298 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

DA2 is dumbed down, but so was DA:O. But they are both good games anyway.Truth be told: everything is being dumbed down these days. Skyrim has alot less skills now too, than oblivion had (for example). At this rate I suspect The Elder Scrolls 7 will have only 3 skills. 1 for rogues, 1 for warriors and one for mages. Aparantly Oblivion and Morrowind were too complex for the average gamer. The same things are going on in Bioware games. You even get huge markers on the map, telling you where to go to finish a quest. The exact same thing has happened with Dungeons and Dragons (pen and paper), in the new edition you dont even get skillpoints. Ever class skill just increases by a set number when you level up. Its more or less WoW mixed with pokemon cards now, with the 4th edition of the rules. Dumbing down aka "streamlining", is just the way things are now. And I am sure it will get "worse" as well.

[Aidunno]

I noticed that everyone is concentrating on what they consider has been taken out. Nobody has mentioned the fact of what new things have been put in. Things like cross class talents where a warrior can stagger opponents for another class to take advantage of. Yes we had these combinations, primarily for mages, in DAO (brittle anyone) but there seems more in DA2 and not restricted to mages.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Amioran wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
This is one of those areas where I feel a hit that echos back to my PnP roleplaying days when I was a child. On character creation, everything starts at the ground level and is built up fairly equally for everyone. You put attributes points here and there, same for skill points, ect. The player has an idea of how they want to play their character, their character's personality and guiding ethos. I like the idea of a persuade skill because a player has to put effort in selecting that skill as they level up. Without such a skill, any character can be persuasive without much effort. Hopefully attributes still add something to it but the old-school roleplayer in me wants characters to have a skill availible and to be able to use it throughout the game. It adds something to a character to build them up as persuasive and to put ranks in the skill. To allow everyone the option of persuasion, even the min/maxing strength based barbarians out there, would suck. Hopefully the game hasn't tossed out Cunning points for modifying success rates.

As I said, both approaches have pros and cons. A drawback of skills is that they are mechanical, because a real conversation is not a matematic approach. While it can be a simbolic representation of what happens, it still lacks momentum and naturality.

It naturally has also many pros, as for example, the fact that you can have more shades to apply to a character, depending on the system and if it is done well.

Everything about a character in a roleplaying game is assigned a value and is therefore mechanical, yes? That is part of the joy of it all, interpretation and application of values earned or assigned.

Conversations should have some implimentation of effort put into charisma, cunning, or whatever attribute effects persuasion of a character, all things being equal...or else why should strength be important to combat? If one attribute doesn't matter then none should.

Hopefully attributes still exist that can modify dialogue and open up possibilities in DA 2 for more story options. That is part of character building too, not just hitpoints and damage and defense modifiers.

[Amioran]

rob_k wrote...
For all we know, you can still gain bonus talent points in DA 2 in addition to levelling.

Yes you will. Probably you will either get more points to spend than DAO since you have more choices now.

But anwyay, complaining it's easy. You don't have to do research on what you are talking about as others do, you just have to say the first thing that comes to mind, totally irrevelant is the issue if it is obviously false or not. What matters is that you didn't like it.

As Joyce said: "truth doesn't really matters, what matters is what people think". You have a clear demonstration of this statement in this forum.

[Zigzaggy]

Lumikki wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote... "dumbed down"

Yes, but what your argument is that something what you consider important as needed is missing, so you consider it's dumbed down. How ever, what you don't argue is that something what you don't consider important, maybe there is more of it, so it's not dumbed down in that perspective.

Point is you only look what is lost in you perspective, you don't look what was gained from others perspective. Just because something is different as changed, doesn't make it less. It's like looking big picture, look it as hole.

Only nothing has been added so you gain nothing.You only lose.

Something changed doesn't make it less...such as fight animation.

But when you streamline and remove features previously in the game...then they are trually lost regardless of an individuals perspective .

Why do you people try to argue blindly in favour of the developer....when you lose too.It's never made any sense to me

[UltimoCrofto]

I was one of the many peeps saying how DA2 will basically be a console game after reading early previews/interviews, however, I will now accept I was wrong to think that since the demo has pretty much told me the game is more akin to Origins than I was expecting.

