313 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

erynnar wrote...

I think the question of voiced PC should have been: Do you prefer a voiced PC even if it means a shorter game and less content? Otherwise, yeah people love the voiced PC, but do most who do realize you are going to get less of a game because of it?  So is the sacrifice worth it?  To my mind. no it isn't.

Even assuming there are no development costs associated with having a voice, I don't want a voice.

[Pandaman102]

OhoniX wrote...
As I noted, I think there are several lives you change over the course of the game that could have significant impact on the world. Most notably I can't imagine Feynriel not playing a role in 3. If it's the story consequences that matter to you, they come up constantly in DA2, in the form of letters from grateful/spiteful NPCs, or NPCs standing around that will update you on their current place, and even several quest lines that shift around based on your previous actions.

I honestly don't consider many of those as "consequences" given they're actually "conclusions"; you do a sidequest and, regardless of how you resolve it, you just get a note at the end and maybe an encounter in the form of a brief exchange (that only expands slightly on what the notes say) - but that doesn't open or close options for you in the overall story. For example:

If you anger/help a certain judge it doesn't make you becoming a noble any more/less difficult.
If you agree/refuse to help an alienage elf that doesn't make less/more elves appear during a certain battle.
If you refuse to pay blackmail money you don't get unwanted legal attention (especially if a certain judge hates you), just a fight.
If you clear out a certain mine it doesn't change that mine's fate, the refugee's living conditions, or your nonexistent income from it.
If you play a mage you advance through the stages of refugee to noble to Champion in the exact same way as a warrior or rogue.
If you favor one faction throughout the entire game you can still pull a 180 and support the other faction at the end without anyone batting an eyelash.

It doesn't matter what class you play, what you do, or how you say it, the main plot advances pretty much identically between your Hawke and my Hawke - the only real consequences the game has is how you treat your companions leading to whether or not they leave you at inappropriate moments. Not even the shifting questlines do much more than give you opportunities to grind friendship/rivalry (since grinding exp and gold is pointless, given that enemies scale with Hawke's level).

OhoniX wrote...
Fair enough, but Bioware knows where they want 3 to go, so assuming I'm at least close for a moment, if they ARE headed that way, then would their choices with DA2 have been more justified? If I'm completely off base then my analysis would obviously fall apart on that one, but seeing as how Bioware knows where they're going, and Bioware made the decisions about how DA2 should be, I do trust them to make a good game, as they've done consistantly over the years, and for the choices they've made to pay off.

If DA2 is setting up DA3 much in the same way that ME1 and ME2 are setting up ME3, then I would agree that the design decision might be justified (but that also depends if the sequel actually delivers), however the original idea of Origins decisions to create large changes in DA2 was tossed because Bioware didn't want to alienate newcomers to the series, so who's to say the same reasoning won't be applied to DA2's impact on DA3?

Honestly only time can tell how DA3 will be, but nevertheless defending DA2 with DA3 speculation is the same as attacking DA2 with DA:O comparisions: it's unfair in that it's not judging the game on its own merits and flaws.

[cindercatz]

OhoniX wrote...

I think the question of voiced PC should have been: Do you prefer a voiced PC even if it means a shorter game and less content? Otherwise, yeah people love the voiced PC, but do most who do realize you are going to get less of a game because of it? So is the sacrifice worth it? To my mind. no it isn't.

Yeah, I mean that's the thing, if you ask players "do you want more choice?" of course they're going to answer "yes", but that's just offering free candy. Even "choice" is a choice, It's not "would you rather be able to choose from multiple races, or just a human?", the REAL question is "would you rather play as just a human with 60 hours of potential gameplay per playthrough, OR have the option of also playing as an elf with only 45 hours of gameplay, OR have the option of also playing as a dwarf with only 30 hours of gameplay, etc.?"

The more real choices the offer, the exponentially less content follows each path. Choices are good, but it's always a trade-off.

