83 réponses à ce sujet

[Bullets McDeath]

I feel compelled to add that LARPing of any kind (but especially VTM) pretty much strips you of the right to make fun of anybody for any reason whatsoever. Except furries, maybe. /comment

[underyourspell]

varcety wrote...

Let's just agree to disagree, then?

Fat chance! You're wrong.

...okay, fine. I agree to disagree.

[Statulos]

outlaworacle wrote...

I feel compelled to add that LARPing of any kind (but especially VTM) pretty much strips you of the right to make fun of anybody for any reason whatsoever. Except furries, maybe. /comment

Vampire started to suck big time when the guide to the Sabbath was published. From there, everything went downhill quite fast.

[Vormaerin]

varcety wrote...
If I wanted to play a linear third person action game I would have gone for one.
When I pre-purchased DA2 I expected something else.

Uhh, didn't you play DA:O?  It was a linear, 3rd person action game too.  Nothing you did changed anything except which warm body spoke the lines in the plot.

Maybe the scale of the plot irrelevant decisions is different.   I suppose saving an elf clan or not is mysteriously more significant than saving one elf wizard or not.

Nothing you do in DAO will let you not save Redcliffe & Eamon, appoint a dwarf king, fight Loghain in the Landsmeet, or kill the archdemon.

The only significance of your many "decisions" in Origins is what basically irrelevant NPCs you have to call on in the final battle of Denerim.

[Chromie]

If your gonna compare Dragon Age 2 wait a couple of months so you can compare it to The Witcher 2.

[Kilshrek]

@ highcastle

Again you seem to miss my point. And to suggest that Bioware need not "learn" from other games is a sort of arrogance that doesn't need to be there. I'm not saying I want to save everyone, I'm saying give me a chance to have some sort of influence in the outcome of things. I don't like being a spectator in a game, it's not what I'm playing it for. Funnily enough you can throw a knife into the face of the slaver holding Feynriel if you don't have Varric, but you can only stand by and watch a blood mage kill his wife? The story lets me save people when it wants to, not the other way around. I've said this before, I don't expect to save everyone, but only letting me do it when it's convenient for the story is disappointing.

And what of Orsino? After defeating waves of Templar, he just decides to up and become an abomination and attack you and your party, wtf? My point is that nothing I did seemed to affect the one-track script of the game, and that's what I hope will change.

DA 3 can stow the fight like a spartan and think like a general buzz lines, I want to make a difference. I want the game to at least react to my choices. The Champion of Kirkwall has a ~50% save rate, I didn't really feel like a Champion after finishing the game, especially since I ran away like a thief in the night.

[Vormaerin]

I will agree that there is no good reason why we can't save the elf girl from her husband. I don't know why we had to leave and come back at all. Most of the rest, though, doesn't seem like a problem to me.

I don't understand the "spectator" thinking. What could you change that mattered in any other Bioware fantasy game? BG2 you ended up at the same plot points whether you sided with Bodhi or the thieves. Was there any decision in NWN besides whether to whack Aribeth or not? I can't remember making any. Origins you could make some cosmetic decisions that affected the epilogue.

As for Orsino, he was a evil wretched dirtbag from the beginning. Also, if you think you were winning at that point, you weren't watching the cutscenes very carefully. You'd sort of scratched up the vanguard of the Templar forces at the cost of nearly all the Circle mages. What the hell did Orsino care about you, the jerk who killed his friend Quentin the serial killer? He probably thought it was bonus that he'd tear you up before going to town on the Templars.

[Brockololly]

ThePasserby wrote...

I remember while playing Fallout 2, I asked myself, "Hmm ... since the number of available conversation options depends on Intelligence, what would happen if I were to lower my character's Int to 1?" And I got a really pleasant surprise when I played a completely different game with this mentally-challenged character. The writers actuallty wrote different lines for the NPCs when they spoke to my imbecilic character. Different quests became available, while similar quests had different ways of achieving the objective. Even your village elder sighed at the hopelessness of the cause.

Those days when they made games like this are gone, and sadly, never coming back.

Play New Vegas for  the glorious return of low intelligence dialogue options.