That said, the amount of content DA2 has is much less than Origins, so in that way I do believe I'd consider that being dumbed down. To me, a PC RPG usually means me spending a very long time progessing over a narrative while levelling my character and such; by buying the game I am comitting to playing a long game. I like that. I'm down with that. As long as there's variation and plenty to do to keep progression fun there is no reason to limit content, with games like Origins, The Witcher, Morrowind and many others proving that it works well.

So, in answer to the original poster's question, I would say Dragon Age 2 has maybe succeeded on the whole, but as far as content goes it may actually have dumbed down. I look at Mass Effect 2 and how it lasted only 30 hours and noticed how that massively impacted the narrative since after collecting all your companions all that is left is maybe a couple of main storyline events, then it's over. The pacing was awful. Considering the amount of depth and lore in Origins I find it hard to believe 50 hours will feel 'right', but we'll see.

[Arttis]

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...
I hear things can be taught and learned.Sometimes through experience.

And you heard badly. Nature doesn't change just from experience. Your real "self" is immovable and will not change. What changes is only the externalization of it, the ego, that, however, still comes from the self.

You can learn, certainly, but there will be always some things that are more close to your nature than others, and either things that aren't at all in your nature, and you will never be good at, no matter how much you try.

Arttis wrote...
Also some skill checks require a high cunning in adition to the full skills.

Still is matematic, and dialogue is not a mathematical operation.

the entire game uses math
This is not reality buddy.

[Aldandil]

Zigzaggy wrote...

@ Aldandil

Stop trying to confine your argument ..it's disingenious .It isn't streamlined within a particular field.The whole game is streamlined...so dumbed down is an adaquate description.

"Dumbed down" is not an adequate description if all it means is that you don't like it. There are fewer options in DA2, especially when it comes to certain things, for instance skills. Whether or not that means that the game is "dumbed down" is firstly and foremostly a semantic discussion. If all this difference means is that you have to spend the same amount of thinking as you did when deciding skills when choosing attributes, then the game is not dumbed down. If the impact of the choice of race is smaller than the impact of Hawke's specific origin, the game is not "dumbed down". There are simply fewer options. Streamlining can to some extent be described as fewer options, and within certain circumstances, fewer options can be described as "dumbed down" (I hold this to be true in the case of companion inventory, for instance), but just because something is removed or changed that you don't agree with, it doesn't mean that the game is dumbed down.

You could of course argue that I'm trying to monopolize on the meaning of "dumbed down", but if so, kindly respond with an interpretation that is more accurate. I for one don't think less=dumber, as I spelled out in detail before.

[Zigzaggy]

Arttis wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...
I hear things can be taught and learned.Sometimes through experience.

And you heard badly. Nature doesn't change just from experience. Your real "self" is immovable and will not change. What changes is only the externalization of it, the ego, that, however, still comes from the self.

You can learn, certainly, but there will be always some things that are more close to your nature than others, and either things that aren't at all in your nature, and you will never be good at, no matter how much you try.

Arttis wrote...
Also some skill checks require a high cunning in adition to the full skills.

Still is matematic, and dialogue is not a mathematical operation.

the entire game uses math
This is not reality buddy.

The entire Universe is governed by Math...that is reality buddy

[Rawgrim]

Less choices = less thinking\\planning.

[Amioran]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
Everything about a character in a roleplaying game is assigned a value and is therefore mechanical, yes? That is part of the joy of it all, interpretation and application of values earned or assigned.

This doesn't automatically remove the option to have another approach for other aspects of the game, as conversations, isn't it? Or do you think that because there are attributes as a simbolic representation of a character in an rpg for what it concerns gameplay then all the approaches (as dialogue) of that rpg MUST follow that rule?

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
Conversations should have some implimentation of effort put into charisma, cunning, or whatever attribute effects persuasion of a character, all things being equal...or else why should strength be important to combat? If one attribute doesn't matter then none should.

