832 réponses à ce sujet

[cachx]

andyr1986 wrote...
Oh please First Person Shooters haven't changed since wolfenstien. Get away from the theory crafting and make a great RPG. Its not like the DA team is lacking in talent.

You can now aim up and down, for one

1varangian wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I
consider DA2 a failed experiment that proves that a game can be a good
action/RPG game or a good party based tactical RPG, but not both.

So I'm assuming you think DAO was tactical?

Despite its many flaws, it was on the right track.

I pretty much waltzed through DAO by spamming area attacks on my dual-wield warrior without major inconvenients. It wasn't really a tactical game unless you pushed yourself to make it so, just like in DA2. Funny how that works.

[aries1001]

One of the senior managers at Bioware did say that the wanted to reach out to Call of Duty's audience, not Mike Laidlaw. It could well be that Mike L. agrees with this to a certain extent. Decisions on how the game was made were not entirely up to Laidlaw. I can understand that people wanted more Origins after DA: Origins. However, I'm all for not giving people what they want and to  'kick over the sandcastle' like Laidlaw explains it here:

And specifically, what we wanted to do was, as lead writer David Gaider comments, "kick over the sandcastle." The endstate of Origins was that the world had been saved: "good job, we stopped the Blight, and we're good now, right? Everything good, right?" And that state is not one that inherently interesting -- it's not one that creates a sense of drama or tension or expectation of what's coming next. It did a great job of encapsulating that story, and it certainly left enough danglers for the future, but what we wanted to do was to take conventions and elements of the Dragon Age world that people knew and understood, and let people know that our intent is to change and evolve this world.

If we've been told this before the launch of the game, some people might have been more content with the info they got on DA2. I, for one is glad and happy to see and learn that this game does not suffer from the 'it is written-bug' or
'it has been foretold-bug'. [I always think that maybe people should really stop writing so much, then   ]. The story, as I understand it, is a story about a man or woman's rise to power, how he or she becomes the champion of (the people) of Kirkwall. Told through the eyes and mouth of an unreliable narrator, Varric. This point is easily forgotten, it seems, when people play the game....

Story - if Bioware wanted to have the game play out a certain way, then please, do not give the gamers, the players, the illusion of choice. Let the game's ending be the game's ending. Even if this means that you only play as Hawke, a human noble, (why should a mage or a rogue have an Estate in Kirkwall?), but please keep the choice to play as a man or a woman, though. If this was done, I feel that the story would have been much better told. And would probably have freed the artists, designers, cinematic designers, writers so that they were able to create more quests, maybe polishing the game more. I mean, a mage is taken away at an early age to train in a Circle, a rogue is, well a rogue, that wanders around, and has no real home. Why would a mage or a rogue ever be in Lothering...

And talking about story here's another though for your - why if nothing is real or if only 10% is real. It is Varric after all that tells the story. Mike L. has, among other things, this to say about the story:

The other thing that I think is a very big success, and I'm very happy with, is seeing people start think about it, and start to ask themselves, "what does it mean, if this entire narration, isn't real." Well, for the most part, we're trying to make sure the player's agency isn't undercut. But it adds a layer of meta-storytelling; are there other elements that Varric [the narrator] is exaggerating that we don't get called out on? It creates a layer of thought that lingers with you after it's done, and makes you go, "well, what's next? How much of that was real?"

As for the followers and their armours, maybe you, Bioware could do what a poster suggested, have belts, rings, gloves, shields, weapons, be gift for the followers in the game. Or maybe have Aveline keep her shield as a signature armour (if that's the correct term?) And do the same for all the followers e.g. if you need to change something, then do it wholeheartedly.

And while we're talking about followers, maybe Bioware could make them join us temporarily. I guess this would mean having forced companions for a time, and then other forced companions for other times But this could work, especially if the story dictates it. At pivotal story points, the followers could change. I'm not sure how this could be done, though, but it is a suggestion, nonetheless. What I'm saying is this. If you, Bioware need to tell a story, and the story needs a certain outcome, then take it all the way - and then some. And most importantly, be honest about it.