Yeah, I'm going to treat these two as if they're survey questions. To wit:

1. Do you want a voiced PC even if it means a shorter campaign?
Answer: Yes. The game is too overstuffed with nonessential, repetitive side stories as is.

2. Do you want multiple origins and races if it means a shorter campaign and less side stories?
Answer: Yes. same as above, Also, a tighter narrative would result, and that's also good.

3. Do you want a voiced PC even if it means no origin stories or race selection?
Answer: No. Replay, personalization, and variance of perspective are more important than a voiced PC's improvement of presentation when I play Dragon Age, and more essential to what sets Dragon Age apart from the crowd as a franchise. However, I believe it's a false choice, ergo:

4. Do you want origins, race selection, and a voiced PC even if the result is something like a 30 hour campaign per playthrough?
Answer: Yes. If you get the essentials as I see them, and the higher dramatic presentation mark, of course that's what I want. I'd end up enjoying it more per playthrough and getting more playtime out of it because of the astronomically higher replay value. Also, tightening up the main narrative would result from less 'quests' per run, so that's good.

edit: made this easier to read

Modifié par cindercatz, 14 avril 2011 - 07:46 .

[OhoniX]

If you anger/help a certain judge it doesn't make you becoming a noble any more/less difficult.
If you agree/refuse to help an alienage elf that doesn't make less/more elves appear during a certain battle.
If you refuse to pay blackmail money you don't get unwanted legal attention (especially if a certain judge hates you), just a fight.
If you clear out a certain mine it doesn't change that mine's fate, the refugee's living conditions, or your nonexistent income from it.
If you play a mage you advance through the stages of refugee to noble to Champion in the exact same way as a warrior or rogue.
If you favor one faction throughout the entire game you can still pull a 180 and support the other faction at the end without anyone batting an eyelash.

It doesn't matter what class you play, what you do, or how you say it, the main plot advances pretty much identically between your Hawke and my Hawke - the only real consequences the game has is how you treat your companions leading to whether or not they leave you at inappropriate moments. Not even the shifting questlines do much more than give you opportunities to grind friendship/rivalry (since grinding exp and gold is pointless, given that enemies scale with Hawke's level).

There are actually several missions that only become available if you complete previous missions in a certain way. None of the core storyline missions, but plenty of secondary ones. Could they have had more such missions? Perhaps, but then of course it would reduce the value of each playthrough, and for people that don't replay it multiple times a lot of the content created would be wasted. Likewise it would help if more of the issues had reactional considerations, like if you pulled a 180 at the end (which ,might be realistic and appropriate under the circumstances) there would at least be some lines of dialogue expressing surprise at your decision.

If DA2 is setting up DA3 much in the same way that ME1 and ME2 are setting up ME3, then I would agree that the design decision might be justified (but that also depends if the sequel actually delivers), however the original idea of Origins decisions to create large changes in DA2 was tossed because Bioware didn't want to alienate newcomers to the series, so who's to say the same reasoning won't be applied to DA2's impact on DA3?

I think the typical "what did you do last game" thing would work for that well enough. As you note, the major changes were locked in anyways, so all you'd be setting is the details. I just feel that while the Grey Warden was a random cipher, a character Bioware invested so little into that they allow him to die at the end of the game if you like, they created a true character in Hawke, one that I doubt they'll just discard in the next game, and that the framed narrative in this game clearly establishes Hawke as a pivotal character in the world and the events to come. I think that the framed narrative would be a complete waste if they were just to discard its results.

Mark my words, if, by some chance, Hawke is not the hero character in DA3, then at the very least he/she will be available as an NPC, or perhaps even as an Ashirok-level "villain" to the hero's agenda, and the "Inquisitor" will likely also play some significant role in the adventure.

1. Do you want a voiced PC even if it means a shorter campaign?
Answer: Yes. The game is too overstuffed with nonessential, repetitive side stories as is.