[Obadiah]

Kilshrek wrote...
...
Where something can be learned from Fable 3, is if the game really does demand a death, if the story demands someone that die, at least give us some choice. The first 5 minutes of Fable has you making one such choice. It was infinitely more difficult than any choice I had to face in DA 2, simply because no matter what I chose, someone would die. But I had a choice.
...

They could take that lesson from Mass Effect as well.

[Chromie]

Brockololly wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...

I remember while playing Fallout 2, I asked myself, "Hmm ... since the number of available conversation options depends on Intelligence, what would happen if I were to lower my character's Int to 1?" And I got a really pleasant surprise when I played a completely different game with this mentally-challenged character. The writers actuallty wrote different lines for the NPCs when they spoke to my imbecilic character. Different quests became available, while similar quests had different ways of achieving the objective. Even your village elder sighed at the hopelessness of the cause.

Those days when they made games like this are gone, and sadly, never coming back.

Play New Vegas for  the glorious return of low intelligence dialogue options.

What's funny is you linked that and yet there is a comment on your low intelligence link.

The comment says "Is there any other retarded convo"
response barely.  Fallout had it fleshed out where the entire game's dialouge felt different. I hate Fallout 3 and New Vegas drop the fallout name.

[Kilshrek]

Obadiah wrote...

They could take that lesson from Mass Effect as well.

Zaeed's loyalty quest was good in that respect.

[NaclynE]

Kilshrek wrote...

Yes! And before anyone sneers or thinks that DA 2 is too good to learn a few things from Fable 3, I'll point out the utter lack of impact player choice has in the game, and cutscene deaths. I think cutscene deaths should be enough to end any attempt to argue with my points, but you never know.

My point is that as the Champion of Kirkwall, I felt pretty helpless as a person. I couldn't save my sibling, twice if you make the 'wrong' choices in the Deep Roads. Couldn't save my own mother, couldn't save a scared woman from a mad mage, couldn't save a poor young girl from slavers and demons, the list does go ever on. For all the good points of the game and the story, taking me out of the equation when it comes to these points in order to force certain parts of the story down my throat really annoyed me. I get it by the bajillionth time a mage goes bonkers. The story wants to tell me that 9 out of 10 mages will do anything to get power and lord it over the lesser beings, just as Fenris tirelessly says. Save a blood mage? They hate you later and turn on you. Save the first enchanter? He goes mad and turns into a giant monster. Try to save your mother? Too bad you can't do that. Try to save a scared wife? Too bad you can't do that too. And the list goes on again.

Where something can be learned from Fable 3, is if the game really does demand a death, if the story demands someone that die, at least give us some choice. The first 5 minutes of Fable has you making one such choice. It was infinitely more difficult than any choice I had to face in DA 2, simply because no matter what I chose, someone would die. But I had a choice.

In DA 3, let my choices have meaning. Ostracise my PC if I'm a blood mage. Power like that should come at a price, have random encounters where "good" apostates try to hunt you down, have dialogue that reflects such things. Let me save my own mother! Give me my choice! DA 2 was good, but it was always someone else's story. It wasn't the story of my Hawke because my Hawke would have burned half of Kirkwall to find my mother and bring her back safely. I would have slapped Orsino silly before he decided to become Harvestino.(Paragon interrupt?!). My Hawke would also have made some attempt to socialise with my surviving sibling beyond receiving one letter in 6 years. And I would have tried to look for that scary lady Sandal was talking about.

I tottally agree. Let my choices have meaning. I did not want the chantry not get blown up by Anders but it did anyway even when I did not do the Justice mission. what BS is that. I even sided with the mages and Orsiano mutated and I killed him. What the heck.

Now about Fable 4 being in development....

[Darth Krytie]

I hope DA learns nothing from any of the Fables. I've played bits of all three and they all lose my attention very quickly. The plot is dull. The gameplay is annoying. The money-making focus is boring. The romances are devoid of emotion. Just a boatload of DNW.

[NaclynE]

Darth Krytie wrote...

I hope DA learns nothing from any of the Fables. I've played bits of all three and they all lose my attention very quickly. The plot is dull. The gameplay is annoying. The money-making focus is boring. The romances are devoid of emotion. Just a boatload of DNW.

