271 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

randName wrote...
He attacks people that says its dumbed down, and now so do you; I say its dumbed down, and that is what I replied to. 

I'm not saying the game will be less tactical, in fact the abilities seems to give more options for tactical choices; and I still say that removing the option to change armour or gear on a character to better suit them for a certain type of  combat style, or situation, is in fact dumbing it down.

If it isn't less tactical, how is it "dumbing down"?

[randName]

TJSolo wrote...

Obviously its not needed, but scantly clad people fighting is immersion breaking (for me) and detracts from the experience.

This ridiculous example keeps getting repeated.  With the exception of one part of two quests in DAO and the little bit in the Warrior origin that fighting in your undies is not a normal tactic that players put their characters into. All of those experiences were very immersive, actually.

Using that argument against being able to change other character's clothes does not make a lot of sense. If people being dressed in such a way ruined your immerision in your game then you simply had the option to not have your people in their undies fighting, most of the time. How someone else  optionally dresses or undresses the people in their game does not touch on your immersion. 

I'm not talking about the undie fight; I liked that part ~ or any other situation when the characters gets thrown into it, without any sort of planning.

I'm talking about some armours for the companions being underdevoloped for war, and more for a stroll down town. As in they don't use helmets, they use fashionable and stylized armour that in some of the cases for DA2 doesn't make any sense, and they don't wear armour over areas that should be protected.

As in when they have had time to prepare they still come in too little, or weirdly built attire.

And save the 2 piece leather armour in DA:O I had little issues with armours in that game.

Modifié par randName, 07 mars 2011 - 10:53 .

[Sierra Crysis]

You can upgrade their armor with runes/purchase statistical upgrades, but it doesn't change their look aesthetically. Aesthetically, most companions will change looks as the years go by. You can change their rings/belts/amulets as well as their weapons with the exception of Varric, who's weapon upgrades as he does.

[randName]

AlanC9 wrote...

randName wrote...
He attacks people that says its dumbed down, and now so do you; I say its dumbed down, and that is what I replied to. 

I'm not saying the game will be less tactical, in fact the abilities seems to give more options for tactical choices; and I still say that removing the option to change armour or gear on a character to better suit them for a certain type of  combat style, or situation, is in fact dumbing it down.

If it isn't less tactical, how is it "dumbing down"?

DA2 isn't less tactical from what I've seen, the armour part is.

Its not one cohesive thing, but a complex system working together. This is not about DA2 as a whole, a game I'll be off playing, and most likely love and cherish. EDIT: Once its unlocked, forgot to mention this part. 

Also as was talked about before, and I didn't bring up, and Sierra did now, upgrades and the like could make DA2 and the companions armours even more tactical than before; this whole thread works under assumptions that might be proven wrong in the final game.

But the discussion wasn't as much about what actually is in the game, as about if customisation of gear adds any stimulation, I don't really want to say intellectual stimulation, but let say a personal delight to those with a touch of OCD to a game or not.

Modifié par randName, 07 mars 2011 - 10:50 .

[Angelraid]

james1976 wrote...

Lord_Darkmoon wrote...

http://www.gameinfor...x?PageIndex=4).

"3. Inventory Management Is Better
Your allies in Dragon Age II each have a set of armor that they wear all the time. This means that you can’t equip them with the helmets, boots, and gauntlets that you find in your quest. This may sound disappointing at first, but it results in you spending much less time in the menus sizing up and optimizing equipment. If you pick up a new suit of armor that isn’t an improvement for Hawke, you can just sell it; no need to look at all of your active and inactive party members to see if it’s better for them. Plus, you can still outfit your companions with rings, amulets, and belts, so the customization isn’t gone completely. Your inventory will be less cramped, especially since you get a storage chest early on and you aren’t carrying around crafting reagents all the time. "

What they consider better, I consider worse.  It's practically ME2 all over again

I didn't really mind in ME2 becuase it was more action w/ story than RPG. But here I totally agree. It does nothing but lower custimization and remove tactical responces. Smells like EA's **** all over it. I'm afriad for Bioware. It seem's to be heading the way of Blizzard.