It's worth noting that many of the sidequests are dialog-lite, so the effect of the hero's voice on the game wouldn't likely have a huge hit on the number of sidequests, it definitely would have an impact on the amount of main, story quests.

Answer: Yes. If you get the essentials as I see them, and the higher dramatic presentation mark, of course that's what I want. I'd end up enjoying it more per playthrough and getting more playtime out of it because of the astronomically higher replay value. Also, tightening up the main narrative would result from less 'quests' per run, so that's good.

You're making assumptions that not only would it be shorter, but also "better", that they would only be trimming the bits that you didn't like. That's by no means a fair assumption. Assume instead that if they trim the length of the game, they would trim the elements you did like in equal proportion to those that you did not, so if you only enjoy half the game's content now, you'd only enjoy half of what they'd left intact after cutting the scope to fit multiple races.

[FreyaWazHere]

Wow you guys have really taken off! Thanks so much to the 2500 voters!

[cindercatz]

OhoniX wrote...

Mark my words, if, by some chance, Hawke is not the hero character in DA3, then at the very least he/she will be available as an NPC, or perhaps even as an Ashirok-level "villain" to the hero's agenda, and the "Inquisitor" will likely also play some significant role in the adventure.

1. Do you want a voiced PC even if it means a shorter campaign?
Answer: Yes. The game is too overstuffed with nonessential, repetitive side stories as is.

It's worth noting that many of the sidequests are dialog-lite, so the effect of the hero's voice on the game wouldn't likely have a huge hit on the number of sidequests, it definitely would have an impact on the amount of main, story quests.

Answer: Yes. If you get the essentials as I see them, and the higher dramatic presentation mark, of course that's what I want. I'd end up enjoying it more per playthrough and getting more playtime out of it because of the astronomically higher replay value. Also, tightening up the main narrative would result from less 'quests' per run, so that's good.

You're making assumptions that not only would it be shorter, but also "better", that they would only be trimming the bits that you didn't like. That's by no means a fair assumption. Assume instead that if they trim the length of the game, they would trim the elements you did like in equal proportion to those that you did not, so if you only enjoy half the game's content now, you'd only enjoy half of what they'd left intact after cutting the scope to fit multiple races.

I most definitely do not want to play Hawke again, but I agree with you that BioWare most likely intended to make him/her the face of the franchise ala Shepard. I hope the negative result this time out persuades them to revisit what makes Dragon Age unique instead. I have no problem with Hawke being a major NPC in DA3, and ending up a major antagonist is quite a cool way to go. I want to see my Wardens even more (as NPCs).

With the voiced, player generated, multiple origin/race PC, you'd have to cut X amount of fat from the game, assuming the budget remains comparatively steady. Why do I say fat? You can't very well not tell the primary story and call it much of a game. You don't necessarily need multiple voice actors for the different races (but if you've got the budget, God bless). Therefore, it makes no difference where that trimming comes from. Essentially, you're adding the origin stories as a starting main chapter in exchange for however many sidequests you would have added otherwise making up the difference, and then you're adding a few lines here and there and probably some kind of origin specific side story or main story branching. I'm all for more branching, so that leads to a shorter overall playtime, since those parts of the game aren't available every playthrough. So then you have to prioritize your side content. Romances and companion quests are obviously important, so that takes a lot of your resources. Hopefully, without the dirth of sidequests, it would (again hopefully) be decided to tie what survived the chopping block, including romances, more directly into the primary plot, so you end up with a more cohesive experience, which is how I like it.

I don't see how I could end up losing what I like in equal measure to what I don't, since what I like are the core components of BioWare's basic game blueprint. Even assuming your presupposition was true, that half of what is cut are things I like and half of what remains are things I don't, replayability still increases, and the most important aspects of Dragon Age (along with the persistent party interaction and lore) are regained, so I still say yes. For me, just getting the basic formula right is a win.

edit: well, "much of a Dragon Age game" There are other games out there, different kinds of RPG, that do a great job at what they do with no discernable "primary story".

