298 réponses à ce sujet

[TwistedComplex]

"Dumbed down"

There's that phrase again

I don't think you guys know what it means

[Captain Sassy Pants]

Vhaius wrote...

I'll see your dumbed down and raise you a game with a lot of the tedium removed.

With a star-rating system added so you no longer need to judge and think what item would be better. Now the game tells you!

[Amioran]

Arttis wrote...
nah
I like being able to tell and having more control rather than the crap that they push that does it automaticly.
dumbed down.

Yes, dumbed down, you are right. You didn't understand nothing of what I said but it is alright.

Certainly if you do approach the game as you approached what I said to you then I can understand perfectly why you didn't get anything at all of what the game is or how it really works.

Modifié par Amioran, 28 février 2011 - 03:12 .

[Arttis]

TwistedComplex wrote...

"Dumbed down"

There's that phrase again

I don't think you guys know what it means

I believe it means simpler in this case of it being used.
UNfortunately there is a lot of slang out there and mucho  misunderstandings occur.

[Gabriel S.]

Ok, let's all get a couple of things straight here.

What does each term mean in gaming:

streamlined - to have removed rough edges; to have eliminated the unused, unusable, useless, unnecessary?

dumbed down - reduced choice all around; eliminated used features, popular features, usable features; made overwhelming concessions to make the game easier to port (i.e. increase feasibility for one platform at the expense of another)?

Well?

[Rawgrim]

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...

Vhaius wrote...

I'll see your dumbed down and raise you a game with a lot of the tedium removed.

With a star-rating system added so you no longer need to judge and think what item would be better. Now the game tells you!

Good point. Add the fact that you can only play human male or female, as well, and maybe make use of the auto-level up feature, and you wont have to think at all when playing the game. Wich pretty much turns the game into an action game with dialogue.

[Arttis]

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...
nah
I like being able to tell and having more control rather than the crap that they push that does it automaticly.
dumbed down.

Yes, dumbed down, you are right. You didn't understand nothing of what I said but it is alright.

Certainly if you do approach the game as you approached what I said to you then I can understand perfectly why you didn't get anything at all of what the game is.

THank you.

[Aldandil]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Aldandil,

You claim that my argument is based on what I like or dislike and it gives the impression that it somehow should invalidate my opinion. Hmm. In your reply you do the same. There is nothing wrong with that, but don't use that in an opening sentence. That's a trick commonly used, but wasted on me.

No, I don't. My opinion is that you describe anything you dislike as "dumbed down", when some things in fact are more complicated than before. My personal opinions haven't enter into it yet. I'm pretty disappointed about the lack of skills and the voiced pc/dialogue wheel, and most of all, the lack of the isometric camera. Their absence, however doesn't make the game less complex (well, the removal of skills does but not to any great extent considering the very small use you had of them in origins).

About what you wrote:

1) The "lack" of skills: Hehe. What skills? They have been removed.

I've read that some made their way to attributes. But most are gone. Removing options from the game that were previously there feels to me like dumbing down. Too bad you didn't like them. I had to make choices. Who's going to be the thief, who the herbalist, does this character need the bonus stats of survival, etc.

Yes, you have to make choices, but they hardly come with any cost. There were more characters and skill points to go around than I knew what to do with. There were no real required areas to put my warriors' skill points in, I could pick and choose. It didn't matter where I put them, I had enough to go around. No trade offs, no heavy thinking required.

2) Less talents on lower levels: That causes less talents on higher levels of course. About 8 less. That's removal of stuff whenever you level up. That's less choice. To me that's part of the dumbing down.

What are you talking about? We missed out on two talents when we made our character, and we had leveled up twice twenty minutes into the game. In DA:O, you finished the prologue at level 3. If you finish the prologue at level 5 in DA2, you have the same amount of talents. It's also not certain that fewer talents would mean dumbing down. It's quite possible to maintain the same complexity of choice during combat with 2 talents less.

