966 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir Caradoc]

I don't understand why anyone would prefer teleporting enemies instead of placed enemies.

DAO is a much better game because you can plan your strategy beforehand. Like when attacking the ostagar tower with alistar you could scout ahead and plan how to proceed.. Ofcourse DAO sometimes tried to ambush the player, but it used it wisely. It did only when it felt proper and plausible. Like in denerim, where bandits tried to ambush the player in dark allyes. Or in the elven ruins where undead were risen from their graves or in mages tower where demons spawned from the fade.

Modifié par Sir Caradoc, 15 avril 2011 - 07:11 .

[MingWolf]

Roxlimn wrote...
How is it that it makes no tactical sense? If I were commanding the enemy forces and I wanted to teleport them in, I'd want my Warrior to be right next to your Mages, too. Granted, the scripted manner is both better and worse in a sense, but I think it'd get a little frustrating and monotonous if the party Mages were ambushed by Warriors in every single encounter all game long.

Right, and by doing so from the enemy perspective, I would have the gift of beaming them in on top of them or by somehow letting them walk through the wall... or whatever imaginative way for them just to neatly appear there.  Lovely. 

If I were commanding enemy forces, I'd set up a well executed trap instead of hoping for some 24th century teleporter that isn't supposed to even exist in the realm.  I can think of plenty of better ways to execute such an ambush, and the whole "teleport" thing is hardly among them, unless teleportation is actually the common tactic established in the write-up of the world in the first place.  Its also a waste of resources, unless those bandits you face are like China who can command next to unlimited manpower, but even China doesn't have teleporters yet.  

Okay, DA:O at least did something right with the darkspawn rogues and shades by having them at least ambush you in stealth without you knowing it.  Granted, the AI isn't sophisticated enough to make them anything more than pushovers.   Point is, there are much better ways to establish tactics in the game.  I hardly count waves as one of them.  Unless I was god trying to punish people with a snap of a finger. 

Modifié par MingWolf, 15 avril 2011 - 07:14 .

[turian councilor Knockout]

Even the party tactics was much better in DAO, now some the spells and talents even resets themselves when you get a new one (for example if Aveline have shield defense activated when you get a new talented it's deactivates itself or gets replaced) and that is something that really annoys me and must be improved.

Modifié par turian councilor Knockout, 15 avril 2011 - 07:18 .

[Roxlimn]

Sir Caradoc wrote...

I don't understand why anyone would prefer teleporting enemies instead of placed enemies.

DAO is a much better game because you can plan your strategy beforehand. Like when attacking the ostagar tower with alistar you could scout ahead and plan how to proceed.. Ofcourse DAO sometimes tried to ambush the player, but it used it wisely. It did only when it felt proper and plausible. Like in denerim, where bandits tried to ambush the player in dark allyes. Or in the elven ruins where undead were risen from their graves or in mages tower where demons spawned from the fade.

I like it better because it represents a continually changing tactical situation.  Some people apparently can't adopt and get wiped over and over and hate it.  Or maybe they like laying down careful plans and dislike it when it's disrupted.

I like the spawns because I have to have backups, contingencies, and emergency measures.  My plans rarely survive the first contact with the enemy intact, and I like it like that.  Replaying DA2's been more interesting because the battlefield isn't always the same.  In DA:O, it is.

[skan5]

Roxlimn wrote...
skan5:

At the end though, you may not agree or see it differently, and you like it (judging from your post). As do many others around this forum. But I, along with others, do not like it. Both sides have stated their reasons, but more than likely neither side will be convinced and will just continue to rationalize more reasons. It's just different tastes.

The "you just want it to be like DAO because you can't cope change" is a cop out. On the other end of the spectrum, the "you just like it because you're a console-******" is another.

I don't see where it's a copout. You like DA:O spawning, but not DA2 spawning, but not for specific design reasons. You think it's a "cheap way to add challenge," without specifying better ways to add challenge, and without saying that DA:O spawn mechanic is worse because it's a lesser challenge without being a better spawn mechanic.

In what other way can that be characterized other than you liked DA:O and wanted DA2 to be DA:O again?

Outside of pointing out that simply saying that is a cop out, I only made one mention of liking something in DA:O. And that was that I liked the overly exaggerated AO.

I made no mention of DA:O's combat. None. I only said I hate spawning enemies on top of you.

You assumed the rest and shoved the words where you wanted them to be and then went on to argue a point that I didn't make it.

I'm pretty sure there's a word for that, and I'm pretty sure you just proved why I'm saying it's a copout.

[Roxlimn]

MingWolf wrote...
Right, and by doing so from the enemy perspective, I would have the gift of beaming them in on top of them or by somehow letting them walk through the wall... or whatever imaginative way for them just to neatly appear there.  Lovely. 

