298 réponses à ce sujet

[Aidunno]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Aidunno wrote...

@bobsmith101.. So I create 10 character "races"- They are all alike only I move a couple of stats around, +1 here, +1 there. I now have a complex game yes ?

You have a potentially more complex game than you could ever have with a single character yes.

In my opinion, you are correct there.. you have the possibility for additional complexity... not a complex game. The effect of race in DAO was minimal in the overall scheme of things, only really changing the origin story.. not the capability of any character. You are saying removing a single element which isn't used by the majority of players (by the way I played all races in DAO) dumbs down the game for everyone? Surely it makes sense to concentrate on other parts of the gameplay to make it better for a larger number of players. Remember Bioware actually gets some gameplay feedback from the games so they know how many times races/classes were played etc.  

[Lenzman]

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

3: Only one type of health pot: That's true, that means less options. What level of impact does that have on combat in DA2 compared to DA:O? Practically none. There were always plenty of different health pots of different types. But I'll grant you that it's a bit less comlicated with one compared to several.

Just a small point but on the previous page Michael Hamilton from Bioware stated you could craft different  types of potions that coud be placed in the quick bar. 

This provides a little more thinking in deciding which skills you wish to leave out to accomodate these crafted potions later in the game.

[Vahe]

Yes, IMO. Dragon Age 2 has many faults, and being dumbed down is not one of them.

[AkiKishi]

Aidunno wrote...
In my opinion, you are correct there.. you have the possibility for additional complexity... not a complex game. The effect of race in DAO was minimal in the overall scheme of things, only really changing the origin story.. not the capability of any character. You are saying removing a single element which isn't used by the majority of players (by the way I played all races in DAO) dumbs down the game for everyone? Surely it makes sense to concentrate on other parts of the gameplay to make it better for a larger number of players. Remember Bioware actually gets some gameplay feedback from the games so they know how many times races/classes were played etc.  

Which is why you improve upon what you had rather than throw it all away for a streamlining crowd pleaser. I have no idea how many people played races other than human. I know I played all the Origin stories but I don't know what anyone else did.
For example, if you took all those VO lines from Hawke and distributed them to the NPCs you would have better responses, even if the PC was still silent. Which would have meant not only could you keep the races, but also have a deeper RPG element as well, with not every other question leading to the same NPC reply.

What you have now and this is backed up by Dave Gaider is the same shallow system from DA, but with a PC voiceover.

You know how they did gameplay feedback ? Used that spyware EA has installed on your system linked to your account.

[Arttis]

Vahe wrote...

Yes, IMO. Dragon Age 2 has many faults, and being dumbed down is not one of them.

I hear...that...it is because...of those faults...
Less options = less replayability = less experimenting = less thought = dumbed down.
Could be wrong lol.

[Aldandil]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Aidunno wrote...
In my opinion, you are correct there.. you have the possibility for additional complexity... not a complex game. The effect of race in DAO was minimal in the overall scheme of things, only really changing the origin story.. not the capability of any character. You are saying removing a single element which isn't used by the majority of players (by the way I played all races in DAO) dumbs down the game for everyone? Surely it makes sense to concentrate on other parts of the gameplay to make it better for a larger number of players. Remember Bioware actually gets some gameplay feedback from the games so they know how many times races/classes were played etc.  

Which is why you improve upon what you had rather than throw it all away for a streamlining crowd pleaser. I have no idea how many people played races other than human. I know I played all the Origin stories but I don't know what anyone else did.
For example, if you took all those VO lines from Hawke and distributed them to the NPCs you would have better responses, even if the PC was still silent. Which would have meant not only could you keep the races, but also have a deeper RPG element as well, with not every other question leading to the same NPC reply.

What you have now and this is backed up by Dave Gaider is the same shallow system from DA, but with a PC voiceover.

You know how they did gameplay feedback ? Used that spyware EA has installed on your system linked to your account.

That's just a "moar because moar" argument. Wouldn't it be great with a game where you had six different characters, six different story arcs in six different countries, all equal to DA:O? I'm with you on the fact that a voiced PC makes the game shorter, and if a game is shorter I'll agree that you get to spend less time thinking but it's still not the same as being "dumbed down". It's a different story-telling approach. We'll see how it plays out.

[Wynne]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Like many I was worried Dragon Age 2 would be a hack n' slash videogame based on the early developer comments about streamlining, accessibility and "something awesome happens."  The demo has come out though and I for one think the tactical gameplay shines as much as before, if not more so, and the changes are for the better (other than the lack of "isometric" camera distance).
*snip*
Thoughts?

I... I... holy crap, this thread actually turned out to be reasonable and intelligent! I was expecting one of the first lines to be, "NOOO, OBVIOUSLY NOT, since it's liek SOOOOO DUMBED DOWN for console morons!" But then it wasn't that trolling post for the hundredth time.

