286 réponses à ce sujet

[marcbenigni]

It seems to me that the common denominator with all of the divisive changes boils down to a console, main-character-centric style of game play versus the (traditionally PC) party-centric style of game play. Everything about DA2 seems to cater to the fact that properly playing the entire party is a bit of a handful on a console controller - by way of making the experience of customizing and strategizing with the rest of the party more or less superfluous.

If you're a console player who had run through DA:O on a relatively easy setting, focused on driving your favorite (presumably primary) character, and letting the rest just do their thing per default tactics (or maybe even tactics you put a lot of thought into... once in a while) then having inventory simplified and combat sped up and dramatized might seem like very good things. (I would argue that these people never saw the best of DA:O in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.) If you'd played DA:O anything like I did, however, you'd probably feel that the sequel is SEVERELY crippled, to the point where it is scarcely even a game anymore.

As to who's right and who's wrong - nobody I guess. But 2 points that I think are essentially objective are these:

1. DA2, like DA:O, *is* a party-based game, and nothing has been done to play to the strengths of that genre. If I want to play a single player game with NPC henchmen running around making noise, I can find a better action game any day of the week.  I certainly wouldn't have been out shopping for "Dragon Age" in the first place.

2. Anybody who bought this for PC was cheated pretty badly. The game is less visceral - and therefore presumably less fun - when you're clicking a mouse button, and the things that should have been improved in terms of control and view a) are not and are not relevant in DA2 anyway.

To top it all off PC games can't be sold back, and they're not any cheaper than their console counterparts. All of which leaves a really bad taste for me as a former PC-only gamer who still expects certain genres to benefit on the PC. I just can't justify the risk anymore. To think that I almost bought a graphics card for this game!!!

As it is I'm in $60 and I'm pretty close to quitting the game. I can't let it suck up good hours in addition to good money if it's not going to present any intelligent gameplay - even if I do personally like the voice acting and the piecemeal story on occasion.

Modifié par marcbenigni, 16 mars 2011 - 03:38 .

[ben gilman]

Saw this thread mentioned on RPGWatch, if it's any consolation I'm happy with shorter development cycles (= more games) with a few compromises and I'm also fairly forgiving of a bit of trial & error and listening to (the less hysterical) gamer feedback to get it right.

In terms of my feedback:

Companion armour - I was a bit annoyed but can see that it probably saves a lot of graphics time once I thought about it so happy with this

Re-use of dungeons - I can live with it, slightly immersion breaking but not overwhelmingly so. I would say that you should take that little bit of extra time to properly wall off the unused bits each time and to truncate the map, I spent a bit of time on the first few dungeons wondering why I couldn't get in places

Streamlined gifting - like this, the minigame of trying to guess what presents companions wanted was annoying

Change to companion relations - like the fact that you no longer need to smarm them to get the bonuses

Streamlined potions - liked this, hated the cluttered inventory with dozens of slight variations

Streamlined crafting - again all good, well worth doing in my view

Removal of speech skills - happy enough with this, I always felt obliged to max up early and glad not to have to waste skill points

Forced choice of character - never seen why people can get so worked up on this. The start was less immersive though, I liked the origins stories last time, but fine now I'm into it and like the more personal mechanic now I've started to identify a bit.

Various skill / gameplay changes - broadly happy with this, find the cross class combos require a bit more micromanagement than I like though, keep getting enemies in states and then finding that people are in cooldown on the talents I'd need to capitalise on it. If I can do combos with the one character then it's easier to plan. Like the fact that all classes can get involved though. Like the scope to upgrade skills too. Some of the balance is a bit off though, there's some useless skills and some nerfing from DAO. Never replay games though so can live with a lack of balance. I miss the need to avoid friendly fire (too much of a wuss for nightmare) but can live without it. Needed to go up to hard as normal was way too easy. Streamlined injury system's good too. Overall combat pace is fast but manageable now that I'm into it. Greater distinction between warrior & rogue is good. Greater vulnerability of mages is good. Waves of enemies is probably a bit over-used for my taste though. Taking longer to really get the benefit out of flanking for my rogue, but suspect that I need to use the threat management a bit better.

Story / voice acting - kept the focus here which is why I play the games, so happy with that.