Agreed. The romances in Fable 3 seem to have no meaning. I rather have them be like in dragon Age Origions where I have a deep, meaningful relationship with Leliana or Alister.

[Kilshrek]

I think you two will note that the Fable series was never noted for great romances, or even romance in general. It's a part of the game that is there.. because. Fable games focus on the Hero, and that's all. Everyone else is a side character. You can marry any NPC in Fable, so long as they're not a plot character, but they're limited because you can interact with just about anyone in a Fable game. I don't think anyone would write a character in a Fable game just for you to seduce.

Fable games are definitely of a lighter hearted vein than any DA or BG game, but really, does that make them lesser games? I was genuinely sad by the end of the Fable 3 story. It certainly stirred my emotions more than the end of DA 2, which left me scratching my head a little.

edit : And no I don't hate DA 2, I like it. It just disappointed me here and there.

Modifié par Kilshrek, 04 avril 2011 - 01:20 .

[highcastle]

Kilshrek wrote...

I think you two will note that the Fable series was never noted for great romances, or even romance in general. It's a part of the game that is there.. because. Fable games focus on the Hero, and that's all. Everyone else is a side character. You can marry any NPC in Fable, so long as they're not a plot character, but they're limited because you can interact with just about anyone in a Fable game. I don't think anyone would write a character in a Fable game just for you to seduce.

Fable games are definitely of a lighter hearted vein than any DA or BG game, but really, does that make them lesser games? I was genuinely sad by the end of the Fable 3 story. It certainly stirred my emotions more than the end of DA 2, which left me scratching my head a little.

edit : And no I don't hate DA 2, I like it. It just disappointed me here and there.

What stirred you about Fable? And to be clear, this isn't intended to be meanspirited, I'm genuinely interested. I tend to respond emotionally to characters, and I've never grown attached to anyone in Fable because no one gets much of a personality or back story. Not the hero, not his companions, not the random passerby. The villain is usually the most fleshed out, and even then just barely. At the end of the day, I don't care what happens to the world because I don't care about the people in it.

Now a game like DA2, even if you don't like all the companions, chances are you'll care about at least one of them. Being invested in their fates is part of what makes the game emotionally involving. Without that, I'm curious as to what it is you look for in a game to make you care.

[Kilshrek]

highcastle wrote...

What stirred you about Fable? And to be clear, this isn't intended to be meanspirited, I'm genuinely interested. I tend to respond emotionally to characters, and I've never grown attached to anyone in Fable because no one gets much of a personality or back story. Not the hero, not his companions, not the random passerby. The villain is usually the most fleshed out, and even then just barely. At the end of the day, I don't care what happens to the world because I don't care about the people in it.

Now a game like DA2, even if you don't like all the companions, chances are you'll care about at least one of them. Being invested in their fates is part of what makes the game emotionally involving. Without that, I'm curious as to what it is you look for in a game to make you care.

Couldn't have taken a question like that wrongly anyway. Just a question, did you play Fable 3? Admittedly it isn't a masterpiece or a great game by any length, but I liked it because like any Fable game it's a curious mix between an open world game/RPG. Anyway in Fable 3 you're introduced to Walter, who is sort of your mentor, and if you played Fable 2 he's a soldier/warrior/knight sort-of-fellow who fought alongside your Hero.(your Fable 2 character doesn't actually meet Walter in the game, it's all just mentioned in Fable 3) You play most of the game on your own as with any other Fable game, but Walter is the character you spend most of your time with, other than your butler(yes you have one) and your dog. Most of the story is progressed when you're with Walter and even though you there is some hammy dialogue I really liked Walter. At the end of Fable 3 Walter dies, and like I said before I really felt sad about it. Fable 2 had your dog, the only constant in the whole game other than the hero.

Walter is the closest thing to a Bioware companion/NPC sort of person in a Fable game lets just say. As I've also said before Fable games are of a more fantastical realm. Not high fantasy and that sort of thing, but it's a brighter, more light hearted sort of game.

