286 réponses à ce sujet

[hawat333]

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.

Really? That's your reason?
I can't imagine how hard it would have been to assign the LadyHawke animations and an archery tree to Isabela? And make the unique talents of companions that they affect both specs?.
Coming to think of it, not that hard.

You were able to give us specs and the ability to assign armors to teammates in the prequel, so that reasoning can go to the trashbin.
Don't get me wrong, I see the reason behind it. The characters have a unique image them, one that fits their personality, etc. But there could have been options for the armors. It takes time and resource but if there were at least five or six armor options created for each companion, you wouldn't have this much complaining about it.
Also, it's a great opportunity for an easter egg in DA3: A wardrobe where Varric stores fourty brown coats.

As for the weapon options, hey, even ME2, the most streamlined BioWare game allows the companions to choose from two weapon types. That's hardly an overwhelming issue which falls under the "catering every individual's imagination" cathegory.

I see you're tired and overwhelmed with all the complaints that burst out here, but the OP in this matter is absolutely right.
Every BioWare game gave us a chance to shape our companions to be complementary to the protagonist. Now I choose companions to take with me who doesn't have the same specs simply because I don't need two tanks. Is it a clever limitation to enhance the gameplay experience or an exciting feature to give the companions more character? I hardly think so. I actually don't bring some people along on my second playthrough, because I don't want to get the very same scenario with the very same setup. I could avoid it in Origins by using Sten with a Shield or Oghren with a crossbow, you get the picture.

Two different weapon specs and five different armor choice per companion, that's what it would have take.

Ok, it is this way now, no way around that, but next time please make a memo that it never hurts to at least give us the illusion of choosing our own setup.

[lsdiskewl]

If you do not have the time to properly make a sequel its probably better for your reputation and bottom line if you do not attempt it.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Just gonna drive-by here.

I support my party not looking like a clown-fest. I'm looking at you, warriors in DA:O.

[MichaelFinnegan]

grregg wrote...

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.

Sorry to barge in on this conversation.

This actually brings something to mind. I have played Metal Gear Solid 4 on PS3 a while ago, and the interesting thing about that game is that it has this similar "unexpected" backup team(s) appearing out of nowhere. And I found some of them tough as nails (nay, even impossible) to beat. But the game provided a way around it. I could for example sneak around the lone sentry/patrol, or put him to sleep, or do a sneak attack + CC on him and take him down, without raising an alert event. Getting detected was more or less - game over on the hardest difficult level, at least for me. Of course, there was always the option to engage them, if one were adventurous enough. I thought it was an interesting kind of combat design.

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.

I would say the issue actually is that the thing has been removed altogether. If someone didn't want to use it, well, then so be it. It's a matter or removal of a gameplay option, IMHO, which is at focus.

And I suppose getting to the higher ground means more additions/changes to the environment design. I think perhaps not so realistic in every combat scenario.

[Pauravi]

corbindallas87 wrote...

Hey I think it would be cool to have Isabela as an archer - Oh wait I can't
..
epic fail BW

So what you're saying is that you think it makes for a better game if you can take a woman whose combat training is defined entirely by being an agile duelist, and who often does battle in close-quarters on board ships, and turn her into an archer?  Bullsh*t.  I think it cheapens her character's individuality.  It makes about as much sense as handing Sten -- a guy whose life literally revolves around melee combat -- a crossbow.

Sure you could do it in DAO if you wanted, but it doesn't make any sense.  Sometimes RPG's are not just about "freedom" to do whatever you want, whenever you want.  Sometimes they are about telling a coherent story with coherent characters.  In fact, I'd argue that they are more about that, but that is just my preference.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Kane-Corr wrote...

It's not an epic fail....If I trained with/used daggers all my life, I obviously haven't used a bow or a shield in combat....so, they spare you the trouble of TRYING to put those things on certain characters. It would be wasted effort for you to do this, and wasted dialogue for the character to say..."No, I don't know how to use this." Causes confusion and stuff....just unnecessary....not mainstream, streamlined....just a different way of doing things.

You don't know how to use a dagger?
What's stoping you from LEARNING?

Characters have no problems picking up different skills...no wait..they do. Apparently Caraver can't learn Sword and Shield...Merril can't learn Spirit...but can learn Elemental?
Exactly WHY?

I can understand is comething is completely contrary to their beliefs or character (like Wynne learning Blood Magic), but this? This is just stupidly restrictive. No flexibility.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

But you could cater to more of them by not adding a bunch of arbitrary limits.

DAO demonstrates that quite nicely.

[BrutaleBent]

I find the the "uniqueness" of the companions quite awesome. Would love to have a few selective outfits though - but I'll take what I can get.

[The Train]

Pauravi wrote...

corbindallas87 wrote...