Can't think of much else really . . . I'd be really interested to hear what other compromises got made in development and what the benefits were from a developer perspective from some of the compromises made. I'd love to say that most gamers would be rational enough to appreciate honest communication about trade-offs but I fear I'm in the minority.

[Shadow250000]

I didn't take the time to look through all 10 pages here, so if someone has said this already, just ignore me.
I for one think the companion armor was a good idea, as:
1. you don't have to go looking for new armor for ALL your companions, keep it up to date, etc.
and 2: as it says in the loading screen, why should YOU control what your companions, who are willingly offering to help you, should wear?
Picture this in....ME1 let's say.

Shepard: Liara! I need you to wear this new armor I bought, it's essential if we are going to take down that group of geth when we land on that planet.
Liara: But Shepard, I'm quite comfortable in the armor I am wearing now
Shepard: There's no time liara! I need you to wear the armor.
Liara: But Shepard, there isn't anywhere to change in this shuttle. (I KNOW THE SHUTTLE IS IN ME2 SHUT UP)
Shepard: We are going to land any minute Liara, just change here!
Liara: But-
Shepard: That's an order! *prepares to oggle*

Doesn't sound very realistic to me. (except if shepard was a perv but still)

The companion armor also allows them to make it so more armor drops for your profession.

[grregg]

Lord Coake wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

You can find armour upgrades for Fenris that "would be perfect for Fenris." All games have limitations. We can't cater to every individual's imagination.

Thats a laod, and you know it.  I seem to remember being able to skill up Leliana as a dual-daggar Assassin/Duelist in mudium armor for some reason.  Or turn Wynne into a sword-and-board magic war machine decked out in full plate.  Or Alistair into a two-handed fighter.  Surely, I must be imagining things, as all of this is ovbiously impossible.

Oh.  Wait.

Let me rephrse this for you, for greater accuracy in your statement.  "We can't creative flexibility and cater to the lowest common denominator of the gaming world at the same time, so stop complaining."

That's a laod indeed. Sorry, couldn't resist.

The thing about being able to fully customize other NPCs is that it makes them less of a character on their own. If Wynne, who is quite against blood magic, can be configured into a blood mage without any fuss whatsoever, then the game is essentially treating your party members, not as independent individuals with their own views, but as a mobile weapons platforms to be modded to specification.

In other words, it's a conflict between the story/characters/lore and the gameplay. There's plenty of them in any game out there, but I do appreciate efforts to minimize them.

Now, if you are into full, total party customization, the the changes between DA:O and DA2 are no doubt detrimental. I understand, playing with dolls is always fun, ages 1 to 99+. However I prefer (and I stress that is is a purely personal preference) when games attempt to present NPCs as independent individuals and I think DA2 is way better in that respect than DA:O. From what I've seen so far anyway.

[marcbenigni]

Now, if you are into full, total party customization, the the changes between DA:O and DA2 are no doubt detrimental. I understand, playing with dolls is always fun, ages 1 to 99+. However I prefer (and I stress that is is a purely personal preference) when games attempt to present NPCs as independent individuals and I think DA2 is way better in that respect than DA:O. From what I've seen so far anyway.

Good points grregg - and good job with understanding that there's an element of personal preference here.

I think the reason so many of us feel cheated is that all of the games that have led up to this title have been party-based RPGs, and this game is ostensibly a party-based RPG. When you peek behind the curtain though, you find that there's not much going on in this sense. It really wants to be a single-character RPG with NPC "friends" for the most part. It's easy to get a sense of bait and switch.

[enhancedhpb]

Shadow250000 wrote...

I didn't take the time to look through all 10 pages here, so if someone has said this already, just ignore me.
I for one think the companion armor was a good idea, as:
1. you don't have to go looking for new armor for ALL your companions, keep it up to date, etc.
and 2: as it says in the loading screen, why should YOU control what your companions, who are willingly offering to help you, should wear?
Picture this in....ME1 let's say.

Shepard: Liara! I need you to wear this new armor I bought, it's essential if we are going to take down that group of geth when we land on that planet.
Liara: But Shepard, I'm quite comfortable in the armor I am wearing now
Shepard: There's no time liara! I need you to wear the armor.
Liara: But Shepard, there isn't anywhere to change in this shuttle. (I KNOW THE SHUTTLE IS IN ME2 SHUT UP)
Shepard: We are going to land any minute Liara, just change here!
Liara: But-
Shepard: That's an order! *prepares to oggle*

Doesn't sound very realistic to me. (except if shepard was a perv but still)

The companion armor also allows them to make it so more armor drops for your profession.