[AlanC9]

abadomen wrote...

Would you not rather have had the same amount of sidequests...albeit...better?

Not in ME1. The main quest is supposed to be urgent. Shepard shouldn't be wasting his time on most of that crap.

Sidequests worked OK in ME2 because there's no obvious reason for Shepard to be rushing to complete things befopre key plot events trigger.

Look at Skyrim...coming out almost half a decade after the last game.

Meh... TES games alwys bore me.

[Dragoonlordz]

Morroian wrote...

Duncan Anderson wrote...

I'm endlessly amused by the idea that the people who think inventory management and mini maxing involve any kind of applied intelligence or mental stimulation are the very same ones who are portraying themselves as being in a position of intellectual superiority.

This.

Its a trope nothing more and certainly not some fundamental part of role playing.

(generalised statement to follow btw)
You remove all those things such as that then what are you left with in the end? Darksiders or GoW or Dantes. There are already dozens of titles that cater for such people who love that sort of thing, leave the things that the rest of us like alone and stop trying to change as series which started off in one genre into another because you want more generic titles which fit into your favorite genre which gives the rest of us less of the genre we love.

p.s We are superior

(Note: Last comment was joke incase not smart enough to realise it.)

If it isn't less tactical, how is it "dumbing down"?

Anything that requires less thinking on the part of the player whether inventory, stats or choices = dumbing down aka reduction of thinking needed to take part or play, doesn't matter if it is merely hidden but still going on via game mechanics or visable differences in how to play.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 07 mars 2011 - 10:47 .

[Time Victim]

Dissapointing. I enjoyed making characters fight in the nude when they bothered me.

[joriandrake]

Sylvianus wrote...

Let's see how the rpg will evolve in the future by players.

1 - No possibility to choose the clothes and armor companions : It is to give more personality !

2 - No possibility to change the weapons of our companions : It is to give more personality !

3-  No possibility to choose items to enhance the power of our companions :  It is to give more personality !

4-  No possibility choose the attribute points : It is to give more personality !

5 - No possibility to choose different companions 's powers, and in the order you want : It is to give more personality !

And why not, the PC can no longer change his clothes as we want, is the production that will decide for us.

Continue to reduce your rights and your freedom people, it makes me really laugh. We'll see who laughs best at the end.

Congratulations people, you'll allow Bioware to condemn the strengths of an rpg, with such ridiculous arguments.
The pleasure of choice, the gameplay is, and always has been. Will it ? With justifications such as I read, I'm afraid not.

Soon, the rpg will be more than movies, where we can no longer choose nor control anything, and the fans will pay very expensive. 

I have to agree with you, the future world of gaming should be more about customization and not less, a good example is Spore that is nothing else than just a collection of customization options, it is not much to ask for to be able to decide what magic/weapons/clothes/items/abilities/race/gender/age/looks your character should have in a 21st century RPG, I am also still annoyed about the inability to have a dual wielding elven warrior

[Angelraid]

Time Victim wrote...

Dissapointing. I enjoyed making characters fight in the nude when they bothered me.

Or just in general

[Xebioz]

 I love how that article is actually defending the new decision which to me seems to be quite a hypocritical one. We don't want you to waste time looking through equipment so we have removed "outfits" (armor which you see), but we still have rings, runes, etc. which means you will use time on making your companions better. This is hypocritical as this decision seems to only remove armor which you can see while doing nothing really about the inventory management. Just my opinion though.

[AlanC9]

randName wrote...

If it isn't less tactical, how is it "dumbing down"?

DA2 isn't less tactical from what I've seen, the armour part is.

There wasn't very much thought about which armor to use. There was a lot of clicking around to see exacly what the armor set bonuses were, but not much thought once you knew them.