And please do not call Oblivion an adventure game. Adventure games are games like Grim Fandango, Syberia and Black Mirror III. The games' focus are about the character and the character's story. And guess what: they've all have a voiced protagonist, even old games like King's Quest 1 and Legend of Kyrandia 2: The hand of fate. And I have played my fair share of them, including a FMV game called Urban Runner (which I sadly seem not to have anymore   ). Maybe that's why I like the idea of having a voiced Hawke?. 

Speaking of adventure games, I've often frequent places like [url=. Here we often talk about the same thing rpg players talk about e.g. what is an adventure game. Are they detective games, like the FBI Confidential games, are they puzzle games, or are they character and story driven games. We also sometimes discuss whether The Longest Journey: Dreamfall or Heavy Rain are adventure games. We tend to agree that they are, they're just cinematic adventure games
 
I like character and story driven games, both in my adventure games and in my rpgs. That's why I like Bioware games. They deliver a great story, great characters, great dialogues. Bioware's strength have never ever been combat or gameplay; delivering a great story, memorable characters and yes, a character-driven story I see as Bioware's strength. And it has always been this way, all the way back to Baldur's Gate. In the BG games, you're a character that's nobody - during the game, you discover your true heritage. In the DA:O game, you're always a Grey Warden, your fate (destiny) is to defeat The Archdemon, to assemble the allies, to combat the ancient evil that has arisen to threathen to land. Interestingly, enough, this is also the main plot for TESV: Skyrim. (and yes, it haven has a dragon, too...)

In light of this, I'd rather play a game like DA2, that dares to do something new; to tell a different story than the one we've played a million times (or so) before...

Modifié par aries1001, 21 mars 2011 - 10:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

How do you figure?  The fights were slow, I grant you that, but the "tactics" required were so shallow it was silly.  While I don't think DA2's combat resembles anything close to perfect, you atleast had to think about what you were going to do next on the harder dificulties(even if you did have to think faster with DA2).  You had, essentially, the exact same strat for any fight you ran into with DAO AND there was near no need to work your party together to pull off any tactical advantage.  It was essetnially CC/DPS them down in order of strength.  

I think you're measuring the game using the wrong scale.

It's not a question of whether the game required tactics.  The question, I think, is whether the game allows you to implement tactics - ideally varied tactics based on your preferences.

DAO allowed you to construct a party in nearly any way you would like, and you could each character in the way you preferred so that they could fill a combat role as you saw fit.  And once you had that party, there were tactical paths to victory.

DA2 gives you far less freedom to construct a party, and the encounter design and the combat mechanics work in concert to make tactical planning pointless.

Unnecessary is one thing.  Impossible is quite another.

I don't think challenging the player tacitcally is something RPGs need to do.  But they do need to allow the player to play tactically if that's what the role requires.

[TJSolo]

Meltemph wrote...

That is not to say DA2 required much in the realm of tactics either, but RPG's FAIL hard at tactics in battle.  I just find it hard to understand how any "gamer"(and by this I mean someone who is familiar with games and their workings) can find RPG's(outside of SRPG's or grid based ones) stratigic/tactical.  The only "tactics" required in DAO was how you built your character.  With DA2 you at least have to pay attention to the statuses and who's abilities are up that corrispond with the current status effects in that fight.

I pay less attention to a brittle target then I do with a frozen one.  All of the team could wail on a frozen target in an tempt to shatter it while a brittle target has more limitations on who and how the damage bonus can be taken advantage of.

With DAO you did none of that.  You CC and DPS'd them down and that was the end of it.   And while it is a lot of the same way in DA2, the status effect changes at least on hard/nightmare made you pay attention past the 2nd pause.

I don't see it. Hard for me is DPSing down targets having the AI tactics setup to do a certain move if a certain status is in place. One NM I set up Tempest mages and that does not even have CCC bonus damage.

CC and DPS is a tactic.

Modifié par TJSolo, 21 mars 2011 - 10:15 .

[Meltemph]

I think you're measuring the game using the wrong scale.

It's not a question of whether the game required tactics. The question, I think, is whether the game allows you to implement tactics - ideally varied tactics based on your preferences.