In that scenerio, to order a companion to wear a certain armor is more realistic than a companion wearing the exact same armor for years. Besides realism doesn't matter much when talking about armor. For example: How is it possible that Varric's leather duster can have a much higher armor rating than heavy plate armor?

Modifié par enhancedhpb, 16 mars 2011 - 03:52 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

ROD525 wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

ZDProletariat wrote...

I enjoy this change. I enjoy customization as much as the next guy, but it gets ridiculous when you have an entire dungeon worth of items that you need to equip for four different characters, some overlapping.
Then when you finally get done getting them all equipped with the marginally better equipment, you realize Morrigan is wearing the most horribly ugly hat you've ever seen, and sten looks like a walking brick with steel girders. You are forced to mismatch just to wear the best gear until you get the late game gear sets.

In DA2, they just wear their cool looking outfits! It's fine! It's cool! If you still want to customize ugly different items, you still have Hawke!
People will complain about anything, won't they?

YES I agree with this! People need to realize it is also NOT realistic to be dressing up your partner, and scavenging the earth for countless items.....I mean, where DO you store all of that?!

But its "realistic" to pick your partners stats and abilitys but not their armor........OK.
 

Precisely, I'd think. Just thinking about how DA2 would have been received if auto-leveling for party members was no longer "just an option"...

Thinking further, I was just recalling how Alister looked kind of silly standing at camp with his Juggernaut suit and helm on. Maybe at camp he could wear something based on his personality, and in combat something with more armor, things that we loot over the course of the game? Of course, you could just swap them out at camp, but there would be the issue of that unique personality thing.

The issue to me seems to be simply one of what one gets to wear in combat vs. otherwise.

[MichaelFinnegan]

marcbenigni wrote...

Now, if you are into full, total party customization, the the changes between DA:O and DA2 are no doubt detrimental. I understand, playing with dolls is always fun, ages 1 to 99+. However I prefer (and I stress that is is a purely personal preference) when games attempt to present NPCs as independent individuals and I think DA2 is way better in that respect than DA:O. From what I've seen so far anyway.

Good points grregg - and good job with understanding that there's an element of personal preference here.

I think the reason so many of us feel cheated is that all of the games that have led up to this title have been party-based RPGs, and this game is ostensibly a party-based RPG. When you peek behind the curtain though, you find that there's not much going on in this sense. It really wants to be a single-character RPG with NPC "friends" for the most part. It's easy to get a sense of bait and switch.

I'm new to RPG. Started off with ME2, which made me curious about ME1. Played that and went back and replayed ME2. Got more curious. Played DA:O, next. Fascinated with it, I looked around more and found out about some of the older Bioware RPG titles like BG2 and KOTOR. I have bought both recently and am yet to play them. I know it's all kind of backwards...

Anyway, my point being, I'm a bit curious about this "party-based" RPG thing. I think I get what this role-playing thing is about. But in party-based games like DA:O, I get to do something like "assuming control" and voila I'm either Shale or Leliana in combat and jumping around all the time. What was the motivation behind this style of gameplay?

I have read about the pen-and-paper games where several people collaborate and play, making for a kind of social/interactive experience. When I fired up BG2, I saw that upto 6 people (7 including me) could do a multiplayer style gameplay (exactly the same as the number of characters who could tag along with you). Did this have something to do with the kind of CRPG game that DA:O is (albeit without multiplayer)? It just retains some of the elements from those earlier games?

This is anyway kind of off topic. Asking this just out of mere interest.

[grregg]

marcbenigni wrote...

Now, if you are into full, total party customization, the the changes between DA:O and DA2 are no doubt detrimental. I understand, playing with dolls is always fun, ages 1 to 99+. However I prefer (and I stress that is is a purely personal preference) when games attempt to present NPCs as independent individuals and I think DA2 is way better in that respect than DA:O. From what I've seen so far anyway.

Good points grregg - and good job with understanding that there's an element of personal preference here.

