1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fuinris wrote...

At the beginning of The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, [...]

At the beginning of RPG's you have to roll dices. How about putting some of them in the game boxes letting the player roll them and type their result in a window in Dragon Age II.

The fights would be so more tactical and finally slower.

Are you trying to make fun of the suggestion just because the example offered was old?

What point could that possibly have?

Daggerfall's was a good mechanic.  Good mechanics remain good over time.  I wish ME and ME2 had done something similar.

[the_one_54321]

Fuinris wrote...

At the beginning of The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, [...]

At the beginning of RPG's you have to roll dices. How about putting some of them in the game boxes letting the player roll them and type their result in a window in Dragon Age II.

The fights would be so more tactical and finally slower.

That would be cool, but I think a random number generator would be more effective since it's software.

[Seb Hanlon]

FearMonkey wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

(snip)

Well, partially, but there are some situations that would make it otherwise.

For instance, say we are talking to a demon and it tempts us with an offer of power or something in exchange for freedom.  Here, the diplomatic option would likely be the one to take the deal as that is the nature of diplomacy.  Agressive would more likely invoke an attack on the demon.

Typical RPG moral standards indicate that deals with demons are bad.  THerefore DA2's wheel system is certainly less constricted on moral guidelines than ME1/2 was.

Your example is slightly flawed in that the Diplomatic option would not be to take the deal, it would be to politely tell the demon to stuff it up it's rear end in as diplomatic a way as possible.

The option to take the deal would probably be another option on the left side of the dialog wheel. At least it would given how it worked in Mass Effect 2.

Actually, if my understanding of the way that conversations are constructed in DA2 is correct, making a choice (take the deal/don't take the deal) would be a choice node (icons with swirly arrows). Choice nodes don't have tone on the options. The resulting dialogue might vary depending on your character's preferred tone (established through previous tone choices in conversations).

So if you're typically diplomatic, you might diplomatically tell the demon to shove it, or diplomatically accept. Same for the other two tones.

Now, in a completely hypothetical situation, there could be a conversation where following an aggressive path might lead to the demon taking offense and never actually offering you the deal. I don't know enough about the actual content
of DA2 or the rules that writers operate under when building
conversations to say if this actually occurs. But it's theoretically possible.

Modifié par Seb Hanlon, 05 mars 2011 - 12:01 .

[hazarkazra]

Did nobody every notice how much of the Dragon Age: Origins is in fact copy pasted? Was there any viable difference in 'paths' in levels you could pick in Origins that made a difference? Besides a time or two you ended up behind a group waiting enemy I can't really remember any that had an impact

I don't get why everybody compares Origins and DA2 and THEN mentions the 'poor' level designs. DA2 certainly isn't the first, let alone the last that does this.

Also, playing through the Ogre part in the demo without pausing would end up with 3 or 4 party members dying before the fight is over.

[JrayM16]

FearMonkey wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

FearMonkey wrote...

So...

Diplomatic = Paragon
Humorous = Neutral
Aggressive = Renegade

Yeah, such a departure from Mass Effect 2.

Well, partially, but there are some situations that would make it otherwise.

For instance, say we are talking to a demon and it tempts us with an offer of power or something in exchange for freedom.  Here, the diplomatic option would likely be the one to take the deal as that is the nature of diplomacy.  Agressive would more likely invoke an attack on the demon.

Typical RPG moral standards indicate that deals with demons are bad.  THerefore DA2's wheel system is certainly less constricted on moral guidelines than ME1/2 was.

Your example is slightly flawed in that the Diplomatic option would not be to take the deal, it would be to politely tell the demon to stuff it up it's rear end in as diplomatic a way as possible.

The option to take the deal would probably be another option on the left side of the dialog wheel. At least it would given how it worked in Mass Effect 2.

Hmm, not really because diplomacy by definition excludes any such non-cooperation. 

And in ME2, the left side of the wheel was reserved for questions and staying in a conversation longer before action.  All choices(of significance) were always on the right side.