But I agree it's about the total aproach to customization. Since customization is better in DA2... what's the issue, really? Just that you don't get the customization from different gear. I see this as a good thing. YMMV.

[Sylvianus]

The customization is a detail, a pallet, a positive window that shows a positive force of a rpg, it has been worked or not.

Love him or not management with his companions, is part of the details that drive a video game in the rpg to score points. Great deal of large details and neglect the small, it is not aimed at the best.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 07 mars 2011 - 11:01 .

[AlanC9]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You remove all those things such as that then what are you left with in the end? Darksiders or GoW or Dantes. There are already dozens of titles that cater for such people who love that sort of thing, leave the things that the rest of us like alone and stop trying to change as series which started off in one genre into another because you want more generic titles which fit into your favorite genre which gives the rest of us less of the genre we love.

The argument is that playing dolly-dress-up isn't  fundamental to the RPG genre.

[wrdnshprd]

guys relax. watch the demos.. they go over this in there in great detail.

things that are static:

weapon TYPES - thus you cant change from dual wield to two-hander. that being said, if you find a new shield, you can put it on a companion if they use one (with the exception of the dwarf).

armor - as in you cant replace chest, pants, boots, shoulder pads, etc

that being said, what you can add to the armor, are add upgrades that you find in your travels, as well as runes.. so from a min/maxing perspective nothing really has changed.

due to these things, im not really upset about the changes.

hope that clears things up for people.

[Selene Moonsong]

IMHO...

While I enjoy being able to provide armor for my companions, it simply makes sense that they decide what they wear for armor instead of what I as a player may dictate.

I look at it this way, the companions are supposed to be sentient beings and can decide for themselves what best suits them, or is otherwise acceptable to them, and I am happy enough with being able to provide them with additional items that they can use, be it rings, amulets, belts, runes, etc.

[Dragoonlordz]

Doveberry wrote...

Imagine my surprise and happiness when I found, in ME2, that I did not need to cheat or look to mods for my crew to have good looking outfits that suited their personality. It may sound silly, but for me this has always been a lot of work, ever since BG2. Though I expect that those who are not as hellbent as I on having their companions look fashionable may see this as something negative.

Personally, I am thrilled.

What on earth gave you the idea the default armour your companions pick will be "good looking"?

But Selene what about the next step they may take, from now on you have no control over your campanions during battle because they are independant people with their own minds so now not only will you not change the way they look or how they do things or what they do but we have decided this is no longer a party based game it's a single player one with npcs following you around when they feel like it and doing what they want. Welcome to the new world of DA where it has gone from party based RPG to single player RPG and final destination = Darksiders (oh wait! already is a Darksiders.. Meh the players wont mind as long as we get them to that stage with small enough changes over long enough time they won't realise it happening until its too late).

And Alan -.- even though your comments made me think "ugh.." I'll reply to your point. Customisation is not better in DA2 from any possible standpoint + I did pick armours for the way they looked because at certain point in game your character becomes strong enough to not need the most UBER of gear all the time in which case frees you up for some vanity options such as in DA:O fighting Logain while wearing nothing but sword and noble dress or even naked as example to further push the humiliation on him of not only being beaten by a girl but a kaed one at that or one without heavy armour, even using just fists slapping him to death naked.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 07 mars 2011 - 11:14 .

[randName]

AlanC9 wrote...

randName wrote...

If it isn't less tactical, how is it "dumbing down"?

DA2 isn't less tactical from what I've seen, the armour part is.

There wasn't very much thought about which armor to use. There was a lot of clicking around to see exacly what the armor set bonuses were, but not much thought once you knew them.

But I agree it's about the total aproach to customization. Since customization is better in DA2... what's the issue, really? Just that you don't get the customization from different gear. I see this as a good thing. YMMV.