I think the reason so many of us feel cheated is that all of the games that have led up to this title have been party-based RPGs, and this game is ostensibly a party-based RPG. When you peek behind the curtain though, you find that there's not much going on in this sense. It really wants to be a single-character RPG with NPC "friends" for the most part. It's easy to get a sense of bait and switch.

I do understand people being disappointed with DA2, sure. If all you wanted for Christmas was DA:O 2 and instead you got DA2, I can see how that could be a problem. An extra letter and a colon are important after all.

However, I don't quite understand the feeling of being cheated and the sense of bait and switch as you put it. I think BioWare was quite clear in explaining the changes they were making. Let me put it that way, I was mildly disappointed with DA:O and if I had thought DA2 was going to be more of the same, I would not have bought it (just as I skipped Awakening). It was precisely BioWare's explanations of the forthcoming changes that got me interested again, and accidentally prompted me to finally finish DA:O.

So again, disappointed I understand, frustrated, cheated, baited-and-switched not quite. But, feelings being what they are, there's probably not much point in trying to convince someone that they shouldn't feel what they feel.

Modifié par grregg, 16 mars 2011 - 07:22 .

[marcbenigni]

Well, I've been called on this again and again - Bioware made it clear that things were changing. I get that. But no one can deny that in all of their press releases Bioware tried to have their cake and eat it too. There were indications the game would be faster, more visceral, more cinematic, and so on, but there were also assurances that the combat would remain tactical and intelligent. The latter in particular is somewhat subjective, but in my own opinion they simply didn't deliver.

So yes, I'm kind of left holding the bag, in that all of the readily verifiable changes were changes that were documented in interviews etc. Nevertheless, some of the more abstract, overarching promises came up empty, at least from where I'm standing.

But hey, it's $60. It's not the first game I've bought, disliked, and promptly shelved. I'm just amazed this one said Dragon Age on the box.

Modifié par marcbenigni, 16 mars 2011 - 08:15 .

[marcbenigni]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I'm new to RPG. Started off with ME2, which made me curious about ME1. Played that and went back and replayed ME2. Got more curious. Played DA:O, next. Fascinated with it, I looked around more and found out about some of the older Bioware RPG titles like BG2 and KOTOR. I have bought both recently and am yet to play them. I know it's all kind of backwards...

Anyway, my point being, I'm a bit curious about this "party-based" RPG thing. I think I get what this role-playing thing is about. But in party-based games like DA:O, I get to do something like "assuming control" and voila I'm either Shale or Leliana in combat and jumping around all the time. What was the motivation behind this style of gameplay?

I have read about the pen-and-paper games where several people collaborate and play, making for a kind of social/interactive experience. When I fired up BG2, I saw that upto 6 people (7 including me) could do a multiplayer style gameplay (exactly the same as the number of characters who could tag along with you). Did this have something to do with the kind of CRPG game that DA:O is (albeit without multiplayer)? It just retains some of the elements from those earlier games?

This is anyway kind of off topic. Asking this just out of mere interest.

Hey Mike,

If you're relatively new to RPGs, then my best advice would be to play DA:O.  The distinctions I'm making will present themselves pretty clearly, moreso if you play on PC.  It's less a matter of being able to select a given character and then run around playing that character - in fact both DA:O and DA:2 allow for this.  It's more about being able to step back (or specifically, zoom out) and maintain a grasp of the party's behavior as a whole. 

There's a lot of depth to understanding how characters should interact relative to the enemy, the environment, and one another in light of their class/individual strengths and weakness.  In shifting more toward a fast-pace action game, DA2 has necessarily brought the focus closer to an individual character at any moment in time, and thereby lost focus on much of that depth.  This led to the subsequent need to make combat arbitrarily "difficult" (or at least more time-consuming) by way of random respawns, which IMO put the nail in the coffin - in so far as playing tactically is now pretty well moot even if you do try to work within the limitations of the new view, pace, etc.

Modifié par marcbenigni, 16 mars 2011 - 08:13 .

[grregg]

marcbenigni wrote...

Well, I've been called on this again and again - Bioware made it clear that things were changing. I get that. But no one can deny that in all of their press release Bioware tried to have their cake and eat it too. There were indications the game would be faster, more visceral, more cinematic, and so on, but there were also assurances that the combat would remain tactical and intelligent. The latter in particular is somewhat subjective, but in my own opinion they simply didn't deliver.