Edit: Just saw Seb's post.  That makes a lot more sense. 

Modifié par JrayM16, 05 mars 2011 - 12:19 .

[Mezinger]

Elsariel wrote...

mindbody wrote...

Lordless wrote...

I know this wasn't directed at me, but you'll get my 2 cents and like it!http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angel.png
The creation of a system describing dialogue intent (i.e. convo wheel) itself is a limitation. If my response to a question is "Yeah, sure" there at least 2 possible tones in which it could be said... That's a role-playing choice. The wheel tells me what the intent is, thereby removing choice.

I tend to agree with your last paragraph... good cinematography will tend to imitate the eye anyways.... It can be facilitative.

I don't really understand this line of thinking, the writers had some idea of how the line would be said and how the character being spoken too would react whether it is voiced or not. You could make up in your head that you said the "yeah sure" example in a happy positive way but if the character you are speaking too reacts negatively, isn't that worse for roleplaying and immersion? At least with the icons you know the intent and tone of what you are going to say, it's because of what you described that they made this change (ie the much used hitting on Zevran example).

Hehe, in Zevran's case, I think we'd all have benefitted from the romance dialoge being lit up like a runway with a big arrow saying Elf romance this way + 15 approval. 

I only meant that in the past no dialogue wheels were used, so the writers took into account possible tone variations and wrote specifically for that.

Leiliana was the same.  Here I thought we were BFF's talking about our hair and shoes and suddenly she's yelling at me about my relationship with Alistair.    Ninja-mance!!

That's hilarious! I was never able to get her into bed. Must remember to talk about hair and shoes!

[88mphSlayer]

here's a compromise...

1) have the game start off simple - simple but exciting, and build up your abilities as you go, the first time you get to control more than one character should be an event for newbies, explain attributes to players in a way that's informative to new players and entertaining to veterans, etc.

2) preset animation styles based on how you want to progress through the game... as in A) you want your characters to have a higher hit % but slower to attack throughout the game, you pick the slow animation preset or you want your characters to have a lower hit % but faster to attack throughout the game, you pick the over-the-top animation style

even COD players would get the animation differences - it's just like playing sniper vs. run & gun to them

ehhhhhhhhhh?

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 05 mars 2011 - 12:34 .

[Mezinger]

Elanareon wrote...

What i really complain for bioware games is for their "follow this path to reach your goal" way of questing. Even if your outside the world and not inside a dungeon you are still following a very narrow path... The Article voiced this out really well...

Neverwinter Nights had this at some extent but at least there were some explorations on the sides of the path, in DA series there is only the path...

Really? I don't feel this way at all about DA:O... and even ME1... both I felt had a good level of side quests that took you off the path. Sometimes side quests even let you make character defining choices like siding with the mage collective or a gang cartel etc. In most Bioware games playing just the core story, the core path dramatically reduces the number of hours of gameplay in a single play through, and at least for me on Nightmare in DA:O and ME1 it wasn't even possible to skip many side quests due to the need for XP.

I much prefer the story driven narrative of classic Bioware games to the open world RPG of Fallout, Elder Scrolls etc.

[Mezinger]

Seb Hanlon wrote...
Actually, if my understanding of the way that conversations are constructed in DA2 is correct, making a choice (take the deal/don't take the deal) would be a choice node (icons with swirly arrows). Choice nodes don't have tone on the options. The resulting dialogue might vary depending on your character's preferred tone (established through previous tone choices in conversations).

So if you're typically diplomatic, you might diplomatically tell the demon to shove it, or diplomatically accept. Same for the other two tones.

Now, in a completely hypothetical situation, there could be a conversation where following an aggressive path might lead to the demon taking offense and never actually offering you the deal. I don't know enough about the actual content
of DA2 or the rules that writers operate under when building
conversations to say if this actually occurs. But it's theoretically possible.