Hey I think it would be cool to have Isabela as an archer - Oh wait I can't
..
epic fail BW

So what you're saying is that you think it makes for a better game if you can take a woman whose combat training is defined entirely by being an agile duelist, and who often does battle in close-quarters on board ships, and turn her into an archer?  Bullsh*t.  I think it cheapens her character's individuality.  It makes about as much sense as handing Sten -- a guy whose life literally revolves around melee combat -- a crossbow.

Sure you could do it in DAO if you wanted, but it doesn't make any sense.  Sometimes RPG's are not just about "freedom" to do whatever you want, whenever you want.  Sometimes they are about telling a coherent story with coherent characters.  In fact, I'd argue that they are more about that, but that is just my preference.

it makes sense that a 2H warrior will suck at using a bow and arrow or a crossbow.  but if i need sten to use one because the situation we're in calls for it, then he's going to use it.  in DAO i'm the warden and the commander of my ragtag group of misfits.  my companions will learn what i want them to learn because i need them to learn it for whatever is coming our way.  the game even tells you this when it advises you to equip your characters with melee and ranged options.  so please don't try to convince me that it doesn't make sense to hand an NPC a crossbow.  what makes sense is to do what the situation demands.  this is why people with no firearms training pick up guns in zombie movies.

i would argue that anytime you're leading people into battle, it makes sense to tell them, hey, things are different now and you need to learn to shoot if we're going to survive.  and regardless of their finesse with dual weapons, i would think that if they were serious about surviving, any chance to learn an additional combat skill would be welcomed.  but you hit the nail on the head:  this game is more about constraining player choices than the previous game was and this was probably not a choice on the part of BW, it was a concession to a faster dev cycle.

[Nekator]

Ok.. so Mr. Woo states here officially, that one of the main reasons, for the many restrictions, which are one main gripe for most roleplayers, was the short time they had to make DA2?

[sydwaz8]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Galad22 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.

Why must you frustrate people with these sort of comments. You catered in da:o. Limiting peoples choices is annoying and people don't like it. Not all of us anyway.

We may have done a great job by you, Galad22, but we may also have frustrated Joe Gamer over there. If we change things, Joe Gamer is finally satisfied but you, Galad22, are disappointed. If you two have such diverse tastes or preferences in games, then one of you is bound to be disappointed no matter what feture we implement or how we do it. so we can either continue to disappoint but one of you, or we might try to change things so both are disappointed but less so.

The problem with this response is that it is the same argument in favor of No Child Left Behind.  If you accept and only strive for mediocrity then that is the most you will acheive.  By catering to the lowest common denominator you have degraded your product and alienated the core fanbase. 

If you wanted to make a hack and slash, shiny button game then you could have done that and marketed it as Joe Six Pack slaps his wife and watches American Idol.  Instead, you took an original IP that was identifed as an epic fantasy RPG and made it a linear action game while marketing it as the former.  If Ford decides to change the Mustang into a minivan then don't you think they would alienate the core consumers who made the Mustang one of the most famous American cars in history?

[Sylvius the Mad]

sydwaz8 wrote...

If you wanted to make a hack and slash, shiny button game then you could have done that and marketed it as Joe Six Pack slaps his wife and watches American Idol.  Instead, you took an original IP that was identifed as an epic fantasy RPG and made it a linear action game while marketing it as the former.

I'm inclined to suggest they should break up the team.  Have the action-combat designers make one game, and the writers are RPG-mechanic designers make another.

They could even use the same environments.

[Tirigon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

It's not an epic fail....If I trained
with/used daggers all my life, I obviously haven't used a bow or a
shield in combat....so, they spare you the trouble of TRYING to put
those things on certain characters. It would be wasted effort for you to
do this, and wasted dialogue for the character to say..."No, I don't
know how to use this."

You don't know how to use a dagger?
What's stoping you from LEARNING?

Characters have no problems picking up different skills...no wait..they do. Apparently Caraver can't learn Sword and Shield...Merril can't learn Spirit...but can learn Elemental?
Exactly WHY?

I can understand is comething is completely contrary to their beliefs or character (like Wynne learning Blood Magic), but this? This is just stupidly restrictive. No flexibility.

Yea exactly. Especially since characters need to learn their skills AND it´s possible not to level their "special, unique" skills.

Aveline, for example, doesn´t have a single of her special skills in my game and only maxed sword and shield because *I* put points into it. When she joined the party she had like, what, 1 point or so?! in Sword and Shield so the reasoning "practiced this combat style all her life" is pretty much pulled out of your ass, (excuse the harsh words).

The reasoning with "it fits to their personality and they did it all their life" would be correct if you would actually start with an experienced party (at level 20 or so) and not learn anything new in the game, or maybe 1 or 2 moves at most.
Which would, even though it´d suck from a gameplay perspective, actually make much MUCH more sense story-wise.
However, this is not the case. All but 1 or 2 skills per character are learned throughout the game or, if you choose so, are not learned.


Edited to make quotation clearer.