So yes, I'm kind of left holding the bag, in that all of the readily verifiable changes were changes that were documented in interviews etc. Nevertheless, some of the more abstract, overarching promises came up empty, at least from where I'm standing.

(...)

That's where I have to confess to not having read the rest of this thread. Sorry, I didn't mean to repeat what other guys have said already. As I said, if you feel cheated, then you feel cheated, not much point in trying to argue about that.

There's one thing that I would like to ask about though. What is it that's missing that makes the combat less "tactical and intelligent"? So far I actually find DA2 combat more tactical than DA:O. I didn't enjoy DA:O that much so maybe I didn't investigate far enough and missed something. Also, I played DA:O on Hard and DA2 on Nightmare, so maybe the difference stems from there.

[marcbenigni]

That's where I have to confess to not having read the rest of this thread. Sorry, I didn't mean to repeat what other guys have said already. As I said, if you feel cheated, then you feel cheated, not much point in trying to argue about that.

No problem. It's something that's come up in several threads, actually, not so many times in this one. And it's a valid point.

There's one thing that I would like to ask about though. What is it that's missing that makes the combat less "tactical and intelligent"? So far I actually find DA2 combat more tactical than DA:O. I didn't enjoy DA:O that much so maybe I didn't investigate far enough and missed something. Also, I played DA:O on Hard and DA2 on Nightmare, so maybe the difference stems from there.

Well, there are several elements to this, and in some ways it's hard to put my finger on it. Some things are more obvious, like the respawning enemies. It's pretty blatant that if a battle lasts for a completely arbitrary duration and you have no means of judging this in advance, then you're not adequately appraised of the situation to really work out a plan. But this isn't the worst of it.  Because enemies spawn in arbitrary locations, i.e. not signposted by environment or "parent" enemies, you're unable to position your characters intelligently. This is a bread-and-butter component of party-based RPG combat, keeping your mages out of harm's way, your archers in line-of-sight, your tanks up close, your rogues flanking and backstabbing... all of those strategies are lost in the hectic fray.  (There are clear indicators that Bioware saw this: for instance, backstabbing isn't really backstabbing anymore, rogues and fighters blip across the playfield at ludicrous - essentially teleporting - speeds, and so on.  Even the elimination of friendly fire on Normal and Hard mode is an obvious repercussion of this problem. Traditional maneuvering is entirely out the window.)

Now this is where *I* have to confess, I have not tried Nightmare mode yet, I've played with a combination of Hard and Normal. I suppose I'll try Nightmare the next time I find time for the game, and see what I see. But for the reasons cited, I don't expect the battles to be a whole lot deeper - harder, definitely, but not necessarily more fun. There's simply an element of intention missing.

And on Normal, heck, the game doesn't even need me along for the ride. It made that pretty clear from the off, really, by not giving me a practical way to switch from a ranged to melee weapon with my rogue.  I literally click the red, and wait.

Modifié par marcbenigni, 16 mars 2011 - 09:04 .

[grregg]

marcbenigni wrote...

(...)

Well, there are several elements to this, and in some ways it's hard to put my finger on it. Some things are more obvious, like the respawning enemies. It's pretty blatant that if a battle lasts for a completely arbitrary duration and you have no means of judging this in advance, then you're not adequately appraised of the situation to really work out a plan. But this isn't the worst of it.  Because enemies spawn in arbitrary locations, i.e. not signposted by environment or "parent" enemies, you're unable to position your characters intelligently. This is a bread-and-butter component of party-based RPG combat, keeping your mages out of harm's way, your archers in line-of-sight, your tanks up close, your rogues flanking and backstabbing... all of those strategies are lost in the hectic fray.  (There are clear indicators that Bioware saw this: for instance, backstabbing isn't really backstabbing anymore, rogues and fighters blip across the playfield at ludicrous - essentially teleporting - speeds, and so on.  Even the elimination of friendly fire on Normal and Hard mode is an obvious repercussion of this problem. Traditional maneuvering is entirely out the window.)