Interesting, thanks for that... do we know yet if there will be persuade / intimidate type options available in DA2? Even if there is no paragon / renegade meter? or stats to put points into?

Also I'm wondering about this "preferred tone" mechanic that has come up a couple of times... is it smart enough to differentiate your tone when talking to comrades and your tone when talking to enemies? Aka to my party members / family I'm diplomatic, to templars I'm aggressive? 

[mindbody]

Mezinger wrote...

Seb Hanlon wrote...
Actually, if my understanding of the way that conversations are constructed in DA2 is correct, making a choice (take the deal/don't take the deal) would be a choice node (icons with swirly arrows). Choice nodes don't have tone on the options. The resulting dialogue might vary depending on your character's preferred tone (established through previous tone choices in conversations).

So if you're typically diplomatic, you might diplomatically tell the demon to shove it, or diplomatically accept. Same for the other two tones.

Now, in a completely hypothetical situation, there could be a conversation where following an aggressive path might lead to the demon taking offense and never actually offering you the deal. I don't know enough about the actual content
of DA2 or the rules that writers operate under when building
conversations to say if this actually occurs. But it's theoretically possible.

Interesting, thanks for that... do we know yet if there will be persuade / intimidate type options available in DA2? Even if there is no paragon / renegade meter? or stats to put points into?

Also I'm wondering about this "preferred tone" mechanic that has come up a couple of times... is it smart enough to differentiate your tone when talking to comrades and your tone when talking to enemies? Aka to my party members / family I'm diplomatic, to templars I'm aggressive? 

This is what I'm wondering.  How smart is it? People talk differently to different people and in different situations...Problem is... the devs can't fully answer this question without either going into spoilers or inventing a conversation for the sake of explaining how it works... And we'll know anyways in a few days, I guess. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lordless wrote...

I don't really understand this line of thinking, the writers had some idea of how the line would be said and how the character being spoken too would react whether it is voiced or not. You could make up in your head that you said the "yeah sure" example in a happy positive way but if the character you are speaking too reacts negatively, isn't that worse for roleplaying and immersion?

I don't understand this line of thinking at all.

If my character says something a certain way (as determined by me), then whatever the NPC reaction is is what informs whatever my PC does next.  The only way an NPC reaction could damage immersion here is if I have some carved in stone preconceived notion of what that reaction will be.  And that would be insane.

You never know for sure how people are going to react to what you say.  The same is true in the game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 mars 2011 - 12:59 .

[take some Kangaxx for the pain]

thatbwoyblu wrote...

I want Dragon Age to be more like God of War because I love god of war.Forget that old choppy RPG style its time for RPGs to have style.I am pretty sure OP is a internet thug from RPG Codex.What up Gangster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my my.. times are really changing. To see this kind of commenting here of all places proves that the "old guard", if you will, is really walking or walked out of the door. Though to us perceptive ones this was fairly obvious after EA ate Bioware.

Bg,Tosc,Bg2,ToB,Nwn,SoU,HotU,Kotor -all absolute masterpieces, played those for hundreds and hundreds of hours.. buying every Bioware title really was a no-brainer back then.

Then came Jade Empire, what a crap game. And ME was ok, not too great but just ok enough. Dragon Age origins however showed that BW still had it, not just because it's fantasy, but because of the marvellous dialogue and different protagonist backrounds etc. obvious things that makes rpg-people want to play rpgs! God of wars are for people who love god of wars. ME2 was a truly poor game. Made me sure that I'm not gonna even read about ME3, just don't care what happens in it!

And now this. The DA2 demo. I am really disappointed. It's truly not the same game as DAO. Combat is just a button slashing fest, a stupid god-of-war-type of a game, lame, boring "action" with cartoon-like thin characters, and very limited choises, a tunnel. Made for more simple people, it seems. No real dialogue. I might buy it from a discount-shelf in 2012 just to see what happened to the Warden, we'll see. Don't really give a **** about Hawke, or his champion-saga..