DAO allowed you to construct a party in nearly any way you would like, and you could each character in the way you preferred so that they could fill a combat role as you saw fit. And once you had that party, there were tactical paths to victory.

DA2 gives you far less freedom to construct a party, and the encounter design and the combat mechanics work in concert to make tactical planning pointless.

Unnecessary is one thing. Impossible is quite another.

I don't think challenging the player tacitcally is something RPGs need to do. But they do need to allow the player to play tactically if that's what the role requires.

Well you have already said you don't care about gameplay, you only care about it in the sense of supporting your RP'ing. That is great that that is all you need, but I like a challenge and I like having to THINK about the combat and not just, make my character the way I want and let it rip.

There was no way to play the game "tactically" in the intellectual sense. You had to force it for RP's sake and that was about it. DA2, you can play just as tactically if you can keep up with the pace change on the harder difficulties as well though, so I'm not sure I get your argument.

Modifié par Meltemph, 21 mars 2011 - 10:24 .

[Meltemph]

I don't see it. Hard for me DPSing down targets is enough. One NM I set up Tempest mages and tthat does not even have CCC bonus damage.

CC and DPS is a tactic.

Yes, I am not saying there are no tactics in the strictest sense of the word. I am saying that tactics in these games are so shallow, I don't get how someone can claim one is more tactical then the other. DA2 made me pay more attention then DAO. While both's intellectual requirements for tactics is very small, at the very least I had to keep attention to what I was doing with DA2, with DAO you really did not, unless you purposely build(gimped) a party for challenge.

[Duncaaaaaan]

I have to commend him on being honest in the interview. He openly admitted, some would be driven away by the new changes to DA2 from origins. If there's one tihng devs don't do in videogames, its being open and honest.

Laidlaw actually answered the questions thrown at him. Although he conspiculously ignored auto aim Qs in the lets play before release.........

[the_one_54321]

aries1001 wrote...
Story - if Bioware wanted to have the game play out a certain way, then please, do not give the gamers, the players, the illusion of choice.

Certainly, I feel that giving players the ability to make choice only to retcon that choice later on is far worse than just not giving them the choice in the first place.

HUGE SPOILERS HUGE SPOILERS HUGE SPOILERS





DON'T READ THIS HUGE SPOILERS

......................................................................
..................................................................
adfasdfasdf adfasdfadsf adfasdfasdfa adfasdfasdf asdfasdfasd adsfasdfasd
afadfasdfa adsfasfasdf adsfadsfasd
If Zeran is anywhere other than dead in a ditch this game is garbage. If Leliana is not off adventuring with the Warden this game is garbage. If Anders is not dead in the ruins of the fortress of the Vigil, this game is garbage.
adfasdfasdfa asdfadsfasd adfadfasdf adfasdfa  adsfasdf afasdfadsfasd
asdfasdfasdafdasf adsfa asdfasdfads asdf adfasd afdasdfasd adf







OK, NO MORE SPOILERS


And those are just a couple examples. I want to know where and when (if it did happen) someone brought up the idea "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we wrote the story so as to ignore what the player decidied to do so that we can include character in the way we want to, even though we told them they were going to make decisions that mattered?"

[VanDraegon]

aries1001 wrote...

One of the senior managers at Bioware did say that the wanted to reach out to Call of Duty's audience, not Mike Laidlaw.

Are you sure that was someone from Bioware and not EA?

[AlanC9]

aries1001 wrote...
 Even if this means that you only play as Hawke, a human noble, (why should a mage or a rogue have an Estate in Kirkwall?),

Human and dwarf nobles could be rogues in DAO, too. Or was that a problem with DAO?

[Meltemph]

the_one_54321 wrote...

aries1001 wrote...
Story - if Bioware wanted to have the game play out a certain way, then please, do not give the gamers, the players, the illusion of choice.

Certainly, I feel that giving players the ability to make choice only to retcon that choice later on is far worse than just not giving them the choice in the first place.