Now this is where *I* have to confess, I have not tried Nightmare mode yet, I've played with a combination of Hard and Normal. I suppose I'll try Nightmare the next time I find time for the game, and see what I see. But for the reasons cited, I don't expect the battles to be a whole lot deeper - harder, definitely, but not necessarily more fun. There's simply an element of intention missing.

And on Normal, heck, the game doesn't even need me along for the ride. It made that pretty clear from the off, really, by not giving me a practical way to switch from a ranged to melee weapon with my rogue.  I literally click the red, and wait.

After I played the demo on Normal, I decided that I'll start the game on Nightmare. So far it's been fun.

I'm not sure why you dislike the respawning. Sure, the newly spawned enemies upset one's carefully laid tactical plans, but hey, updating your tactics on the fly is just part of the trade. Makes for more interesting gameplay, I'd say. And I'd also think that it promotes maneuvering, on Nightmare you better move or your mages/archers are going to get stun-locked to death by the next wave of enemies (yay for the force mechanic).

The closing attacks make positioning somewhat easier, but not to the point where it is pointless. Or so it seems to me...

[Shadowcrazy4]

Stanley Woo wrote...

You can find armour upgrades for Fenris that "would be perfect for Fenris." All games have limitations. We can't cater to every individual's imagination.

so why did you cater to the 30% of people that DIDN'T like dragon age and that awesome feature that was in origins? why DIDN'T you listen to the 70% of us who loved DA:O regardless of FEW flaws that wouldn't take a year to fix....

....I don't understand big game companies...now I don't care anymore

[Schneidend]

Venefica wrote...

Um...you did it in DAO

DAO also had separate models of each armor type for each playable race PLUS qunari. That's a lot of effort.

You can't compare a game with an epic huge dev cycle to one that was out in two years.

[Salaciouschicken]

ZDProletariat wrote...

I enjoy this change. I enjoy customization as much as the next guy, but it gets ridiculous when you have an entire dungeon worth of items that you need to equip for four different characters, some overlapping.
Then when you finally get done getting them all equipped with the marginally better equipment, you realize Morrigan is wearing the most horribly ugly hat you've ever seen, and sten looks like a walking brick with steel girders. You are forced to mismatch just to wear the best gear until you get the late game gear sets.

In DA2, they just wear their cool looking outfits! It's fine! It's cool! If you still want to customize ugly different items, you still have Hawke!
People will complain about anything, won't they?

They could have fixed all that without losing the ability to customize your companions. And for all those saying "it's so unrealistic to be able to tell your companions what to wear," You really need to...think for a second or something. So....frustrating. You can tell your companions what weapons to use, you can tell them when to down potions as well, you can swap them in and out of your party as well. It's a game, and customization is a part many enjoy. Bioware did not take it out because it was "unrealistic," they took it out because it would have taken too much time to implement, so your point is invalid. And horribly, horribly irritating.

[MichaelFinnegan]

marcbenigni wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I'm new to RPG. Started off with ME2, which made me curious about ME1. Played that and went back and replayed ME2. Got more curious. Played DA:O, next. Fascinated with it, I looked around more and found out about some of the older Bioware RPG titles like BG2 and KOTOR. I have bought both recently and am yet to play them. I know it's all kind of backwards...

Anyway, my point being, I'm a bit curious about this "party-based" RPG thing. I think I get what this role-playing thing is about. But in party-based games like DA:O, I get to do something like "assuming control" and voila I'm either Shale or Leliana in combat and jumping around all the time. What was the motivation behind this style of gameplay?

I have read about the pen-and-paper games where several people collaborate and play, making for a kind of social/interactive experience. When I fired up BG2, I saw that upto 6 people (7 including me) could do a multiplayer style gameplay (exactly the same as the number of characters who could tag along with you). Did this have something to do with the kind of CRPG game that DA:O is (albeit without multiplayer)? It just retains some of the elements from those earlier games?

This is anyway kind of off topic. Asking this just out of mere interest.

Hey Mike,

If you're relatively new to RPGs, then my best advice would be to play DA:O.  The distinctions I'm making will present themselves pretty clearly, moreso if you play on PC.  It's less a matter of being able to select a given character and then run around playing that character - in fact both DA:O and DA:2 allow for this.  It's more about being able to step back (or specifically, zoom out) and maintain a grasp of the party's behavior as a whole. 