3) Only one type of health pot: Of course that has impact. Each type had its own cool down. If you just dumb it down to one then there is only one cool down counter and if you increase the cool down, you'll further reduce its usage. Again meaning less options and forcing you into running around until your health automagically is up for action again. How is that not dumbing down? It's mind numbing even.

An expression like "dumbing down" has to mean that something get's simpler and less complex. Practically everyone would agree that spamming health pots isn't a very complex way of staying alive. It's harder, and therefore less dumb to have them all on one single cool down.

4) Over the top animations: It does effect the game play. I have to look at that crap. A lot has been said about this already. I won't repeat it.

Aesthetics is one thing, being "dumb" or not is another.

5) Longer cool down on pots and heals: The intention of the longer cool down time is to encourage more offensive game play. More action. What? Why? A mage who wants to be an herbalist or an healer is suddenly left out. No. But running around to avoid damage and to heal is cooler? Huh? Or using that healing aura which disables your offensive spells. Is that punishment to enforce action? There are limits to what I can stomach.

We can discuss this in the healing thread, but essentially : It takes more thought to come up with a strategy where your characters do not get hurt.

6) Icons on the dialogue wheel: Did you look at those icons and try to find out what they are supposed to mean? The diamond icon was a good example. Money or being rich had nothing to do with it. Hehe. Let's just assume that BioWare does not want to use the wheel to dumb down dialogue options, but actually wants to contribute to the immersion of the game. Wouldn't you think that they might have at least play tested the icons and paraphrases and interviewed the testers? I have the feeling they never did. The wheel is a crap feature and its advantages do not outweigh its disadvantages. I am certainly not enjoying the game more. A perfect example of dumbing down that failed.

All you're saying is that you don't like it. I've only played the demo and I haven't read the manual, maybe we'll get some info on what those tone markers mean, but you can't figure out what your character is going to say solely based on the marker (or the paraphrase, or the marker and the paraphrase sometimes). That doesn't make it dumber, though occasionally very frustrating. However, I spend as much time thinking about what option to choose in a sensitive conversation in DA2 as I did in DA:O.

[Captain Sassy Pants]

ManiacalEvil wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

ManiacalEvil wrote...

And why is removing options that previsously existed considered dumbing down. For example, th e writers came up with an awesome story but it only fits humans. Isn't it better to remove all other races and have that story in rather than having a meh story (which Origins had, IMO) and those races in? More options isn't always good,  I for one wouldn't mind a story built uniquely around mages, if said story was about for example a rebellion against the chantry and possesed a very good depth of lore and class specific interaction. That would be adding depth, despite removing options, IMO.

Makes no difference , if the awsome story can only be told with one character, then find another story and use that one in another game. If it's that awsome, then it should be no problem selling that new game without needing to rely on an established franchise.

Had DA been like ME1, then clearly no one could have complained that reverting to a single human protagonist was dumbing down. But DA was not like ME1.

As I said previously you can make all the excuses and try to validate in any number of ways but DA2 is a dumbed down version of what was offered in DA.

Then all I can say is I welcome the dumbing down and I look forward to what more dumbing down awesomeness BioWare will add to it's games in the future, because dumbing down seems to  add so much depth to games.

Adds depth... by removing it? Hmm, interesting.

[Arttis]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

Ok, let's all get a couple of things straight here.

What does each term mean in gaming:

streamlined - to have removed rough edges; to have eliminated the unused, unusable, useless, unnecessary?

dumbed down - reduced choice all around; eliminated used features, popular features, usable features; made overwhelming concessions to make the game easier to port (i.e. increase feasibility for one platform at the expense of another)?

Well?

Well they reduced choice on character.So they could add a voice.
They got rid of skills which I used almost eveyr playthrough.
THey got rid of attributes affecting dialogue.
And more.

[Mantaal]

PinkShoes wrote...

i agree i think its more tatical now. When its faster you have to think a little faster, the heal cool downs are longer so you now cant just take keep taking them you actually have to pay way more attention.

Its Ironic or a Joke right? 

More Tactical now? Did you play another Demo then i did? 