Modifié par cindercatz, 14 avril 2011 - 11:20 .

[Pandaman102]

OhoniX wrote...
There are actually several missions that only become available if you complete previous missions in a certain way. None of the core storyline missions, but plenty of secondary ones. Could they have had more such missions? Perhaps, but then of course it would reduce the value of each playthrough, and for people that don't replay it multiple times a lot of the content created would be wasted. Likewise it would help if more of the issues had reactional considerations, like if you pulled a 180 at the end (which ,might be realistic and appropriate under the circumstances) there would at least be some lines of dialogue expressing surprise at your decision.

At this point there really isn't much I can say because it's become entirely subjective: features that you find remove value from a game I consider adding value and vice versa.

OhoniX wrote...
I think the typical "what did you do last game" thing would work for that well enough. As you note, the major changes were locked in anyways, so all you'd be setting is the details. I just feel that while the Grey Warden was a random cipher, a character Bioware invested so little into that they allow him to die at the end of the game if you like, they created a true character in Hawke, one that I doubt they'll just discard in the next game, and that the framed narrative in this game clearly establishes Hawke as a pivotal character in the world and the events to come. I think that the framed narrative would be a complete waste if they were just to discard its results.

Mark my words, if, by some chance, Hawke is not the hero character in DA3, then at the very least he/she will be available as an NPC, or perhaps even as an Ashirok-level "villain" to the hero's agenda, and the "Inquisitor" will likely also play some significant role in the adventure.

The Warden was an old school RPG character - defined enough that you have a good grasp on his/her place in the world, but ambiguous enough that you can assume the role of the character. Saying that Bioware had so "little" invested in the character to allow him to die is, quite honestly, missing the entire point: it's your character, you should be the one investing into him/her while Bioware concentrated on giving you just enough freedom within the confines of the plot to let you develop your character.

Good luck getting Hawke as protagonist (or making any sort of appearance) in DA3, I'm positive it won't happen, but since I'm not getting the game I sincerely hope you get what you wish for.

[Edge2177]

#5 and #6 are still the most significant, hehe.

[OhoniX]

I most definitely do not want to play Hawke again, but I agree with
you that BioWare most likely intended to make him/her the face of the
franchise ala Shepard. I hope the negative result this time out
persuades them to revisit what makes Dragon Age unique instead.

Lol, good luck with that.

The Warden was an old school RPG character - defined enough that you
have a good grasp on his/her place in the world, but ambiguous enough
that you can assume the role of the character. Saying that Bioware had
so "little" invested in the character to allow him to die is, quite
honestly, missing the entire point: it's your character, you should be the one investing into
him/her while Bioware concentrated on giving you just enough freedom
within the confines of the plot to let you develop your character.

Good
luck getting Hawke as protagonist (or making any sort of appearance) in
DA3, I'm positive it won't happen, but since I'm not getting the game I
sincerely hope you get what you wish for.

And yet I notice you have the ME2 icon active. See you in DA3.

[Dracotamer]

Took the survey, thanks for taking the time to make it.

[Pandaman102]

OhoniX wrote...

And yet I notice you have the ME2 icon active. See you in DA3.

Yeah, no, just because I like ME2 doesn't mean I'm going to automagically pick up DA3, especially when I dislike DA2 and Laidlaw has basically promised more of the same.

ME and DA are not the same franchise. They have completely different stories, settings, expectations, and marketing. What worked for a sci-fi tactical shooter that was planned to be a trilogy from the very start doesn't mean it works for a high fantasy hack n' slasher that has no defined ending (DA can run like the old Ultima or Wizardry titles with 8~9 installments for all you know). The two games have a passing resemblance in some of the mechanics, but by that logic Killzone and Halo players should be the best of buddies.

Obviously most aren't.