And with this, I'll take my exit, there are just so many other activities out there. If your games won't be as good interactive books no more, just sir Duke Nukems vs Diablos, I'm out ... for.. for good? We'll see. Keep your special offer tomes and other dlc-gifts for the mass-marketed. It was always the story and the dialogue for me, not the glitter nor the gore.

thanks, BW for many years of DIFFERENT, IMMERSIVE, WELL-WRITTEN ADVENTURES. You were really something special!

Modifié par take some Kangaxx for the pain, 05 mars 2011 - 01:04 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

JohnEpler wrote...

Ha! I spent a long time tracking down a copy of the Ultima Collection a good while back. Now, of course, I can barely play them on my computer, but still. At least I own them.

I don't supposed you ever played the Ultima 5 Remake that was released around 2006?

[Sylvius the Mad]

thatbwoyblu wrote...

I want Dragon Age to be more like God of War because I love god of war.Forget that old choppy RPG style its time for RPGs to have style.I am pretty sure OP is a internet thug from RPG Codex.What up Gangster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I once played God of War for several minutes.  I can't understand how that game is fun at all, even for a moment.

[Yamsandjams]

mindbody wrote...

Mezinger wrote...

Seb Hanlon wrote...
Actually, if my understanding of the way that conversations are constructed in DA2 is correct, making a choice (take the deal/don't take the deal) would be a choice node (icons with swirly arrows). Choice nodes don't have tone on the options. The resulting dialogue might vary depending on your character's preferred tone (established through previous tone choices in conversations).

So if you're typically diplomatic, you might diplomatically tell the demon to shove it, or diplomatically accept. Same for the other two tones.

Now, in a completely hypothetical situation, there could be a conversation where following an aggressive path might lead to the demon taking offense and never actually offering you the deal. I don't know enough about the actual content
of DA2 or the rules that writers operate under when building
conversations to say if this actually occurs. But it's theoretically possible.

Interesting, thanks for that... do we know yet if there will be persuade / intimidate type options available in DA2? Even if there is no paragon / renegade meter? or stats to put points into?

Also I'm wondering about this "preferred tone" mechanic that has come up a couple of times... is it smart enough to differentiate your tone when talking to comrades and your tone when talking to enemies? Aka to my party members / family I'm diplomatic, to templars I'm aggressive? 

This is what I'm wondering.  How smart is it? People talk differently to different people and in different situations...Problem is... the devs can't fully answer this question without either going into spoilers or inventing a conversation for the sake of explaining how it works... And we'll know anyways in a few days, I guess. 

The preferred tone mechanic is likely going to be small scale. There was evidence it in the demo (I specifically recall the "where are we going?" conversation near the beginning utilizing it), but I don't imagine it will have any large scale effects. Likely, it's just going to be an additional few lines based on a previous response in the conversation. We'll have to see though.

I don't know if people have pointed this out yet, but you're no longer compelled to play the "make friends with everyone" route in order to get the companions influence/support skills. In Origins, you could ****** off a party memeber, but there's no purpose from a mechanical standpoint. Only raising influence offers any gameplay incetive past roleplaying consequences. In DA2, the demo showed that companions can acquire different abilities based on their rapport with the PC (i.e. one ability is attained with good rapport, the other with bad rapport), so you're not punished in a mechanical sense for deciding to get on a few people's bad sides. Obviously, there can still be other consequences, like a companion betraying you. I don't think I've played a game before with that sort of convention, but I definitely consider it a good thing. Hopefully future games start to adopt a similar convention.

[FearMonkey]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

thatbwoyblu wrote...

I want Dragon Age to be more like God of War because I love god of war.Forget that old choppy RPG style its time for RPGs to have style.I am pretty sure OP is a internet thug from RPG Codex.What up Gangster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I once played God of War for several minutes.  I can't understand how that game is fun at all, even for a moment.