HUGE SPOILERS HUGE SPOILERS HUGE SPOILERS





DON'T READ THIS HUGE SPOILERS

......................................................................
..................................................................
adfasdfasdf adfasdfadsf adfasdfasdfa adfasdfasdf asdfasdfasd adsfasdfasd
afadfasdfa adsfasfasdf adsfadsfasd
If Zeran is anywhere other than dead in a ditch this game is garbage. If Leliana is not off adventuring with the Warden this game is garbage. If Anders is not dead in the ruins of the fortress of the Vigil, this game is garbage.
adfasdfasdfa asdfadsfasd adfadfasdf adfasdfa  adsfasdf afasdfadsfasd
asdfasdfasdafdasf adsfa asdfasdfads asdf adfasd afdasdfasd adf







OK, NO MORE SPOILERS


And those are just a couple examples. I want to know where and when (if it did happen) someone brought up the idea "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we wrote the story so as to ignore what the player decidied to do so that we can include character in the way we want to, even though we told them they were going to make decisions that mattered?"

Which is why most companies are not foolish enough to give you the kind of choices BW gives you in a recurring series.   It is just impossible nowadays with all the production requirments that is demanded out of big budget titles by most consumers to make it financially viable for a game company to live up to every single choice they offered you with the kind of impact in the sequal that those choices deserved.  

IMO if you are going to give players that kind of choice games need to be self contained.

[TMZuk]

Apparantly some people have a hard time understanding that we are some who could care less wether the combat in DA2 is more or less challenging that the combat in DA:O.

The point is that it LOOKS horrible. It LOOKS stupid, unbelievable and over the top! It looks like a bad version of a Hongkong martial arts movie. It looks ever more terrible when NPCs are just standing talking right in the middle of it. The weapon restrictions that are enforced on the classes likewise are unbelievable, immersion-breaking and have no place in an RPG!

Mr. Laidlaw apparantly wants to "redefine" the RPG genre by removing all RPG-elements. In a GOOD RPG, combat is a means to an end, not the end itself. If you want to play games where combat is the objective of the game, why the hell are you playing RPGs then?

Modifié par TMZuk, 21 mars 2011 - 10:45 .

[Meltemph]

Apparantly some people have a hard time understanding that we are some who could care less wether the combat in DA2 is more or less challenging that the combat in DA:O.

The point is that it LOOKS horrible. It LOOKS stupid, unbelievable and over the top! It looks like a bad version of a Hongkong martial arts movie. It looks ever more terrible when NPCs are just standing talking right in the middle of it.

So you would rather talk about the look of the animations and place more importance on that, then the actual mechanics and workings of the combat? Alright, I can keep it superficial.

Mr. Laidlaw apparantly wants to "redefine" the RPG genre by removing all RPG-elements. In a GOOD RPG, combat is a means to an end, not the end itself. If you want to play games where combat is the objective of the game, why the hell are you playing RPGs then?

You've essentially said nothing in this paragraph. And combat since the days of D&D/Chainmail have always been a large part of RPG's, wtf are you talking about? Now whether combat is important to you is another matter, but quit pretending you are the authority of what is. Just give your opinion and stop hiding behind "the way it should be".

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Well you have already said you don't care about gameplay, you only care about it in the sense of supporting your RP'ing. That is great that that is all you need, but I like a challenge and I like having to THINK about the combat and not just, make my character the way I want and let it rip.

I like my character to have to think his way through combat, which I recognise is just me thinking my way through combat with some RP restrictions placed on me, but those RP restrictions are often quite severe.  I had a DAO mage who wouldn't use magic to harm people - that was quite a challenge.

There was no way to play the game "tactically" in the intellectual sense. You had to force it for RP's sake and that was about it.

True, but I think that was a problem of encounter design, not the combat mechanics.

And accommodating RP places some restrictions, I think, on the combat mechanics.  They can't violate the coherence of the gameworld, for example.  Though I think DA2's combat does that very badly.  How is it that Hawke hits so much harder than an Ogre does?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 mars 2011 - 11:11 .

[TMZuk]

Meltemph wrote...

Apparantly some people have a hard time understanding that we are some who could care less wether the combat in DA2 is more or less challenging that the combat in DA:O.