You don't need to have those attributes tied to the dialogue simply because you approach it differently. You estabilish those "points" via the type of choices you follow and the type of dialogue you have. What's the need of a symbolic representation when you have a direct representation of your choices?

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
Hopefully attributes still exist that can modify dialogue and open up possibilities in DA 2 for more story options.

And why it should? You roleplay your character chosing the type of approach to conversation that is tied to the character personality, estabilished by the role of the same. Ability to persuade and/or intimidate or whatever will be tied to that approach that is estabilished by you (and by the character you rolepaly). Why would you need attributes to symbolize this result when it is already talking place directly?
 

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
That is part of character building too, not just hitpoints and damage and defense modifiers.

True, but it is not the only approach. You can also follow the approach that you alter the choices directly, without a mathematic change behind the lines.

[keginkc]

Rawgrim wrote...

Less choices = less thinkingplanning.

Somebody will be in soon with a quality versus quantity statement of some kind.

[Lumikki]

Zigzaggy wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote... "dumbed down"

Yes, but what your argument is that something what you consider important as needed is missing, so you consider it's dumbed down. How ever, what you don't argue is that something what you don't consider important, maybe there is more of it, so it's not dumbed down in that perspective.

Point is you only look what is lost in you perspective, you don't look what was gained from others perspective. Just because something is different as changed, doesn't make it less. It's like looking big picture, look it as hole.

Only nothing has been added so you gain nothing.You only lose.

Something changed doesn't make it less...such as fight animation.

But when you streamline and remove features previously in the game...then they are trually lost regardless of an individuals perspective .

Why do you people try to argue blindly in favour of the developer....when you lose too.It's never made any sense to me

Yes, but just because you don't value flight anímation, it's still something more, what someone else could value..

Why you look everyting only from your own point of view. Example I don't really like DA2 combat animation style, but just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it's not good for someone else. Not everyting has to be made for my taste only.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 février 2011 - 03:01 .

[Arttis]

Zigzaggy wrote...

Arttis wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...
I hear things can be taught and learned.Sometimes through experience.

And you heard badly. Nature doesn't change just from experience. Your real "self" is immovable and will not change. What changes is only the externalization of it, the ego, that, however, still comes from the self.

You can learn, certainly, but there will be always some things that are more close to your nature than others, and either things that aren't at all in your nature, and you will never be good at, no matter how much you try.

Arttis wrote...
Also some skill checks require a high cunning in adition to the full skills.

Still is matematic, and dialogue is not a mathematical operation.

the entire game uses math
This is not reality buddy.

The entire Universe is governed by Math...that is reality buddy

Incorrect,

[Amioran]

Zigzaggy wrote...
The entire Universe is governed by Math...that is reality buddy

Cabala is an intricate aspect to discuss, and it's better to leave it aside in a game forum.

While what you say is true, it is so only in part. Everything in the universe is cabala, but the macrocosm is tied only externally to the microcosm, so the mathematic governs more the external nature of man, not the internal.

Modifié par Amioran, 28 février 2011 - 03:15 .

[Captain Sassy Pants]

Pauravi wrote...

Kanten wrote...

Considering "streamline" is almost universally a euphemism for "dumb down", I don't really see how.

Or maybe "dumb down" is a euphamism for "waaaah, the game isn't exactly the same as the old one :crying:"
Frankly I find the term insulting.  It implies that people who liked the old game are somehow more intelligent just because they're being stodgy and stubborn and they cry and flail like children over even minor changes.

One thing you don't do is drop that into the middle of an existing series.

Really?  You don't try to improve on the game during the course of a series that will probably run for 6 years at least? Sounds like a recipe for Fail to me.

... and nothing you said was slightly insulting? Hypocrite much?

[Amioran]

Arttis wrote...
the entire game uses math
This is not reality buddy.

Certainly, but there are approaches that uses it evidently, changing those numbers directly, while there are other approaches that uses that same numbers "behind the lines" with you interfering only indirectly.

If you want to talk phylosophycally with me please at last try to think a little more before you reply, want you?

Modifié par Amioran, 28 février 2011 - 03:01 .