In Da:O You have to get your Group in position where you can fight effectiv.
No Way you do that in DA2 since all your Chars. just flip around and jump over the Aerea.
in DA:O you have to place your Spells very well, set traps and you need to kite the mobs of your Ranged Chars. even in normal mode.
In DA2 you set a Rain of Fire followed by a Fireball in the middle of everything and the fight is done.
The funniest thing was the Ogre. I had Aveline tank him and killed him by autohitting with my Dancing mage Hawke.
Just had to set a Fireball in the Adds sometimes. Yeah that was a brilliant Tactic from my side! 
What would have happend if i didnt rightclick the Ogre? We will never know.

Modifié par Mantaal, 28 février 2011 - 03:17 .

[Tleining]

Rawgrim wrote...

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...

Vhaius wrote...

I'll see your dumbed down and raise you a game with a lot of the tedium removed.

With a star-rating system added so you no longer need to judge and think what item would be better. Now the game tells you!

Good point. Add the fact that you can only play human male or female, as well, and maybe make use of the auto-level up feature, and you wont have to think at all when playing the game. Wich pretty much turns the game into an action game with dialogue.

Item A does 20 damage, Item B 25 damage. hmmm, i wonder which Item is better? Oh yes, that requires a lot of thinking.
Auto-Level-up was in Origins as well.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Amioran wrote...

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.

So what is the other system you propose that should take over for assigning values to character skills? If you are suggesting that a character simply "wings-it" in a choice of dialogue options that do not relate to how the character is defined by their attributes then dosen't that kill off any individuality of a character? Is there any replay value if characters can be charming, witty, the strongest person and the smartest person all rolled into one personality? No, that would suck, that is why Superman is the most boring superhero. Characters without weakness in games, literature, film or any media are boring (rare elements such a kryptonite do not count ).

Weaknesses are as important as strengths in defining a character. That's why any system that relies upon abstract values to determine traits in a roleplaying game needs to hold onto universal applications of these values in dialogue or combat, otherwise the system isn't worth squat. If the game design gives a bunch of statistical loopholes, the designers are just shooting themselves in the collective, creative foot really. With some stats clearly not mattering, the entire system becomes a joke. A system where conversations and persuasion is just done on a whim isn't a system at all. Why have any stats? But if you don't have some kind of stats, then everyone's characters might as well be Superman and have perfect attributes...which fails too.

[Amioran]

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...
Adds depth... by removing it? Hmm, interesting.

Oh, this should be fun...

Let's hear what "depth" is supposedly removed, I'm curious.

[Elsariel]

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...

Vhaius wrote...

I'll see your dumbed down and raise you a game with a lot of the tedium removed.

With a star-rating system added so you no longer need to judge and think what item would be better. Now the game tells you!

Yay!  I'm actually pleased with this feature.  Judging what armor is better than others is a huge pain in the ass for me.  I'm not really a numbers person so if I can see three stars vs. five, I'm good.

Modifié par Elsariel, 28 février 2011 - 03:18 .

[rob_k]

By the way, the item tier system in DA: O is really no different than the star thing in DA 2. How many tiers were there in DA: O, btw? There's 6 stars for item quality in DA 2 according to the demo.

Modifié par rob_k, 28 février 2011 - 03:20 .

[Aldandil]

Zigzaggy wrote...

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?

I can honestly say that what I've written is my own thoughts on the matter. I don't think that Streamlining = Fewer options = Dumbed down. I feel that I've taken my time to explain why. I don't mean to be disingenious, sorry about that. I apologize for this in advance, but you come across like rather dismissive.

[Rawgrim]

They also removed your ability to customize companions outfits as well. Let rogues use swords, axes or maces. Dual-wielding for Warriors,, alot of specializations. Just off the top of my head.

[Gabriel S.]

Arttis wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

Ok, let's all get a couple of things straight here.

What does each term mean in gaming:

streamlined - to have removed rough edges; to have eliminated the unused, unusable, useless, unnecessary?

dumbed down - reduced choice all around; eliminated used features, popular features, usable features; made overwhelming concessions to make the game easier to port (i.e. increase feasibility for one platform at the expense of another)?

