552 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow Fox]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

harkness72 wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

But it was fun

I disagree. DAII combat was extremely boring after just a few fights, much the same as DA:O. 

Ehh it was repetitive but at least it wasn't repetitive and mind-numbingly slow/boring. imo

...QFT!

[ladyofpayne]

Action points like ME 2. Slapping of companions and NPC when they angry my PC. And break their speeches like Mordin Solus.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The option to disable the PC voice.
The option to disable depth of field effects.
The option to change companion appearances.
The option to choose what the PC says.

What I want are options, not outcomes.

[Stoomkal]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The option to disable the PC voice.
The option to disable depth of field effects.
The option to change companion appearances.
The option to choose what the PC says.

What I want are options, not outcomes.

Tsk. That's *Origins* thinking, Sylvius...

That is not the direction or wanted intent of the DA franchise.

Stop wanting what they promised us with Origins... they have said enough times that it makes them break out with allergies thinking about Grey Wardens and Darkspawn.

We simply got *them* wrong... afteralll, it is *their* game.

How often do they have to tell us that? 

[Chromie]

I want a story that needs my character. If we're playing a set protagonist give me the depth that games Planescape Torment and Witcher 2 does.

[FedericoV]

I want a bigger party of 5 or 6 members. I would like more buff/debuff play between the party and the enemies.

Modifié par FedericoV, 11 septembre 2011 - 09:02 .

[Nighteye2]

1. Full-text dialogue choices
2. Slower, more tactical combat
3. Keep the junk tab
4. Full nudity in hollywood-style sex scenes, kind of like the witcher 2 did.
5. More diverse locations to visit/explore
6. More armour sets to experiment with
7. Fully equippable companions, with the same equipment slots as the PC
8. Tactical camera view

[Nighteye2]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The option to disable the PC voice.
The option to disable depth of field effects.
The option to change companion appearances.
The option to choose what the PC says.

What I want are options, not outcomes.

Fully agree with this, too.

[philippe willaume]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

harkness72 wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

But it was fun

I disagree. DAII combat was extremely boring after just a few fights, much the same as DA:O. 

Ehh it was repetitive but at least it wasn't repetitive and mind-numbingly slow/boring. imo

I can see where you are coming from
Going through Denerim at the end of DA:0 was fun and it was pretty much like DA:2 combat. You can clear out the town with critical shot and arrow of slaying, each character taking turns.
 
That being said
I still can remember most of the hard fight in DA:0.  The only fight that I enjoyed in DA2 was the Arishok duel.
 
DA2 is  repetitive and mind numbingly boring.
 
Max out stat, rune up to the wazzou
 
Talent, Talent, Talent, talent, kite, quaff potion, kite, kite (+kill steal if you are a warrior to avoid quaffing stamina) rinse and repeat until enemy dead.
Don't use the dog or your stamina will not reset and you will need another quaff
Go home refill

Don’t bother with companions other than for the odd AoE or focused use of talent, It just not worth the effort. Mainly because the tactical option are better than in DA:O…..
 
But the net result is repetitive and mind numbingly boring and bosses fight are just painfully long and playing in nightmare just makes it longer and more expensive in potions….

DA2 combat was not slow, you are right in fact it is probably quicker than DA:0 but definitely less engrossing.
 
To be fair I think, the difference is not really in the better or worse, it is more is the action vs tactical.

phil

[MerinTB]

I usually try to go the reasonable route with these kind of threads, but I'm feeling a bit unreasonable ATM and I will go for pie-in-the-sky instead:

1 - I want a party of six characters that I create myself.  There should be a series of choices at party creation that allows you to pick "roles" for these party members so that when things happen in the game the right PCs will do the right thing - like assigning one character to being the party's "face" and another to be the party's "tank".  The details of how I'd want this to work are quite lengthy, so I'll leave the very basics here like that.
2 - I want more than three classes and more than three races.
3 - I want a game "story" that is actually a set of several stories, most of which you cannot possibly see on one playthrough as picking one route or option can lock off whole sections of story.  The game should be designed that multiple re-plays are considered normal not fringe, and if this makes an individual run of the game only ten to twenty hours, but you can easily get at least three mostly unique run-throughs of the game, so be it!
4 - I want some pre-generated party member options, for slots 7 and 8 of my party, that I can choose to take with me.  but I want these characters to be plot-locked, meaning you can only take them for certain parts of the story and then they leave.  This makes their personaltiy and character story-dependant and can really shine in the moment, but with my six other player-created party members the abilities of these pre-gens don't have a large impact on my party dynamics but instead have story impact.
5 - I want a seemless blend of third-person over-the should camera and overhead isometric tactical camera... kind of like what NWN2 gives us, but better implemented.
6 - I want true turn-based combat.  Combat starts and each participant (each party member and each opponent) has a distinct, uninterruptable turn during which no other character can do anything (save interrupts or readied actions or the like that are waiting for this character's action first)
7 - The only cut-scene animations I want are those that show events away from my party.  All interactions my party have should use the same in-game engine, view, etc., as the combat and exploration.  Cinematic delivery for games is starting to give me a rash.
8 - While we are pie-in-the-sky here, why not give us item and spell creation like TES games.