As someone who has played all the games multiple times, I think you have to play more than a few minutes to understand the appeal. The story is good, the combat is deep and fun, and it can get pretty challenging. It's just...a lot of fun. There's even a bit of strategy to it because you have to take in account what type of enemy you're fighting and when you have multiple groups of different types of enemies you have to change tactics constantly. It's a lot of fun.

[Fangirl17]

Aw the summery of the aricle has me a little worried >.< Le sign,we shall see March 8th.

[HTTP 404]

Fangirl17 wrote...

Aw the summery of the aricle has me a little worried >.< Le sign,we shall see March 8th.

it should be noted that it is an editorial and opinion piece not a review much less news nor an article

[Clover Rider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

thatbwoyblu wrote...

I want Dragon Age to be more like God of War because I love god of war.Forget that old choppy RPG style its time for RPGs to have style.I am pretty sure OP is a internet thug from RPG Codex.What up Gangster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I once played God of War for several minutes.  I can't understand how that game is fun at all, even for a moment.

So you die a lot?

[HTTP 404]

Some Geth wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

thatbwoyblu wrote...

I want Dragon Age to be more like God of War because I love god of war.Forget that old choppy RPG style its time for RPGs to have style.I am pretty sure OP is a internet thug from RPG Codex.What up Gangster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I once played God of War for several minutes.  I can't understand how that game is fun at all, even for a moment.

So you die a lot?

I like Sylvius but I swear he probably likes math equations.

[Clover Rider]

HTTP 404 wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

thatbwoyblu wrote...

I want Dragon Age to be more like God of War because I love god of war.Forget that old choppy RPG style its time for RPGs to have style.I am pretty sure OP is a internet thug from RPG Codex.What up Gangster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I once played God of War for several minutes.  I can't understand how that game is fun at all, even for a moment.

So you die a lot?

I like Sylvius but I swear he probably likes math equations.

Wow now I feel sorry for him=].

[Mezinger]

Yamsandjams wrote...
I don't know if people have pointed this out yet, but you're no longer compelled to play the "make friends with everyone" route in order to get the companions influence/support skills. In Origins, you could ****** off a party memeber, but there's no purpose from a mechanical standpoint. Only raising influence offers any gameplay incetive past roleplaying consequences. In DA2, the demo showed that companions can acquire different abilities based on their rapport with the PC (i.e. one ability is attained with good rapport, the other with bad rapport), so you're not punished in a mechanical sense for deciding to get on a few people's bad sides. Obviously, there can still be other consequences, like a companion betraying you. I don't think I've played a game before with that sort of convention, but I definitely consider it a good thing. Hopefully future games start to adopt a similar convention.

I can't pass judgement yet on the DA2 loyalty mechanic yet but I really liked the DA:O implementation... the fact that pissing of your team mates lead to dissent, out right betrayal and other cases just not optimal performance was awesome...in my opinion... true to life, the mangey mutineers of y'ore. 

Granted the like / hate mechanic was very linear BUT its consequences were real, you made choices, people left the party, people attacked you in open revolt, behaviours and even abilities changed... it was awesome. 

I hope whatever DA2 changes are in trying to make the system less black and white they haven't removed the consequences of player choices in relation to their companions... I shouldn't be able to treat valuable allies like garbage and have them stay and fight. IMO. 

[mindbody]

Some Geth wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

thatbwoyblu wrote...

I want Dragon Age to be more like God of War because I love god of war.Forget that old choppy RPG style its time for RPGs to have style.I am pretty sure OP is a internet thug from RPG Codex.What up Gangster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I once played God of War for several minutes.  I can't understand how that game is fun at all, even for a moment.

So you die a lot?

I like Sylvius but I swear he probably likes math equations.

Wow now I feel sorry for him=].

Sylvius likes to roleplay. There's no reason to feel sorry for him.
Edit: What's wrong with liking math equations, anyways?  You'd think people who post on a cRPG forum might appreciate a little geekiness.

Modifié par mindbody, 05 mars 2011 - 02:00 .