Well?

Well they reduced choice on character.So they could add a voice.
They got rid of skills which I used almost every playthrough.
They got rid of attributes affecting dialogue.
And more.

I was really asking if we could settle on what each term meant first, then talk about how exactly the game is streamlined or dumbed down.

On another note, did they really dump the persuade and intimidate? Where was this revealed?


*I should add that your second point isn't really an useful argument.

Modifié par Gabriel Stelinski, 28 février 2011 - 03:23 .

[Arttis]

Amioran wrote...

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...
Adds depth... by removing it? Hmm, interesting.

Oh, this should be fun...

Let's hear what "depth" is supposedly removed, I'm curious.

they took away the choice of race....less depth.

[LadyBri]

PinkShoes wrote...

i agree i think its more tatical now. When its faster you have to think a little faster, the heal cool downs are longer so you now cant just take keep taking them you actually have to pay way more attention.

This.

I loved DA:O, and the DA2 demo does not change my opinion.  But, I did enjoy the combat even more and I felt even more tactical because I had to pause so much more to not only get my bearings but also to use abilities to keep my party going strong.  I would say this is definitely a step up, and I am totally looking forward to more:)

[Arttis]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

Arttis wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

Ok, let's all get a couple of things straight here.

What does each term mean in gaming:

streamlined - to have removed rough edges; to have eliminated the unused, unusable, useless, unnecessary?

dumbed down - reduced choice all around; eliminated used features, popular features, usable features; made overwhelming concessions to make the game easier to port (i.e. increase feasibility for one platform at the expense of another)?

Well?

Well they reduced choice on character.So they could add a voice.
They got rid of skills which I used almost eveyr playthrough.
THey got rid of attributes affecting dialogue.
And more.

I was really asking if we could settle on what each term meant first, then talk about how exactly the game is streamlined or dumbed down.

On another note, did they really dump the persuade and intimidate? Where was this revealed?

Supposedly if your agressive personality you intimidate and supposedly if your a charmer then you presuade.
less choice.My warden was an awesome actor.

[Mantaal]

Tleining wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...

Vhaius wrote...

I'll see your dumbed down and raise you a game with a lot of the tedium removed.

With a star-rating system added so you no longer need to judge and think what item would be better. Now the game tells you!

Good point. Add the fact that you can only play human male or female, as well, and maybe make use of the auto-level up feature, and you wont have to think at all when playing the game. Wich pretty much turns the game into an action game with dialogue.

Item A does 20 damage, Item B 25 damage. hmmm, i wonder which Item is better? Oh yes, that requires a lot of thinking.
Auto-Level-up was in Origins as well.

Item A does 20 damage, Plus 10 for healing spells + 10 int
Item B does 25 damage plus 7 for Fire spells and + 12 Stamina
Item C Does 23 damage +armor Penetration 0,6 +6 Stamina +8 Willpower -1 dex

So now tell me what items is better for a Arkane Warrior? 

Should i stack armor Penetration and take leser damage on the items? Your i look for more Int and sacrefice armor for that? Dont tell me you know all that without thinking. You must be Supernatural

Modifié par Mantaal, 28 février 2011 - 03:24 .

[Arttis]

auto level was terrible in origins.

[Tleining]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

Ok, let's all get a couple of things straight here.

What does each term mean in gaming:

streamlined - to have removed rough edges; to have eliminated the unused, unusable, useless, unnecessary?

dumbed down - reduced choice all around; eliminated used features, popular features, usable features; made overwhelming concessions to make the game easier to port (i.e. increase feasibility for one platform at the expense of another)?

Well?

according to who exactly? All those points are personal preference.  How do you define "unused features". Is it up to you, me, or the devs?

edit:@ Mantaal
B

edit2:
the items are rated based on your current items. It doesn't mean that they are automatically better for your playing style.

Modifié par Tleining, 28 février 2011 - 03:27 .