The point is that it LOOKS horrible. It LOOKS stupid, unbelievable and over the top! It looks like a bad version of a Hongkong martial arts movie. It looks ever more terrible when NPCs are just standing talking right in the middle of it.

So you would rather talk about the look of the animations and place more importance on that, then the actual mechanics and workings of the combat? Alright, I can keep it superficial.

Mr. Laidlaw apparantly wants to "redefine" the RPG genre by removing all RPG-elements. In a GOOD RPG, combat is a means to an end, not the end itself. If you want to play games where combat is the objective of the game, why the hell are you playing RPGs then?

You've essentially said nothing in this paragraph. And combat since the days of D&D/Chainmail have always been a large part of RPG's, wtf are you talking about? Now whether combat is important to you is another matter, but quit pretending you are the authority of what is. Just give your opinion and stop hiding behind "the way it should be".

I am talking about the horror that is combat in this game.

And if YOU think that caring about the aesthetics of combat more than numbercrushing and mechanics is superficial, you should be playing something else than an RPG. If you can ignore the fact that people are standing talking where your character is swinging a sword, obviously immersion have no meaning for you, and once more: Why play RPGs then?

[Meltemph]

And if YOU think that caring about the aesthetics of combat more than numbercrushing and mechanics is superficial, you should be playing something else than an RPG. If you can ignore the fact that people are standing talking where your character is swinging a sword, obviously immersion have no meaning for you, and once more: Why play RPGs then?

You are being so dramatic it is funny, also the reason I play RPG's? Lore/Story/World/Characters/Combat in that order, but if the combat is bad or a chore, then all of the game takes a hit, because combat can have as much story to it as anything else.

Also, the people standing around was stupid, also, I also thought most of the combat animations in DAO were stupid. Unlike you, apparently, I had a lot of issues with DAO and even though I have issues with DA2 they are not any more or any more severe. IMO, people/reviewers overlooked a lot of issues, simply because it was an old school CRPG and reviewers are typically more awestruck by BW then most developers,  so they went easy on it, imo.

That is not to say DAO was a bad game, but was not near as perfect as people try and pretend it was.

True, but I think that was a problem of encounter design, not the combat mechanics.

I don't think so, personally. About the only thing they could do is add more mobs with more random resistances, but unless BW pulls a rabit out of the hat and makes intelligent AI, I think that will be about it.

And accommodating RP places some restrictions, I think, on the combat mechanics. They can't violate the coherence of the gameworld, for example. Though I think DA2's combat does that very badly. How is it that Hawke hits so much harder than an Ogre does?

I dunno, I thought Ogre's hit harder then me, at least in the deep roads, but then again I was playing on hard and nightmare. But I agree that there needs to be a coherence, but I didn't feel any less of it from DAO to DA2, both had things that made me go...uh, what?

Modifié par Meltemph, 21 mars 2011 - 11:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

I don't think so, personally. About the only thing they could do is add more mobs with more random resistances, but unless BW pulls a rabit out of the hat and makes intelligent AI, I think that will be about it.

I don't think you're right.  In a typical DAO encounter, there are a number of enemies you can face who would be too many for you to handle.  So what they need is to give you that many enemies, but in a combat environment you can use creatively to defeat them.

Or run away.  Retreat is a tactic, but DAO doesn't really support it (DA2 does, happily).

Do you think DA2 actually provides a better tactical experience?  Based on how you're describing it - being challenged - I haven't seen anything of the sort.  I play both games on Hard, and I'd say DA2 is quite a bit easier than DAO.

I dunno, I thought Ogre's hit harder then me, at least in the deep roads, but then again I was playing on hard and nightmare.

What are your damage numbers like?  How many hitpoints do you have?

Given that you can routinely one-shot your companions with FF, but your enemies rarely one-shot your companions, you're clearly hitting harder than they are.  Turn on the damage numbers.  Now look at your HP total.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 mars 2011 - 11:55 .

[Meltemph]

Do you think DA2 actually provides a better tactical experience?

No, but I don't think these kinds of RPG's CAN give a good tactical experience. They would have to be SRPG's or grids, imo to be adequate, which DA clearly is not.