No, I know, NONE of this is coming from BioWare.

[Shadow Fox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The option to disable the PC voice.

Funnily enough that's what I wanted to be able to do in Origins.

never had that problem with Hawke

[Valus]

Um...a new dev team?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The option to disable the PC voice.

Funnily enough that's what I wanted to be able to do in Origins.

never had that problem with Hawke

It was easy to mod that in Origins.

[Cyberarmy]

MerinTB wrote...

I usually try to go the reasonable route with these kind of threads, but I'm feeling a bit unreasonable ATM and I will go for pie-in-the-sky instead:

1 - I want a party of six characters that I create myself.  There should be a series of choices at party creation that allows you to pick "roles" for these party members so that when things happen in the game the right PCs will do the right thing - like assigning one character to being the party's "face" and another to be the party's "tank".  The details of how I'd want this to work are quite lengthy, so I'll leave the very basics here like that.
2 - I want more than three classes and more than three races.
3 - I want a game "story" that is actually a set of several stories, most of which you cannot possibly see on one playthrough as picking one route or option can lock off whole sections of story.  The game should be designed that multiple re-plays are considered normal not fringe, and if this makes an individual run of the game only ten to twenty hours, but you can easily get at least three mostly unique run-throughs of the game, so be it!
4 - I want some pre-generated party member options, for slots 7 and 8 of my party, that I can choose to take with me.  but I want these characters to be plot-locked, meaning you can only take them for certain parts of the story and then they leave.  This makes their personaltiy and character story-dependant and can really shine in the moment, but with my six other player-created party members the abilities of these pre-gens don't have a large impact on my party dynamics but instead have story impact.
5 - I want a seemless blend of third-person over-the should camera and overhead isometric tactical camera... kind of like what NWN2 gives us, but better implemented.
6 - I want true turn-based combat.  Combat starts and each participant (each party member and each opponent) has a distinct, uninterruptable turn during which no other character can do anything (save interrupts or readied actions or the like that are waiting for this character's action first)
7 - The only cut-scene animations I want are those that show events away from my party.  All interactions my party have should use the same in-game engine, view, etc., as the combat and exploration.  Cinematic delivery for games is starting to give me a rash.
8 - While we are pie-in-the-sky here, why not give us item and spell creation like TES games.



No, I know, NONE of this is coming from BioWare.

QFT

Bioware/EA there are crazy people out there who can pay 150-200 $ for this kind of a game.
At least i know i will.

And i don't think anyone will make such a game, really shame.



Edit: Who am i kidding, its the new era of gaming.
Make DA3 a fps, like Xcom, like Sydnicate, like Fallout.
İts a winning formula already so why take risks.

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 12 septembre 2011 - 11:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

1 - I want a party of six characters that I create myself.  There should be a series of choices at party creation that allows you to pick "roles" for these party members so that when things happen in the game the right PCs will do the right thing - like assigning one character to being the party's "face" and another to be the party's "tank".  The details of how I'd want this to work are quite lengthy, so I'll leave the very basics here like that.

I would plrefer that role assignation be optional.  We should be allowed to choose different characters for different roles on the fly during gameplay.

If I think by Assassin should be the one having this conversation with an NPC, let's have him do that, regardless of whether he has ever spoken on behalf of the party before.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

1 - I want a party of six characters that I create myself.  There should be a series of choices at party creation that allows you to pick "roles" for these party members so that when things happen in the game the right PCs will do the right thing - like assigning one character to being the party's "face" and another to be the party's "tank".  The details of how I'd want this to work are quite lengthy, so I'll leave the very basics here like that.