[Rawgrim]

A few of the fight animations made zero sense at all. Seems to me they were just added to make the characters do something kewl. Backstab for example. Tossing a smokebomb onto the grond, and teleporting behind the target for a stab. Not sure how many times I did that during the fight vs the ogre. Around 20 I would think. So...where do these bombs come from? And how many thousands of them can a rogue carry? That move was just lame. Doing a downward slash across an enemy`s chest, with a dagger, sends him flying 10 feet backwards. The fight animations went straight out the window (for me) right there. I immediatly thought of Soul Calibur (tekken with oversized weapons), when I saw that.

[Gabriel S.]

Rawgrim wrote...

Less choices = less thinkingplanning.

Not necessarily.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Amioran wrote...

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

As DAO, so? Your point? OMG.

There is no point. I was answering a question. DA:O works differently. At lower levels you get more talents per level. But I explained that before. Scroll up if you are interested. BTW... Did you have a bad day or something? You seem very tense.

[Aidunno]

Zigzaggy wrote...
Only nothing has been added so you gain nothing.You only lose.

You are 100% positive nothing has been added.

I gave an example a few posts back about something which has been which can provide a more tactical experience. A lot of people are concentrating on what appears to have taken out. What has been added has not been really investigated to my knowledge.

[Tleining]

@ Angry
you still have to provide an official post saying that it is different in DA2.

[Arttis]

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...
the entire game uses math
This is not reality buddy.

Certainly, but there are approaches that uses it evidently, changing those numbers directly, while there are other approaches that uses that same numbers "behind the lines" with you interfering only indirectly.

If you want to talk phylosophycally with me please at last try to think a little more before you reply, want you?

nah
I like being able to tell and having more control rather than the crap that they push that does it automaticly.
dumbed down.
Do you like nanny states or small governments?

[Zigzaggy]

Aldandil wrote...

Zigzaggy wrote...

@ Aldandil

Stop trying to confine your argument ..it's disingenious .It isn't streamlined within a particular field.The whole game is streamlined...so dumbed down is an adaquate description.

"Dumbed down" is not an adequate description if all it means is that you don't like it. There are fewer options in DA2, especially when it comes to certain things, for instance skills. Whether or not that means that the game is "dumbed down" is firstly and foremostly a semantic discussion. If all this difference means is that you have to spend the same amount of thinking as you did when deciding skills when choosing attributes, then the game is not dumbed down. If the impact of the choice of race is smaller than the impact of Hawke's specific origin, the game is not "dumbed down". There are simply fewer options. Streamlining can to some extent be described as fewer options, and within certain circumstances, fewer options can be described as "dumbed down" (I hold this to be true in the case of companion inventory, for instance), but just because something is removed or changed that you don't agree with, it doesn't mean that the game is dumbed down.

You could of course argue that I'm trying to monopolize on the meaning of "dumbed down", but if so, kindly respond with an interpretation that is more accurate. I for one don't think less=dumber, as I spelled out in detail before.

Again disingenious .I think you know exactly the reasoning behind why people are claiming it is dumbed down.That it isn't being used as "I don't like it".

Are you perhaps just seeking argument?

[Amioran]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
There is no point. I was answering a question. DA:O works differently. At lower levels you get more talents per level. But I explained that before. Scroll up if you are interested. BTW... Did you have a bad day or something? You seem very tense.

All you explained is wrong, sorry. You don't get more points on DAO, actually it will be much more probably the contrary judging from what Peter said.

The fact that you can, supposedly, get more points at beginning in DAO doesn't mean anything at all. What matters is how many points you get in the entirety of the game. Then how can you know the places where you get bonus points in DA2 to judge? Have you played the game?

As for me replying a little too much maybe you are right, but sometimes I cannot win the fight against myself to not do it since all complaining are made by people that know absolutely nothing about what they are complaining about, yet they talk as if they are experts.

I, usually, before criticizing something am absolutely sure that I know perfectly the matter at hand, because I don't want to make the figure of the fool. Everyone is different I know, but you cannot do nothing else but to hope...