What are your damage numbers like? How many hitpoints do you have?

Given that you can routinely one-shot your companions with FF, but your enemies rarely one-shot your companions, you're clearly hitting harder than they are. Turn on the damage numbers. Now look at your HP total.

You might be right, all I know is that I didn't WANT to get hit by him most of the time and it took more more hits to kill him. I just recently turned the numbers on, because when I 1st put them on, they were a bit distracting to me.

I guess I don't look at the mechanics in this as a pure math equation in terms of the feeling of power. If I hit mathematically harder then him, but if him hitting me is more detrimental to me per hit then it is to him, it evens out enough for me to make sense.

And ya, they could throw more enemies at me, but with the way DAO was setup, that would just require even more abusing of the CC in that game. You would wrap them all up with the tank and then control them all through the typical means. And for me, I normally don't make builds that are, to me, horrible. I just can't RP a completely inefficient player like that, it just bothers me to much.

That isnt to say I refuse to play w/o a tank/mage/rogue trinity or anything, I just like to play efficient characters, I guess.

Modifié par Meltemph, 22 mars 2011 - 12:04 .

[Ellestor]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

However, I do think that, as a genre, if RPGs can't evolve and can't change -- and I know people yell at me for daring to use the word "evolve" -- but if they can't change or experiment, then the genre itself is going to stagnate.

Looking at the state of the FPS, RTS, and MMO genres, I'm forced to agree. Experiment away.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

You might be right, all I know is that I didn't WANT to get hit by him most of the time and it took more more hits to kill him. I just recently turned the numbers on, because when I 1st put them on, they were a bit distracting to me.

I guess I don't look at the mechanics in this as a pure math equation in terms of the feeling of power. If I hit mathematically harder then him, but if him hitting me is more detrimental to me per hit then it is to him, it evens out enough for me to make sense.

I think that works as long as there isn't any friendly fire.  As soon as you have friendly fire, it becomes obvious that he has way more HP than you, but hits far less hard.

And ya, they could throw more enemies at me, but with the way DAO was setup, that would just require even more abusing of the CC in that game. You would wrap them all up with the tank and then control them all through the typical means.

The aggro mechanic is, I think, part of the problem.  Maybe if it were less predictable (perhaps aggro could decay faster on different enemies, or they could even randomise that).  I find holding aggro with a tank (not that I typically use tanks - I personally dislike melee combat, so I tend to avoid it), I'd rather retreat to a chokepoint and use a Glyph of Repulsion or something.

They could also reward scouting ahead by allowing ambushes to be successful, or encourage sniping from elevated positions with archers, or anything that isn't just fighting in a big open room.

And for me, I normally don't make builds that are, to me, horrible. I just can't RP a completely inefficient player like that, it just bothers me to much.

I sometimes play characters who panic, and thus make bad decisions.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 mars 2011 - 12:23 .

[Meltemph]

I think that works as long as there isn't any friendly fire. As soon as you have friendly fire, it becomes obvious that he has way more HP than you, but hits far less hard.

I noticed that I get hit harder, but again I just think that was BW trying to make Nightmare harder then the last. I mean to be honest, the only way they can make the game harder on nightmare is to just up the modifiers and just throw more bodies at you, sadly, because the AI is so stupid, because of the way they have designed their combat(including DAO and DA2). Until they start using havok AI or something, I don't see it changing.

[Nick Fox]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

Sure sounds that way. What an utter....clever boy he must be.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

He could apply that theme to every aspect of life. He could build hangliders for people who don't like heights, beer for people who don't like the taste of beer (Bud Light) and peanut butter for the allergic.

[Nick Fox]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

He could apply that theme to every aspect of life. He could build hangliders for people who don't like heights, beer for people who don't like the taste of beer (Bud Light) and peanut butter for the allergic.

Yeah and then meat on a vegitarian conference, just brilliant.

[augustburnt]

I am currently working on a mod that will make DA2 popular. I will replace every enemy with Mike Laidlaw's head. So every time I am stuck in some retarded battle with zero plot, I can at least see his head explode.