I would for example keep around a set of Wade dragon skin for my Rogue and a set of Wade Plate for my tank; I would use these when I would set rooms on a blaze, or the enemy would. I would in some fights prefer my tank in plate, as heavy as possible, and in the next fight doing damage, and not soaking damage, was the issue the very same character would dress in cloth or light leather Armour to get more out of her/his stamina.

I understand that this is tiresome, esp. on Normal, or even hard, but I find it a challenge not to do these things on some of the fights on Nightmare, esp. using the mods I did that further improves enemies and their numbers.

Maybe DA2 will allow you to go from heavy plate to cloth using upgrades, but I have my doubts, and even if they do, will there be options to go to a leather with fire resits, to one with something else entirely, and then to plate?

[joriandrake]

AlanC9 wrote...

randName wrote...

If it isn't less tactical, how is it "dumbing down"?

DA2 isn't less tactical from what I've seen, the armour part is.

There wasn't very much thought about which armor to use. There was a lot of clicking around to see exacly what the armor set bonuses were, but not much thought once you knew them.

But I agree it's about the total aproach to customization. Since customization is better in DA2... what's the issue, really? Just that you don't get the customization from different gear. I see this as a good thing. YMMV.

Wait a minute, how exactly is customization better in DA2?
To begin with they removed the ability of the players to decide the race of the character, then they removed various types of characters (proper archers or dual wielding warriors come to mind), also as far I know you can't even equip armor on mages either by now, if anything customization is far less in DA2 than in DA1, and this is not just about visual customization as you see.

[randName]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

IMHO...

While I enjoy being able to provide armor for my companions, it simply makes sense that they decide what they wear for armor instead of what I as a player may dictate.

I look at it this way, the companions are supposed to be sentient beings and can decide for themselves what best suits them, or is otherwise acceptable to them, and I am happy enough with being able to provide them with additional items that they can use, be it rings, amulets, belts, runes, etc.

If we were going down town for a beer, I'd be all with you; but if we are going into a fight under the assumption that this is life and death, I would never work with people who wouldn't adapt their gear to the group; esp. since I would do everything to adapt mine to theirs.

EDIT: There is a mod for FONV that I really like, and it makes your followers/companions change back to their default clothing when they are at rest. I really prefer them to wear their personal clothes/armour outside of the field, but once on its an other matter.

Modifié par randName, 07 mars 2011 - 11:06 .

[PsychoWARD23]

I thought this was common knowledge for weeks now?

[randName]

joriandrake wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

randName wrote...

If it isn't less tactical, how is it "dumbing down"?

DA2 isn't less tactical from what I've seen, the armour part is.

There wasn't very much thought about which armor to use. There was a lot of clicking around to see exacly what the armor set bonuses were, but not much thought once you knew them.

But I agree it's about the total aproach to customization. Since customization is better in DA2... what's the issue, really? Just that you don't get the customization from different gear. I see this as a good thing. YMMV.

Wait a minute, how exactly is customization better in DA2?
To begin with they removed the ability of the players to decide the race of the character, then they removed various types of characters (proper archers or dual wielding warriors come to mind), also as far I know you can't even equip armor on mages either by now, if anything customization is far less in DA2 than in DA1, and this is not just about visual customization as you see.

It was a theoretical play, its not to my knowlage, but it could be; we have many been arguing that its not, but if it is then most of what I say is moot and redundant when it comes to DA2.

[XX55XX]

So this means that Varric will never be able to carry a sword?

That needs some modding.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Not in ME1. The main quest is supposed to be urgent. Shepard shouldn't be wasting his time on most of that crap.

Depends on Shepard.

In my first attempt to play the game, I designed Shepard as a sort of absent-minded professor.

Though, the voice broke that design pretty much immediately.

Meh... TES games alwys bore me.

I certainly didn't enjoy Morrowind or Oblivion.  I didn't like the combat system at all.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 mars 2011 - 11:08 .

[randName]

XX55XX wrote...

So this means that Varric will never be able to carry a sword?

That needs some modding.

If I'll ever use Varric, he would need modding yes.