I... I don't know what to say, except, "I agree with you, person who actually gave the game a chance instead of condeming it out of hand because of the buzzwords. I agree with you so much." And now that I'm seeing a fair number of other people actually not trolling in response, but simply discussing things, I need a moment because it's kind of beautiful...

Modifié par Wynne, 28 février 2011 - 01:44 .

[Arttis]

Michael Hamilton wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

BioWare have removed all skills,
reduced the number of talents/spells in the lower levels which reduced
the overall number at higher levels by about 8, there seems to be only
one type of healing potion that fits in the quick heal slot (I assume
all other types are gone), the same goes for lyrium potions, no signs of
stamina potions, the over the top combat animations seem to be designed
for an age group which is not supposed to play the game, because that
same age group wants action they have increased to cooldown times of
healing spells and potions, the dialogue wheel was designed for people
who are not willing to read text (they now can click on icons instead).
So, no. I don't think they have succeeded at all. The word streamlined
doesn't seem to come close. It is just dumbed down.

*edit: Whoopse, had to fix the quote.

Saw this and had to respond (as I worked on the crafting interface, though our designers did up the potions) there are several different potions you can make.  One in particular heals and removes injury.  These other kinds of potions need to be slotted on the quickbar(pc)/battle menu(console) or manually used in another fashion.

we had multiple potions like that /minus the injury.
We had fire frost and every other element resist potions
armor increasing potions
healing
speed*i think*

[Magatame]

Hmm I didn't know you can't change your companions armour? Don't get me wrong. I have the signature edition preordered and can't wait but thats a little depressing.. Then again one of my favourite games doesn't allow armour changing.. I guess some of my characters did look silly in Origins when I upgraded there armour.

[Amioran]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
When I am asked about my opinion then I will give that. I will certainly not be silenced because you believe that I represent myself as the only true RPG fan.

Yours are not "opinions", but judgments, and, as those, they can be proven wrong. Since it's clear that you don't have enough knowledge on the matter at hand (because all you said before it's completely wrong in almost the totality of cases) it would be better next time to inform yourself a little better instead of trying to judge something you have not the minimal notion upon.
 

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
As you may or may not have noticed I usually stay out of the "what is a RPG or not" discussion. Too many variables involved. But again, I am sorry that you cannot persuade me to stop writing in what I believe.

You can believe you can fly with your arms stretched if that makes you happy, will that make it true? I will not stop you saying idiocies but sometimes it would be better that people had a little more intelligence to understand that maybe what they are insisting on judging about is not exactly their strong point.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Edit: About the talents... In DA2 you will get 1 talent per level. So at level 25 you will have 25 talents (or spells). In DA:O you would get more spells at the lower levels. At level 25 you would have 33 talents. That's a difference of 8 spells. Maybe I am off by 1 or 2 because of tomes, but I didn't include the two you'll get from Soldier's Peak.

I didn't waste time on replying to your previous statements because it was obvious your ignorance on the things you spoke about, but just for an example on how you really don't know of what you are continually babbling about I will reply to this.

In DAO you got the same 1 talent point per level. You could get more bonus points doing quests, having tomes, etc. These things are still on DA2, you will get more points than the natural 1 per level. Nothing is changed. So, you see, as I said, you have no idea of what you are talking about.

[Amioran]

BobSmith101 wrote...

[/b]By removing RPG based skills like coercian you are removing options. No longer can I be an evil but charming SOB , instead like ME I am forced down a narrow character path.

Again, clear poor knowledge on the matters at hand, as it is always the case by complainers.

Coercion and other dialogue skills are approached by dialog, as in real life. You insist on wanting realism but when it is actually inserted you blame the game for it. Would you please make your mind up on what you REALLY want?

As in real life you have a personality. The game decides that personality for you by the course of the game based upon the approach you have with conversations. If, for example, you are a guy that likes to be direct you will have "intimidating" options that another guy that likes to be persuasive will not have. More, if you approach an NPC that doesn't like intimidation you willl not able to talk him/her down.

Is this maybe not much more realistic than a simple skill check? Are not RPGs meant to roleplay?

Modifié par Amioran, 28 février 2011 - 02:01 .

[Arttis]

Magatame wrote...

Hmm I didn't know you can't change your companions armour? Don't get me wrong. I have the signature edition preordered and can't wait but thats a little depressing.. Then again one of my favourite games doesn't allow armour changing.. I guess some of my characters did look silly in Origins when I upgraded there armour.

Now if they look silly...there is little you can do....

[Amioran]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
1 per level. That's it.

As DAO, so? Your point? OMG.

[Amioran]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Which is why you improve upon what you had rather than throw it all away for a streamlining crowd pleaser. I have no idea how many people played races other than human. I know I played all the Origin stories but I don't know what anyone else did.

Having a race only to play doesn't meant at all that the game is being "dumbed" down, actually it can be all the contrary.