I will be buying ME3, I won't be getting DA3. Simple as that, you can choose not to believe me, but next time refrain from calling someone a liar based on one little icon.

[malakian]

I felt a few of the questions were a little loaded, but sure, i've filled it out.

[Kreid]

Dis it, nice survey.

[TheShadowWolf911]

unbiased surveys are hard to come by.

this is a unbiased survey and Bioware should review the answers.

[koshiee]

 your survey is horribly biased in it's answer choices. 

[FreyaWazHere]

@Koshiee, I very well aware of the unintentional bias in the survey, I guarantee you my other one has no such bias, and any I make in the future wont have it either.

[OhoniX]

ME and DA are not the same franchise. They have completely different stories, settings, expectations, and marketing. What worked for a sci-fi tactical shooter that was planned to be a trilogy from the very start doesn't mean it works for a high fantasy hack n' slasher that has no defined ending (DA can run like the old Ultima or Wizardry titles with 8~9 installments for all you know).

My expectation, which may well be completely wrong, is that DA3 will be some measure of "culmination" to the existing two games, tying up some of the continuing plotlines between them and resolving to some degree the chaos resulting form the end of 2. Does that mean it'll be the last DA game ever? I really doubt that, but similar to the Halo series I imagine there will be something of a continuity jump, with subsequent games taking place in separate regions, or far enough along the timeline that they have little or no direct interaction with the major characters or storylines in DA:O or DA2.

this is a unbiased survey and Bioware should review the answers.

No, it's just biased in a way that apparently supports the views you agree with, there's a difference.

[Lasien]

Done.  Also, I like the way the elves both look and sound in DA2. Gasp!! I like that they look more animalistic (whether that animal is a sheep or a cat is up for debate), and I love the welsh accent.

In my opinion, what everyone is forgetting is that the games are telling different stories from very different viewpoints. You are going to get different games when the protagonists are that dissimilar. Yes, there are things that could be made better, but there are things that are like that in every game. So could we please just discuss (not argue, there is a difference) what we like and dislike about the game without degenerating to flame wars and name calling. Please? Maybe then bioware will notice and make good changes to DA3.

[barryl89]

Lasien wrote...

Done.  Also, I like the way the elves both look and sound in DA2. Gasp!! I like that they look more animalistic (whether that animal is a sheep or a cat is up for debate), and I love the welsh accent.

In my opinion, what everyone is forgetting is that the games are telling different stories from very different viewpoints. You are going to get different games when the protagonists are that dissimilar. Yes, there are things that could be made better, but there are things that are like that in every game. So could we please just discuss (not argue, there is a difference) what we like and dislike about the game without degenerating to flame wars and name calling. Please? Maybe then bioware will notice and make good changes to DA3.

You do know that only Merrill and Sebastien have welsh accents in the whole game right?

The elves are mainly Irish. Marethari has some ould Irish sterotypical accent. The rest of the clan seem to have a strong modern northern irish accents. I find it hilarious everytime I hear one of them say 'Watch yourself shem'.

[Wye]

I submitted mine. I wouldn't mind any location, and I'd love to see more than one in a future game. I didn't vote for Nevarra or Anderfels, however.

[Huntress]

I like hawk and the warden, I put my vote "to go back to ferelden" to help Alistair and meet my cousin

I'll love if Hawk went back to Ferelden with fenris!! it will never happen though, this game will never finish anything with any of the hero's and I am tired of seen family members dieying.

[Lykang]

You should have added question about darkspawn new look:)

[Chaos Lord Malek]

Very good survey.

So far the Qunari got the most positive votes - no wonder, they look absolutely fantastic.

Also the next game place is interesting - Tevinter Imperium leading by 2% before Orlei - although i still think its going to be in Orlei(due to events of DA2), rest of the places seems quite far back behind them.

[chart4ever]

Well... it doesn't look so bad when you look at the results.

Modifié par chart4ever, 20 avril 2011 - 07:35 .