NV, Mass Effect 1 all required a button mash to attack anything. Auto-attack isn't really the norm nor is it the hallmark of "real" RPG's - the autoattack style was there in NWN and nothing is a more linear, brain dead hack n' slash than that thing. People will comfortably ignore all that since only BG2 was a "real" RPG to some folks - but wait dear god it had ammo, call all the anti-Thermal clips kids in the ME2 forums and let them know that BG2 was a shooter!

As long as you don't have the attention span of  a cat and get distracted by all the movement on the sceen the  new art design don't change how you fight in the game. Here's your challenege: tell what you could do in DAO that you now can't do in DA2 from a "tactical" (and I still resent using that word in relationship to DAO) standpoint.

I'm not going to get into the "tactical" discussion, so I'll start with a few things I could do in combat in DA:O that the demo is telling I won't be able to do in DA2.

1)  See what's going on.  There's so much movement, flash, and POW! that it takes a lot more moving the camera around to different angles to see what the heck is happening.
2)  Keep my squad out of the line of fire for AoEs -- everyone is so eager to leap headlong at the enemy from 20 feet away...
3)  Crowd control, at least in the sense that it could be accomplished in DA:O.

Especially in the first sequence, the fights in ninjas in a rugby scrum...

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 06 mars 2011 - 09:52 .

[amaltheaelanor]

The Good:

I like that combat moves so much faster, and that that abilities are executed immediately.  In particular, I was glad to see this for archers, as abilities like Pinning Shot seemed almost worthless to me in the first game due to how long they took to execute.

The Bad:

I don't like that the AI takes control of the other characters in my party after they successfully kill an enemy, even after I've unchecked all the boxes in the tactics screen.  I understand this was probably done so that characters don't mindlessly stand around after defeating someone while the carnage continues around them; but in both Origins and BG, I always enjoyed being able to shut of all AI, and having complete control of my characters.  I'm more comfortable disabiling all tactics/AI and intense micromanaging, especially as it means that I'm the one that actually succeeded in completing a battle, and not me sharing the victory with the computer.

The Tab button no longer highlights character/enemy names and health meters during combat.  Combined with my first complaint, this meant I spent a significant amount of battle having trouble keeping track of who was fighting who from moment to moment, especially as I can no longer use the tab button to see which of my enemies are still alive (which becomes difficult to tell since it takes long enough for enemies to fall down after they die, they look like they're still alive).  These two combined were the primary reason why I spent the demo feeling like the computer was significantly in control, and I was just playing a part.  So overall, a less satisfactory experience, as I enjoy doing more than just watch the combat.

I already knew beforehand that the top-down perspective for the camera is gone, and I think I can probably get used to it.  However, it does make lining up AoE abilities considerably trickier, and some of those icon line-ups were difficult enough to manage in the first game.

I'm unsure if this was more due to me or the game (I'd like to think it wasn't me considering how long I spent playing Origins) but I kept noticing that after I would pause the game and issue new orders, some of my companions would take off and start attacking someone else entirely.  I finally realized that it must be due somehow to the ordering of abilities and what enemy to attack.  So, for instance:
If my PC is attacking Hurlock A
Aveline is attacking Hurlock B
Bethany is attacking Hurlock C
I pause the game and tell my PC to perform a backstab, then without specifying who to attack (as she is already attacking Hurlock I tell Aveline to perform a Shield Bash.  But when I unpause, Aveline attacks Hurlock A rathern than Hurlock B with a Shield Bash.  It's like the game is making me re-specify who each of my companions should be performing a given ability against, rather than just defaulting to who they were already attacking, like in the first game.  Is this just me, or has anyone else had this problem?


Anyway, so I completed a second run-through of the demo as a Rogue (first time was done as a Warrior) last night.  I was actually pretty pleased at how much micro-managing was required of me to defeat the Ogre with the party, so that made me more enthusiastic.  I'm also going to assume that the prologue - where Verrin even admits to it being The Legend - is more like pitting someone of a considerably greater leveling against first tier monsters (if that makes sense) and so hopefully is not indicative of the difficulty scaling in the game.  I mean, that section is fun to watch and play with all the abilities, but I feel it becomes boring fast because it's almost too easy.  So I'm going to take more from the obvious increased difficulty the second time you fight the Ogre.

That being said, I'm upgrading my enthusiasm for this game from "wary" to "cautiously optimistic."  I sincerely doubt I will like it as much as the first (and then if I'm wrong, I'll be pleasantly surprised) but I'm hoping for a decent gaming experience at the very least.

[Killjoy Cutter]

amaltheaelanor wrote...
I'm unsure if this was more due to me or the game (I'd like to think it wasn't me considering how long I spent playing Origins) but I kept noticing that after I would pause the game and issue new orders, some of my companions would take off and start attacking someone else entirely.  I finally realized that it must be due somehow to the ordering of abilities and what enemy to attack.  So, for instance:
If my PC is attacking Hurlock A
Aveline is attacking Hurlock B
Bethany is attacking Hurlock C
I pause the game and tell my PC to perform a backstab, then without specifying who to attack (as she is already attacking Hurlock I tell Aveline to perform a Shield Bash.  But when I unpause, Aveline attacks Hurlock A rathern than Hurlock B with a Shield Bash.  It's like the game is making me re-specify who each of my companions should be performing a given ability against, rather than just defaulting to who they were already attacking, like in the first game.  Is this just me, or has anyone else had this problem?

I had that trouble too.  The targeting is not longer specific to each party member, it's sticky from the player perspective.  As you say, the setup now requires you to re-select the target each time switch which party member you are controlling.

If there's no way to change that to the DA:O setup, it's going to make combat nothing but a chore.

[Mordreshfelrage]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but has anything been said about people who are unable to stay connected during their playthrough in regards to unlocking Hayder's Razor? I must have finished the demo twenty times now and haven't managed to stay connected once. It's so bad that I once got a message that I lost my connection while still filling in my account...which seems...absurdly impossible. :s

[kgersen]

amaltheaelanor wrote...
I don't like that the AI takes control of the other characters in my party after they successfully kill an enemy, even after I've unchecked all the boxes in the tactics screen.  I understand this was probably done so that characters don't mindlessly stand around after defeating someone while the carnage continues around them; but in both Origins and BG, I always enjoyed being able to shut of all AI, and having complete control of my characters.  I'm more comfortable disabiling all tactics/AI and intense micromanaging, especially as it means that I'm the one that actually succeeded in completing a battle, and not me sharing the victory with the computer.

You can set the tactics to passive like I did... but then you have the weird bug/feature of allies stopping attacking randomly even if their enemy is still alive and you have to re-tell them who to attack. Personally I don't know which annoyed me the most, having them attacking random enemy or having to tell them ten times in a row to attack the same enemy.

[sector001]

I've played through both the PC and Xbox demos and have to say I'm quite pleased with the new changes, mainly with the combat system.