If you have a game that let you chose 4 paths but all those paths are linear and without depth, and you have another game that have only 1 path but this last has many non linear branches and depth, what will you prefer for complexity? Let me guess.

[Arttis]

Amioran wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

[/b]By removing RPG based skills like coercian you are removing options. No longer can I be an evil but charming SOB , instead like ME I am forced down a narrow character path.

Again, clear poor knowledge on the matters at hand, as it is always the case by complainers.

Coercion and other dialogue skills are approached by dialog, as in real life. You insist on wanting realism but when it is actually inserted you blame the game for it. Would you please make your mind up on what you REALLY want?

As in real life you have a personality. The game decides that personality for you by the course of the game with the based on the approach you have with conversations. If, for example, you are a guy that likes to be direct you will have "intimadating" options that another guy that likes to be persuasive will not have. More, if you approach an NPC that doesn't like intimidation you willl not able to talk him/her down.

Is this maybe not much more realistic than a simple skill check? Are not RPGs meant to roleplay?

I liked the skill checks.
Seeing them fail was quite fun as they often intiated fights.
Now....I do not quite see them doing such things with the new system.
Feels like a yes or no system rather than take your chances.
Also the higher a stat like cunning gave different and sometimes more dialogue options.Such as you knowing more of something.
Example is when you first meet sten if you have a highe nough cunning you know something about his people as opposed to nothing.
Now?
Will that matter?
Getting cunnning?Or any stat?Will it ahve any effect?Doubtful.

[Arttis]

Amioran wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
1 per level. That's it.

As DAO, so? Your point? OMG.

DAo.....you get 1 per level and 1 skill per 2-3 levels.
2 at the start for your choosing and 1 automatic.
They took out the skills and it seems they took out the 2 starting talents.

[AkiKishi]

Amioran wrote...
Having a race only to play doesn't meant at all that the game is being "dumbed" down, actually it can be all the contrary.

If you have a game that let you chose 4 paths but all those paths are linear and without depth, and you have another game that have only 1 path but this last has many non linear branches and depth, what will you prefer for complexity? Let me guess.

It does if it previously had more. It means less options which is the very definition of streamlining. Or dumbing down as it's called around here.

See all my earlier posts I've already answered it.

Are you asking if I like JRPGs ? Would I prefer Hawke had a set personality for better development, sure. Would I try to argue that was not dumbing down from DA ? I would not.

You can point at any number of examples and say well X had this, but we already know what Dragon Age had and what is left, so those examples are fairly pointless.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 28 février 2011 - 02:06 .

[Amioran]

Arttis wrote...
I liked the skill checks.

This is another thing. You can like more one system in respect to another, but it's totally a different thing saying that there are no persuading options. They are simply approached in another manner, with a more "realistic" approach.

Actually it is much more simple for devs to do a skill check system. Instead they elaborated a complex mechanic to have persuasion skills not have a "mechanical" role but instead inserete it seamlessly on the approach you have, on the nature of your PC.

Both approaches naturally have pros and cons (as everything), but saying that DA2 is dumbed down on this aspect when actually is totally the contrary (because, actually, is much more near to a real roleplay experience this way) it is ridicolous, and, naturally, coming from people that either know how the system really works.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Aidunno wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I think it is civil enough and it does not claim that anyone who likes those is a 12 year old. As you can hopefully see the intention is to point out that I feel these are designed to attract a group below the age for which the game is certified. And yes. I stand by that. Try not to read more into it than it says. It's just part of the overal image of the dumbing down spiral.

Whilst I tend to agree with the exploding blood, guts, gore not being aimed at the older demographic I know plenty of so called "mature gamers" who like that sort of thing. I also agree that the visuals give the impression of a "dumbing down spiral" even when one does not exist. I could say it's simply my age after all, I also think most of the modern pop music is awful.

@bobsmith101.. So I create 10 character "races"- They are all alike only I move a couple of stats around, +1 here, +1 there. I now have a complex game yes ?

I'm really not a fan of the new combat animations or visual design of DA 2 either. Art direction can be a big deal, especially in a sequel. There's just a few things odd about a game world that was largely publicized as "dark" and "gritty" having backflipping and pirouetting rogues prancing about as if competing for Olympic gold in an ice dancing event while tossing ninja-esque smoke bombs. The mages look like they are working out to an exercise game on a Wii console, desperately trying to jazzercise off the pounds a week before their vacation. Sure, DA:O had some boring mage animations for shooting their staves but mages in DA 2 look like drugged out kids at an all night rave party, just give them some glow sticks. Hopefully DA 3 will have a compromise between the two. Does firing magic bolts from a staff really require all that unnecessary movement?

