476 réponses à ce sujet

[BeljoraDien]

Balerion84 wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...


Instead of exploding when you stab someone in the back why can't the blade just go through them sending blood squirting from the wounds while the victim coughs and spews a litre of blood from their mouth and fall over twitching?

Because that requires more time on animations, which they didn't have.

http://social.biowar...04231534252.jpg

[MonkeyLungs]

Filament wrote...

And because that's a bit sick and I don't think I'd really care to see that.

People exploding into piles of gore and liquified organs isn't 'sick'?

Killing hundreds of bandits and exploding them isn't 'sick'?

Or are you suggesting toning down the gore entirely? (Idon't think it would hurt the game if they did)

[Balerion84]

BeljoraDien wrote...

Balerion84 wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...


Instead of exploding when you stab someone in the back why can't the blade just go through them sending blood squirting from the wounds while the victim coughs and spews a litre of blood from their mouth and fall over twitching?

Because that requires more time on animations, which they didn't have.

http://social.biowar...04231534252.jpg

This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

[MonkeyLungs]

BeljoraDien wrote...

Balerion84 wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...


Instead of exploding when you stab someone in the back why can't the blade just go through them sending blood squirting from the wounds while the victim coughs and spews a litre of blood from their mouth and fall over twitching?

Because that requires more time on animations, which they didn't have.

http://social.biowar...04231534252.jpg

That's pretty much as much as is needed. Why do enemies EXPLODE? It's beyond 'silly'.

[BeljoraDien]

Balerion84 wrote...

BeljoraDien wrote...

Balerion84 wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...


Instead of exploding when you stab someone in the back why can't the blade just go through them sending blood squirting from the wounds while the victim coughs and spews a litre of blood from their mouth and fall over twitching?

Because that requires more time on animations, which they didn't have.

http://social.biowar...04231534252.jpg

This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

It's actually from DA3. There are going to be a lot of improvements like that.

[Lord_Valandil]

BeljoraDien wrote...
It's actually from DA3. There are going to be a lot of improvements like that.

I swear it...
If they announce multiplayer for DA3 I'm going to pick up a torch and march to their headquarters.
Who's with me?

[BlameBot]

Perhaps they explode out of your sheer force of awesome.

[BlameBot]

Filament wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Filament wrote...

And because that's a bit sick and I don't think I'd really care to see that.

People exploding into piles of gore and liquified organs isn't 'sick'?

Killing hundreds of bandits and exploding them isn't 'sick'?

Well it's so ridiculous that it doesn't really have much of a visceral impact for me, it's just a meaningless shower of gore, whereas spewing blood out of one's mouth and falling to the ground twitching sounds rather.. painful.

That's why there's a whole option for it. Killing an enemy in a video game shouldn't make you chuckle.

[abaris]

AlexRmF wrote...

Origins was a great game and a clear successor to BG2 (pretty good at that so), but just as mike pointed out, probably a lot of people that played origins and think they like RPGs didn't like the length of the game or the tacticality behind it's combat system (I know a lot of those people who haven't even played BG1&2 but they say RPGs are their favorite gaming genre), so it's thanks to those people that we get over-simplified games and developers that comply with such demands.

So, to use a less diplomatic approach: They're appealing to the lowest possible denominator, which, in this case, means the guy, who thinks opening a beer bottle is just a tad to complicated.

Getting less game for more money seems to me along these lines. Also the need for simplification down to a point where you really only have to hit one button - a task, even Jane Goodall's pupils could master without any difficulty - is considered a sign of evolving games? Retro evolution seems more to the point.

[Veracruz]

abaris wrote...

So, to use a less diplomatic approach: They're appealing to the lowest possible denominator, which, in this case, means the guy, who thinks opening a beer bottle is just a tad to complicated.

No way! That would have meant one or more of the following:

• No possibility of any equipment for the companions.
• Reduced (if any) equipment possibilities for Hawke.
• No conversation options.
• Autowin-combat button.
• All enemies without defense and 1 hit point.
• [Ctrl] + W "cheat" a la The Secret of Monkey Island to win the game (change the Ctrl key for whatever button on the console).
• Hawke moves automatically and by himself to the next quest.
• All the game happens in a single corridor when quests and encounters are deployed.

Just to mention some options that would fit people who find opening a beer bottle a tad too complicated. (that's worse than the usual "consoler players are not-very-intelligent-compared-to-other-people" that some people loves to throw arround, right?)

[Alex Kershaw]

While we're on the topic of gore - is it only me who turns the persistent gore off? I think it looks ridiculous walking around covered in blood

[MorrigansLove]

ORIGINS WAS THE BETTER GAME! FACE IT! /angryfaceforrestofday

[BlameBot]

Yes, it's one of the options, I think. I think it also removes the Explodey Bodies of Doom. It's under Game Options, IIRC.

[randName]

Abraxas11 wrote...

I've certainly seen a fair amount of feedback that says, "I couldn't play Origins, I thought it was too slow, the story was too plodding, too typical, and Dragon Age II is awesome by comparison!"

I forgot the kubler-ross model...what comes after denial?