I would plrefer that role assignation be optional.  We should be allowed to choose different characters for different roles on the fly during gameplay.

If I think by Assassin should be the one having this conversation with an NPC, let's have him do that, regardless of whether he has ever spoken on behalf of the party before.

The system I refer to would be far more complex than (as one person pointed out they didn't like) an MMO system of designing a character for a "party combat" role.

And it would be a "role" that you could reassign at any point in the game, yes.  I understand with what little I wrote there, especially the "assign at character creation" part, it looks like a permanent assignment.  That was an unintended message.

Think of it like party order in IWD or any other party-based cRPG.  In most of those games, if one person spoke for the party, it was usually the person in the lead position.

Which, in some D&D based games, had you putting your bard or sorcerer in front.  Which is a recipe for dead bard or sorcerer when combat happens.

And sometimes the fasted-moving character would end up being the speaker for the party.  It wasn't often, but there were times where my low charisma character ran into the conversation area first. 

By being able to assign "positions" or "jobs" to certain party members (leaving that loaded "role" word behind for now), you can pick a character to be the "face" or "voice" or "talker" (whatever you want to call the position) -
but, say, you knew you were going to deal with a den of thieves you could certainly switch the "face" from the paladin to the rogue before going to that area.

Other jobs could be "healer", "scout", "flanker", "tracker", "item creator"... depends on the game design and on the kind of pre-planned events that the party could encounter.

If the game is coded that "if the party enters this area with a party member set to the 'scout' position, there is a (scout's skill ranking) chance of noticing an ambush before it is sprung" -

The concept is largely rooted in the concept of having a group of adventurers who are working together and trained to handle situations and problems that ONE PLAYER by themself can't keep track of in real time.   Think of in conversations in many games where a dialog options pops up because your character is trained sufficiently in a skill, has a high enough attribute, or you have the right feat or perk....
it' be like that.  Except a bit more strategic ahead of time.

Modifié par MerinTB, 12 septembre 2011 - 06:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

The system I refer to would be far more complex than (as one person pointed out they didn't like) an MMO system of designing a character for a "party combat" role.

And it would be a "role" that you could reassign at any point in the game, yes.  I understand with what little I wrote there, especially the "assign at character creation" part, it looks like a permanent assignment.  That was an unintended message.

Think of it like party order in IWD or any other party-based cRPG.  In most of those games, if one person spoke for the party, it was usually the person in the lead position.

Which, in some D&D based games, had you putting your bard or sorcerer in front.  Which is a recipe for dead bard or sorcerer when combat happens.

And sometimes the fasted-moving character would end up being the speaker for the party.  It wasn't often, but there were times where my low charisma character ran into the conversation area first. 

By being able to assign "positions" or "jobs" to certain party members (leaving that loaded "role" word behind for now), you can pick a character to be the "face" or "voice" or "talker" (whatever you want to call the position) -
but, say, you knew you were going to deal with a den of thieves you could certainly switch the "face" from the paladin to the rogue before going to that area.

Other jobs could be "healer", "scout", "flanker", "tracker", "item creator"... depends on the game design and on the kind of pre-planned events that the party could encounter.

If the game is coded that "if the party enters this area with a party member set to the 'scout' position, there is a (scout's skill ranking) chance of noticing an ambush before it is sprung" -

The concept is largely rooted in the concept of having a group of adventurers who are working together and trained to handle situations and problems that ONE PLAYER by themself can't keep track of in real time.   Think of in conversations in many games where a dialog options pops up because your character is trained sufficiently in a skill, has a high enough attribute, or you have the right feat or perk....
it' be like that.  Except a bit more strategic ahead of time.

That makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying.

I fondly remember how, in BG, you could choose to have any character in the party initiate a conversation, and that character's stats were used to make relevant checks in the dialogue.

But that character didn't need to be at the front of the party.

[knifejc]

I want to see the animations return when you kill an NPC. I didn't care for the combat in Origins because it seemed kind of herky jerky but I loved when there was a death animation. I just wished the mages had one.

[Kenta Shuuichi]

I would be happy if only they put a New Game + feature. You create your character, you play the game, you beat the game, you restart the game without losing your character. Really adds to the life of a game, sort of like in Mass Effect, where you can restart the game without losing your levels, abilities or equipment while still being able to take a different path. Obviously Affinity with friends and companions should be reset each time, as well as morality... Just not everything else unless you start a fresh character.