 It's one thing to make animations look interesting, but to me they look fairly over-the-top, bordering on rediculous. Some of the warrior animations look much better than the rogue or mage characters, but the two handed weapon animations are kind of painful since the weapons are freakin' huge and often characters are just waving them about as if they weigh no more than a dagger, often in one hand.

One change I don't think anyone else has mentioned yet, a feature that kind of irks me, has to be the weapon restrictions for classes. Why do rogues only get to use short bladed weapons? Why are mages stuck with staves? In DA:O some of my mages used bows and my rogues often used maces, axes and even one went with two handed sword. It makes no sense to limit weapons and fighting styles in such a way for a roleplaying game. If the goal is purely to make classes more distinct then I suppose it's a success, but only in making the classes more restrictive. I thought DA:O was restrictive enough and now things are moreso. Aestheticly, some of the new weapon designs just look horrible too. Fantasy weapons are one thing, but weapons that look non-functional are another.

[AkiKishi]

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...
I liked the skill checks.

This is another thing. You can like more one system in respect to another, but it's totally a different thing saying that there are no persuading options. They are simply approached in another manner, with a more "realistic" approach.

Can I play an evil SOB with a silver tongue ? Not in Dragon Age II.

There are plenty of examples of charismatic evil figures, so I don't see how you can invoke "realism" here.

[Amioran]

BobSmith101 wrote...
It does if it previously had more. It means less options which is the very definition of streamlining. Or dumbing down as it's called around here.

So you prefer more options that are "dumbed down" (as you say), instead of less options that have more complexity? To anyone his/her own I guess, just don't insist on this fable of the game being "dumbed down" because it is not objectively so. It is just your opinion on what approach you like best, not that one of the two is objectively better than the other.

Then people as you are often obsessed by "realism", but only when it is convenient for your points. When actually it is against them then you prefer the "simbolic" approach. Quite hypocrit, don't you think?

Modifié par Amioran, 28 février 2011 - 02:18 .

[rob_k]

Arttis wrote...

Amioran wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
1 per level. That's it.

As DAO, so? Your point? OMG.

DAo.....you get 1 per level and 1 skill per 2-3 levels.
2 at the start for your choosing and 1 automatic.
They took out the skills and it seems they took out the 2 starting talents.

I can see the skill complaint (I don't agree, but I can relate), but the 2 starting talents thing isn't really something to make a big deal of. You're lacking one talent point. Granted though, you may have to do with a talent you don't want to use, but it's hardly the end of the world.

Modifié par rob_k, 28 février 2011 - 02:09 .

[Arttis]

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...
I liked the skill checks.

This is another thing. You can like more one system in respect to another, but it's totally a different thing saying that there are no persuading options. They are simply approached in another manner, with a more "realistic" approach.

Actually it is much more simple for devs to do a skill check system. Instead they elaborated a complex mechanic to have persuasion skills not have a "mechanical" role but instead inserete it seamlessly on the approach you have, on the nature of your PC.

Both approaches naturally have pros and cons (as everything), but saying that DA2 is dumbed down on this aspect when actually is totally the contrary (because, actually, is much more near to a real roleplay experience this way) it is ridicolous, and, naturally, coming from people that either know how the system really works.

I ahve yet to see a presuasion going on in DA2....
I thought its only realistic if you can fail/suceed.Instead of it being set in stone.
It should also let me know when I am trying to presuade and not going about things normally.

[Amioran]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Can I play an evil SOB with a silver tongue ? Not in Dragon Age II.

You can. Didn't you read anything at all about the APPROACH to conversations that I've explained to you? The game doesn't track only one type of response above the others, it interacts with the choices you make.

And anyway, if you really think that a skill check for persuasion on an a chaotic evil characer really simulates an "evil" individual with a silver tongue I prove piety for you, I'm sorry to say that. It doesn't exist any rpg (and it will never exist for a lot more to come) that can simulate shades of human characteristics. A path is always imposed by the creators of the game anyway.

[Aldandil]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Amioran wrote...
Having a race only to play doesn't meant at all that the game is being "dumbed" down, actually it can be all the contrary.

If you have a game that let you chose 4 paths but all those paths are linear and without depth, and you have another game that have only 1 path but this last has many non linear branches and depth, what will you prefer for complexity? Let me guess.

It does if it previously had more. It means less options which is the very definition of streamlining. Or dumbing down as it's called around here.

See all my earlier posts I've already answered it.

Are you asking if I like JRPGs ? Would I prefer Hawke had a set personality for better development, sure. Would I try to argue that was not dumbing down from DA ? I would not.

You can point at any number of examples and say well X had this, but we already know what Dragon Age had and what is left, so those examples are fairly pointless.

So as soon as there are fewer options within a particular field, the game is dumbed down? That's an oversimplification, since you have to take into account the removed options had. As I've said before, there are hundreds of thousands more ways you can customize character appearance in DA2 compared with BG. Is DA2 therefore a more sophisticated game than BG?