There's a lot of depth to understanding how characters should interact relative to the enemy, the environment, and one another in light of their class/individual strengths and weakness.  In shifting more toward a fast-pace action game, DA2 has necessarily brought the focus closer to an individual character at any moment in time, and thereby lost focus on much of that depth.  This led to the subsequent need to make combat arbitrarily "difficult" (or at least more time-consuming) by way of random respawns, which IMO put the nail in the coffin - in so far as playing tactically is now pretty well moot even if you do try to work within the limitations of the new view, pace, etc.

Hey.

Thanks for getting into the explanation. I appreciate it.

Yes, I do play on the PC. I know what you mean about the isometic camera view. It does give a better perspective to what's going on and to plan on the next steps. As you just said.

I suppose it's not so much about how quick you are; perhaps it was not meant to be so. Seems to be the whole reason why a pause and play combat approach was designed, and why each of the characters are selectable during combat - it's not so much about speed.

I haven't completed DA:O, yet. Plan on getting into BG2 when I'm done with it. Perhaps I will play DA2, but not just yet. (I have played the demo though.)

[marcbenigni]

I'm not sure why you dislike the respawning. Sure, the newly spawned enemies upset one's carefully laid tactical plans, but hey, updating your tactics on the fly is just part of the trade. Makes for more interesting gameplay, I'd say. And I'd also think that it promotes maneuvering, on Nightmare you better move or your mages/archers are going to get stun-locked to death by the next ave of enemies (yay for the force mechanic).

If there were any rhyme or reason as to where the enemies respawned (as was actually true of certain battles in DA:O), then I might be able to get behind that, but as it is it just feels like a bunch of sprites running around with their heads cut off. I will at some point give Nightmare a chance, but in the meantime I guess I'll just agree to disagree. I really appreciate that we've been able to discuss this intelligently, at least.

Just out of curiosity, did you play these games on PC or console?

Modifié par marcbenigni, 17 mars 2011 - 02:41 .

[marcbenigni]

I suppose it's not so much about how quick you are; perhaps it was not meant to be so. Seems to be the whole reason why a pause and play combat approach was designed, and why each of the characters are selectable during combat - it's not so much about speed.

Agree to that. Well, actually it's meant to cater to both sorts of players - the players who would rather pause and make strategic calls, and those who would rather action through.  For the former, the problems (with DA2) are two-fold: 1) even when paused, the camera and targeting reticule are a PITA, and 2) even having paused and finally having gotten a workable view on the proceedings, they tend to be so random as to make that much consideration a waste of your time. (Acknowledging that a lot of people disagree with me here, e.g. grregg.)

Good discussion though. I regret that it wound up in this thread, where it's largely off-topic, versus in the "combat is repulsive" thread that seems to be permanently on page 1 of this forum.

Modifié par marcbenigni, 17 mars 2011 - 02:09 .

[Veracruz]

Stanley Woo wrote...

You can find armour upgrades for Fenris that "would be perfect for Fenris." All games have limitations. We can't cater to every individual's imagination.

I don't mind the "locked" outfits/armors. At least not too much.

But I wonder:
a) if you can have Hawke's appearence (3d model) locked while still having access to armor slots in the inventory.
and
as I have understood it, having the companions with the same 3d model always had as one of the reasons to have them keep their visual identity.

Why not lock the 3d model of the companions but keep their armor slots like Hawke's? The system is there so from my outsider (and therefore ignorant)  point of view, it shouldn't be so expensive to implement it for companions. Time maybe?

As I said, I don't mind the system used so I only ask out of curiosity about the design/implementation process that lead to it. If it has already been explained to sickening detail, feel free to provide link.

[terrordactyl1]

Isabella can't be an archer, it's impossible to stretch a bow across those huge ******.

[Tirigon]

terrordactyl1 wrote...

Isabella can't be an archer, it's impossible to stretch a bow across those huge ******.

Then she should get  a new skill tree "****** fight" with skills such as
"****** bump: Isabella punches her enemy across the head with her enormous bosom, damaging him and stunning him for 5 seconds. If he survives this time he will be madly in love with Isabella and follow her as lapdog for the rest of the game"

[MichaelFinnegan]

marcbenigni wrote...