Modifié par Tirigon, 17 mars 2011 - 09:37 .

[Galad22]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sydwaz8 wrote...

If you wanted to make a hack and slash, shiny button game then you could have done that and marketed it as Joe Six Pack slaps his wife and watches American Idol.  Instead, you took an original IP that was identifed as an epic fantasy RPG and made it a linear action game while marketing it as the former.

I'm inclined to suggest they should break up the team.  Have the action-combat designers make one game, and the writers are RPG-mechanic designers make another.

They could even use the same environments.

This is not a bad suggestion, they might make better rpgs like this.

[styx971]

Kane-Corr wrote...

DJBare 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.

"Looks confused"; DA:O did not have these limitations.

Well...DA:O was also a game of less quality in comparison to DA2....low quality graphics and the silent protagonist allow for different characteristics to be strengthened. Plus, they had more time to work on it.

if i have to pick between keeping the good things or geting rid of them in favor of a vioce and better graphics i'd keep the good things  alot of which were removed. 

its not bad to have a vioce sure  but i don't need one on a character thats supost to be me heck look at all the zelda games its been years hes never had a vioce and from something i read probly never will cause it takes away from a persons imagination of how he should sound

[mtripp]

BrutaleBent wrote...

I find the the "uniqueness" of the companions quite awesome. Would love to have a few selective outfits though - but I'll take what I can get.

Oh, you'll get a few selective outfits.... for 400 MS points.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There are already outfit mods. I can't imagine I'd ever pay for companion outfits.

[Tirigon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There are already outfit mods. I can't imagine I'd ever pay for companion outfits.

That probably won´t stop EA-ware from charging for outfits which will likely be of less quality than the ones from mods.....

Still, a game should be good on its own and not only by mods, and console players can´t mod anyways....

[stewie1974]

Have to say this is the only disapointment I have with DA 2 is the lack of customisation available to compainions. I realize the class limitations on equipment maybe such as isabellas character isn't an archer , but as for outfits and armor it would have been nice to retain the ability of the first game to go to different outfits.

Well it's too late now, but prehaps something to consider for the third game as it was definitely left open for a more epic tale.

I'm loving the game otherwise.

DLC arcane warrior prehaps?

Modifié par stewie1974, 17 mars 2011 - 11:36 .

[Jitter]

element eater 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.

but those limitations werent in dao so why did u add them? why would any one add limitations?

What you really need to ask , and im serious , is could you do it in Mass Effect 2 .
If the answer is no , then you have the answer , not because they tried to resemble Mass Effect 2 
but because it IS Mass Effect 2 . 

Ill bet that DA2 reused soooooo much code base from ME2 that it wasn't even an option .
I believe that all they did to make this game was remove cross hairs , and modify textures. 

Under the covers it is ME2 , the whole project was "How can we make ME2 into DragonAge"

If you find a limitation in DA2 , ask yourself .... hummmm could i do that im ME2 ... and if the answer is no . 
You have your answer. 

I never played ME2 ... so someone tell me im wrong.
All the BS in articles about new directions , upgrading , it's all BS .
The truth as far as im concerned is .. all limiting and missing features in DA2 are there ... Because they didn't have the code laying around from ME2 ..PERIOD

Modifié par Jitter, 18 mars 2011 - 02:14 .

[billy the squid]

Jitter wrote...

element eater 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.

but those limitations werent in dao so why did u add them? why would any one add limitations?

What you really need to ask , and im serious , is could you do it in Mass Effect 2 .
If the answer is no , then you have the answer , not because they tried to resemble Mass Effect 2 
but because it IS Mass Effect 2 . 

Ill bet that DA2 reused soooooo much code base from ME2 that it wasn't even an option .
I believe that all they did to make this game was remove cross hairs , and modify textures. 

Under the covers it is ME2 , the whole project was "How can we make ME2 into DragonAge"

If you find a limitation in DA2 , ask yourself .... hummmm could i do that im ME2 ... and if the answer is no . 
You have your answer. 

I never played ME2 ... so someone tell me im wrong.
All the BS in articles about new directions , upgrading , it's all BS .
The truth as far as im concerned is .. all limiting and missing features in DA2 are there ... Because they didn't have the code laying around from ME2 ..PERIOD

QFT

[Senzen Sumnor]

marcbenigni wrote...

Iwasdrunkbro 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.

You could if you didnt strip the freedom that was given to the player in the original game from the sequal. Just sayin' though.

Another one of those "The game you're asking for is an impossibility!" quotes.  Right up there with "What were all the disappointed people expecting??"  As if DA:O weren't sitting right there in plain sight.

What is this DA:O you speak of?

[Freeway911]

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.

And that quote right there may be the final straw for me with this series. As stated it was done in DA:O. I could sit here and rant about every other thing with DA2 that irritated me but others have already said it and again that quote right there makes me feel like bioware just told us all to go to hell.