And just to reply to your "no one gets any backstory", there is actually plenty of back story but it comes in tiny bites. The Hero in Fable 2 is the descendent of Fable 1's hero, and Fable 3's hero is the child of the Fable 2 hero. In Fable 2 you go through the obligatory childhood sequence and your sister is brutally murdered by a mad king who tries to bring his dead family back and create a pure and orderly society. The Fable universe has plenty of lore as well, it probably just didn't do a good job of presenting it to the player. Anyway I don't get the hate Fable receives elsewhere(not from you, but from the "lulz datz no arpeegee" crowd). It's a different game, it's competing in a different league. I'm not making a direct comparison between DA and Fable, but the intent of my first post was to highlight something in Fable that to me seemed lacking in DA.

[Zan Mura]

varcety wrote...

If comparing to other RPGs, I think Bioware should learn from Vampire: The Masquarade Bloodlines.
I remember how, being a deformed Nosferatu, you couldn't walk(to avoid breaking the masquarade) on the surface and had to spend most of your time in the sewers(or in shadows of the street). Or how the Malkavain PC had unique dialogue options. And so on.
In DA2 being an apostate mage PC has no consequences at all. Nothing. It completely ruins the atmosphere(for me atleast).

DA2 was a good game, but as far as story decisions, consequences and choice was concerned, it was definitely one of the low-points of anything we've seen from BW yet. They are aware of this, not that they've admitted to this directly but they are quite interested in hearing and gathering criticism, and have even openly admitted to having internal discussions about what went wrong and how to prevent that from happening in the future. So it's old news by now.

However, VTMB was an insanely good game, way ahead of its time and absolutely something a lot of RPG makers could learn from even now. It was hardly perfect either and MUCH shorter and smaller than any BW game, but a damned good one nevertheless. I still wish there'd be a sequel to it...

Modifié par Zan Mura, 04 avril 2011 - 02:51 .

[Wereparrot]

I think Dragon Age actors could at least learn how to speak with a Welsh accent properly in time for DAIII from Fable III. The elven accents are so awful that I actually wonder if they were supposed to be Welsh at all.

[The Angry One]

Wereparrot wrote...

I think Dragon Age actors could at least learn how to speak with a Welsh accent properly in time for DAIII from Fable III. The elven accents are so awful that I actually wonder if they were supposed to be Welsh at all.

Is that sarcasm, or do you not realise that they're obviously Irish and only Merril is Welsh..

[varcety]

Wereparrot wrote...

I think Dragon Age actors could at least learn how to speak with a Welsh accent properly in time for DAIII from Fable III. The elven accents are so awful that I actually wonder if they were supposed to be Welsh at all.

They are suppose to be Elvish.

[Purple People Eater]

At least Fable 3 had beautiful, and varied environments. In fact I would take the world in any of the Fables over what I saw in DA2.

[Wereparrot]

The Angry One wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

I think Dragon Age actors could at least learn how to speak with a Welsh accent properly in time for DAIII from Fable III. The elven accents are so awful that I actually wonder if they were supposed to be Welsh at all.

Is that sarcasm, or do you not realise that they're obviously Irish and only Merril is Welsh..

It isn't sarcasm; I heard that the Dalish accents were supposed to be Welsh. I think Merethari is supposed to be Welsh aswell. Even so, the accents weren't convincing.

'Supposed' is the word.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 04 avril 2011 - 03:38 .

[ThePasserby]

Brockololly wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...

I remember while playing Fallout 2, I asked myself, "Hmm ... since the number of available conversation options depends on Intelligence, what would happen if I were to lower my character's Int to 1?" And I got a really pleasant surprise when I played a completely different game with this mentally-challenged character. The writers actuallty wrote different lines for the NPCs when they spoke to my imbecilic character. Different quests became available, while similar quests had different ways of achieving the objective. Even your village elder sighed at the hopelessness of the cause.

Those days when they made games like this are gone, and sadly, never coming back.

Play New Vegas for  the glorious return of low intelligence dialogue options.

Still nothing compared to Sulik's display of despise for your imbecilic Chosen One, though. But it's interesting that they're doing this again.

[highcastle]

@kilshrek (can't quote you as I'm writing this from my phone):

I have played fable 2 and 3, though I didn't beat the latter. Maybe I'm not as familiar with the back story or history because I missed the first one. I think I definitely missed out on some of the characterization because few people seemed that different from each other. But I'm glad it's there and if that's your cup of tea, great. I'll stick with da2.