I suppose it's not so much about how quick you are; perhaps it was not meant to be so. Seems to be the whole reason why a pause and play combat approach was designed, and why each of the characters are selectable during combat - it's not so much about speed.

Agree to that. Well, actually it's meant to cater to both sorts of players - the players who would rather pause and make strategic calls, and those who would rather action through.  For the former, the problems (with DA2) are two-fold: 1) even when paused, the camera and targeting reticule are a PITA, and 2) even having paused and finally having gotten a workable view on the proceedings, they tend to be so random as to make that much consideration a waste of your time. (Acknowledging that a lot of people disagree with me here, e.g. grregg.)

Yes, that's true, I guess. It's usually somewhere between the two. Form a strategy and then watch how it unfolds, and then repeat. A sort of constant feedback until you're done. Some people prefer not to pause at all; as I did in ME2 (used pause very sparingly anyway). Seemed kind of natural there to do that, with the cover-based combat, with the way some of the skills were designed (charge and cloak come readily to mind), and all that. But in DA:O, I somehow felt it more natural to pause and play in most cases (actually a kind of new one to me, which I confess I enjoyed very much).

I've heard that combat in BG2 is a bit more complicated, strategy/tactics-wise, compared with DA:O. I haven't played it yet to know why that is exactly so. But, let's say that some improvement were indeed really needed for DA:O, what would that have been? I've heard Mike Laidlaw claim in one of the interviews that the spell cast-time of mages, for example, was a bit slow to form any realistic strategies in battle (because what you would have intended would not usually be what you'd get, because of the delay), and so he wanted to improve on that.

I know that the answer would be subjective, but maybe there are some things that many thought did indeed need some improvement. Like say improvements to the enemy and frendly AI. And definitely more options on the tactics slots, maybe a logical AND/ORing of conditions across tactics. Also felt the switching of weapons from melee to ranged for NPCs was broken for the most part - even getting it to work correctly (approximately as you intended) would consume more slots than necessary.

Regarding your point about random enemy respawns in DA2, I agree. I know where that would cause problems for stragegic combat. Maybe, you know, instead of random (and illogical) respawnings of waves and waves of enemies, the position of the enemies at the start of battle could itself be randomized, so that there could be more of a replay value - you get jumped the first time in a different way.

Yes, I too felt removing the isometric camera was a bad thing. It is a step back, however I look at it. It has essentially removed a whole gameplay mode.

The teleporting of rogues, esp. for backstabs, looked kinda cool the first time when I played the demo, but mostly it felt unsatisfactory and kinda unreal (even for a fantasy game!).

Good discussion though. I regret that it wound up in this thread, where it's largely off-topic, versus in the "combat is repulsive" thread that seems to be permanently on page 1 of this forum.

Agreed. But such is the nature of debates/discussions. You start something and it usually branches off in all kinds of directions, with some going nowhere at all. Hopefully, a branch somewhere would catch somone's intended direction. 

[grregg]

marcbenigni wrote...

(...)

If there were any rhyme or reason as to where the enemies respawned (as was actually true of certain battles in DA:O), then I might be able to get behind that, but as it is it just feels like a bunch of sprites running around with their heads cut off. I will at some point give Nightmare a chance, but in the meantime I guess I'll just agree to disagree. I really appreciate that we've been able to discuss this intelligently, at least.

Just out of curiosity, did you play these games on PC or console?

'These' being DA:O and DA2? PC. Actually I did play DA:O on console as well, I was simply curious what it looks like, but my only full playthrough was on PC.

Funnily enough, I don't mind the unexpected respawns, I think that to provide the challenge they should be unexpected. If I can predict where the next wave is going to be, then it's not much of a tactical problem. Again, I like the fact that Da2 goes out of its way to mess up my carefully laid plans. It would be better if it did that via outstanding tactical AI, but oh well...
I think though that in DA2 BioWare overdid it a bit, to the point that the unexpected appearance of the next wave is actually expected.

Also, I don't mind that they removed the overhead view. If I want a tactical view of the battlefield, I have to get it the old fashioned way, by sending one of my guys to some higher ground so he can take a look. You know the way grandfather Napoleon used to do it.

Modifié par grregg, 17 mars 2011 - 05:56 .