Edit: Sorry, didn't link www.eurogamer.net/articles/biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview

This is partly true; I know plenty of people that tried DA:O but hated the game due to the slow combat and never played it through.

& personally I prefer the new combat (and I don't prefer DA2 over DA:O, just the combat, the new design and the quality of the visual part of the game & I'd give DA2 a 6-7 and DA:O a 7-8).

[randName]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

While we're on the topic of gore - is it only me who turns the persistent gore off? I think it looks ridiculous walking around covered in blood

Personally I'd prefer it if they could make textile/fur and hair remain bloody/bloodier until you visit your home & that blood on metal, skin and partly for leather smear out faster; currently the contrast on the spots covering your fave esp. are too strong.

As for the rest I think there should be more soft blood as you would get sprays/clouds of blood forming; and your own would be leaking out as well.

In the end after you have killed 20 odd enemies the streets should be covered in a small sea.

So no, I think its one of the better points of the game, adds a bit of realism; a tiny bit in a largely surreal game; but even so if someone cuts open an ogre with a two hander they are likely to be covered in it from top to toe (and textile, fur, wood and hair would remain extremly bloody for some time to come; or until you turn in for a long shower).

I don't like the explosive boodies though; esp. when its due to arrows/daggers or any melee weapons ~ corpse explosions/walking bombs are fine for example, but this is BG all over again.

Modifié par randName, 23 mars 2011 - 06:47 .

[BlameBot]

MorrigansLove wrote...

ORIGINS WAS THE BETTER GAME! FACE IT! /angryfaceforrestofday

No, you're a troll!

[AlanC9]

Persistent gore was in DAO too, and toggleable.

[Tom Jolly]

This is the same Mike Laidlaw who declared that the FANTASTY RPG was in danger of dying if he didn't save it with his FRAMED NARRATIVE. . ..RIGHT, because the Heroic EPIC, which has survived as a storytelling vehicle for MILLENIA, just isn't enough.

More like it didn't fit into the production schedule, and Mike and the calculating thieves at EA wanted to get their hands on my money sooner.

[Baelyn]

Abraxas11 wrote...

I've certainly seen a fair amount of feedback that says, "I couldn't play Origins, I thought it was too slow, the story was too plodding, too typical, and Dragon Age II is awesome by comparison!"

I forgot the kubler-ross model...what comes after denial?

Edit: Sorry, didn't link www.eurogamer.net/articles/biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview

Did you guys miss where the developers took statistics on the amount of people that started DA:O and didn't finish it?

They were clear from the start that this bothered them and they wanted to make a less intimidating game to people who aren't familiar/used to RPG's.

I don't get how people can say "Man I couldn't even finish DA2 because it was so bad/I didn't like it/it wasn't Origins" etc....but then in the next thread..."Man anyone who couldn't finish origins must be a dumb console-playing mouther breathing retard." 

[MonkeyLungs]

Baelyn wrote...

Abraxas11 wrote...

I've certainly seen a fair amount of feedback that says, "I couldn't play Origins, I thought it was too slow, the story was too plodding, too typical, and Dragon Age II is awesome by comparison!"

I forgot the kubler-ross model...what comes after denial?

Edit: Sorry, didn't link www.eurogamer.net/articles/biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview

Did you guys miss where the developers took statistics on the amount of people that started DA:O and didn't finish it?

They were clear from the start that this bothered them and they wanted to make a less intimidating game to people who aren't familiar/used to RPG's.

I don't get how people can say "Man I couldn't even finish DA2 because it was so bad/I didn't like it/it wasn't Origins" etc....but then in the next thread..."Man anyone who couldn't finish origins must be a dumb console-playing mouther breathing retard." 

If most players don't finish the game maybe they should just 'streamline' endings. Then they could offer the real ending as a DLC seeing as the more hardcore players are the ones willing to finish the game and consequently happen to be the contingent that buys all the DLC ... oh wait, um ...

[TJSolo]

Baelyn wrote...

Abraxas11 wrote...

I've certainly seen a fair amount of feedback that says, "I couldn't play Origins, I thought it was too slow, the story was too plodding, too typical, and Dragon Age II is awesome by comparison!"

I forgot the kubler-ross model...what comes after denial?

Edit: Sorry, didn't link www.eurogamer.net/articles/biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview

Did you guys miss where the developers took statistics on the amount of people that started DA:O and didn't finish it?

They were clear from the start that this bothered them and they wanted to make a less intimidating game to people who aren't familiar/used to RPG's.

I don't get how people can say "Man I couldn't even finish DA2 because it was so bad/I didn't like it/it wasn't Origins" etc....but then in the next thread..."Man anyone who couldn't finish origins must be a dumb console-playing mouther breathing retard." 

The amount of players that didnot finish DAO would be an interesting number if it was published and compared to the amount of players that don't finish games in general.  For all we know it could be normal for most players not to finish a game and  that increasing the easy of player is not going change that.

Plus one has to wonder if the stats are true because my stats indicate I have not beaten DAO even though I have.

Modifié par TJSolo, 23 mars 2011 - 07:23 .