[RoninX74]

I agree with the initial points made in this thread, but my initial perspective is leaning more towards things I DON'T want to see in Dragon Age III:

1. Please don't cheap out on us again and re-use the same maps over and over again. ie. all the caves, save a sparse few were all the same. One thing I loved about DAO was that everywhere you went you saw new things with a few exceptions.

2. I loved the interaction between the NPC's and the PC (as well as with each other) in DAO, which could always be improved of course.  DA2 was seriously lacking in that department.

3.  One of the best parts of DAO was how extensive and involved the storyline was with many subplots.  I loved all the different origins for the PC and how it wasn't only the choices you made that shaped the game but also where you were from and your background.  That was an extremely shallow area in DA2.

4. DA2 was far too short. I beat the game several times within the first 2 weeks after it was released and the re-playability is far too limited compared to DAO.

Please DON"T rush DA3.

Now onto some things I would like to see:

1. throughout both games you hear of many culturally wonderous places (ie. Orlais, Revain, Antiva, Tevinter)  I want to be able to travel to these places and explore their landscape.  witness how culturally different they are. stand in awe at their differing architecture, style of clothing etc.

2.atmospheric changes would add to the game as well. wind and rain for instance. imagine exploring a port in Tevinter and having waves crashing against the docks with the wind coming in off the ocean while being pelted with rain. or travelling to a land filled with snow and finding yourself and your party travelling through a snow storm or witness the sun glistening off a melting wall of glacila ice. (mind you these things would be very processor intensive so to see the extent to which I would like probably wouldn't happen anytime soon)

3. While travelling between locations you have your parties camp but when within a city you and your party have their choice of inns to setup base in.

3. riding mounts(think assasins creed 3), whether it be horses, camels or some mythological beast ie dragons etc.  Carriages, wagons etc. These would definitely add to the feel of the game as well

I personally wouldn't mind waiting a few years to see DA3 mature into the best of DAO and DA2 and grow even further. heck even creating the entire DA world and updating it over time. I mean talk about the ultimate game. an extensive world you can travel through and explore all the while a story is playing out and continue it's progression through DLC.

Modifié par RoninX74, 12 septembre 2011 - 10:09 .

[Atakuma]

1. A singular focused narrative with a beginning a middle and an end, instead of the episodic nature of the previous games

2. Nugs.

3. Better, more detailed textures and models for everything. I want to see the love put into every patch of dirt and plank of wood.

4. Nug wrangling minigame.

5. Larger and more open environments, like the Kokari wilds in origins, as well as cities and towns that look like people could actually live there .

6. Nug companion

7. Slow down combat a bit and smooth out the animations so they are more fluid.

8. Nugspawn

9. Make adjustments to the darkspawn and elf designs.

Modifié par Atakuma, 12 septembre 2011 - 08:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Here's one. I want to be able to sort the character portraits for the party members. That way, I can always have my Warrior first, or my archers at the back, or some sort of consistent placement based on each character's function.

[Lilunebrium]

Friendship/Rivalry meter without low-percentage restrictions
- While I can appreciate the difference in reaction when one is an accepting rival instead of a person simply disagreeing with you, I'd like to be able to have my characters say something which they actually would, instead of having them say something just to get rivalry/friendship points because there's a scene that needs to get unlocked before the relationship with a specific NPC can progress.

class-depending gameplay (...why am I unable to type an upper-case 'c' here?)
- I'd like Templars to be overly suspicious of a mage. I'd like an apostate to be apprehensive of approaching anything Chantry-related. I'd like humans to be cautious of a Dalish and condescending towards a city elf.

In short, I'd like some sort of reaction, something that makes the game much different depending on what class or race you pick.

Non-party NPC involvement
-Whether it's romantic or not, I'd like my character to be able to form bonds with non-party members. While Origins had its restricting circumstances, I would have liked for my Warden to get together with Teagan, damn it! check up on Dagna (aside from the encounter in the Tower), for a Tabris to send word to the Alienage about their survival, for a Cousland to keep tabs on any sign of Fergus.
    I would have liked for Hawke to catch up with Charade, play Wicked Grace with Donnic OR ANYONE, check up on their sibling if they went to the Gallows (hush, they're NPC at the time).



I've undoubtedly forgotten several other improvements. Should a possible Dragon Age 3 prove to have some of the above points covered, I'll be a very happy girl indeed.

Modifié par Lilunebrium, 12 septembre 2011 - 09:24 .