If I were commanding enemy forces, I'd set up a well executed trap instead of hoping for some 24th century teleporter that isn't supposed to even exist in the realm.  I can think of plenty of better ways to execute such an ambush, and the whole "teleport" thing is hardly among them, unless teleportation is actually the common tactic established in the write-up of the world in the first place.  Its also a waste of resources, unless those bandits you face are like China who can command next to unlimited manpower, but even China doesn't have teleporters yet.  

Okay, DA:O at least did something right with the darkspawn rogues and shades by having them at least ambush you in stealth without you knowing it.  Granted, the AI isn't sophisticated enough to make them anything more than pushovers.   Point is, there are much better ways to establish tactics in the game.  I hardly count waves as one of them.  Unless I was god trying to punish people with a snap of a finger. 

Having a "teleporter" has nothing to do with tactical concerns.  It's a realism issue, not a tactical issue.  You were saying that putting Warriors into the Ranged Line doesn't make tactical sense.  Of course it does.  You're objecting from a realism standpoint, not a tactical standpoint.

You don't like it because Bioware didn't make a point of making the spawns appear in a way that was narratively consistent from a third person, realistic, perspective.  That's a very specific concern and not much related to tactics.

[VampireSoap]

Aww, forgive me if I'm not patient enough to read the long, long arguments.

I just want to facepalm...I can't bear the thought of finishing reading Mr. Laidlaw's interview. This interview is so profound that it should be taken into the Grand Losers' Archive.

[Roxlimn]

skan5:

Outside of pointing out that simply saying that is a cop out, I only made one mention of liking something in DA:O. And that was that I liked the overly exaggerated AO.
I made no mention of DA:O's combat. None. I only said I hate spawning enemies on top of you.
You assumed the rest and shoved the words where you wanted them to be and then went on to argue a point that I didn't make it.
I'm pretty sure there's a word for that, and I'm pretty sure you just proved why I'm saying it's a copout.

Your rebuttal is invalid. You specifically stated that you didn't like the spawn mechanic in DA2, implying that you liked DA:O spawning better, without saying why.

A better rebuttal would be you saying that you didn't like either spawning mechanic, and neither DA2 nor DA:O combat, but that objection would only apply to you, since others have already mentioned like DA:O spawns better, without sufficient reasoning, so the characterization absolutely is accurate in that case.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

randName wrote...

adneate wrote...

The "Play on Hard" is the most insulting comment yet, turning the difficulty up doesn't change the fact that the combat system is broken. Everything is auto-scaled and since all attacks hit every single fight in the entire game is exactly the same. You just wail on something until it runs out of hit points and dies. It takes forever to take down a "Boss" because they have a magical aura that makes your weapons dull and your armour rusty. Turning the difficulty to Hard does not solve these problems.

Aye, and while Hard or Nightmare are both playable, the problems with the combat system gets magnified the higher you go.

I agree, and think the question flew entirely over his head. Dialing up the difficulty doesn't fix several problems I find with DA 2, it doesn't even have anything to do with several of the issues I have with the game.

[MingWolf]

Roxlimn write...
Having a "teleporter" has nothing to do with tactical concerns. It's a realism issue, not a tactical issue. You were saying that putting Warriors into the Ranged Line doesn't make tactical sense. Of course it does. You're objecting from a realism standpoint, not a tactical standpoint.

I never said the whole warriors in the range line doesn't make tactical sense. What I said is that there are better ways to handle tactics, with waves not being one of them. I have a long list of solutions, but really, just looking at some strategy game is probably good enough. I admire changing tactical situations, but do you really think taking away the realism of how your enemies execute their tactics is a step in the right direction? Whats the point of tactics when your enemies defy all logic of tactics by simply warping in for your benefit? Whats the point of it when almost every single encounter is this same way?  Over-the-top repetitive to me.   I'm sorry, but the materiality of tactics disappear right there. I'll give you the credit that they keep you on your feet, but beyond that, its just plain silly.

Modifié par MingWolf, 15 avril 2011 - 07:41 .

[Mecher3k]

Roxlimn has a fetish for being wrong. I honestly think he gets off from it, so just ignore him.

[skan5]

I don't like spawning at all. I tolerate it and accept it in games where it's used sparingly, but not when it's used the majority of the time. I had issues with it in Mass Effect 2 as well, though they allowed bypassing them by moving efficiently.

I prefer it when enemies can receive actual reinforcements from different areas of the map. And no, I don't mean simply spawning them out of sight and making them move, I mean if they came from another room, then they came from there and shouldn't be present there anymore. I shouldn't go into that room and then face another 20 mobs with their reinforcements ad naseum.

I know Icewind Dale had this, though if it was scripted I do not know. Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising's campaign also had enemies reinforcing from relays which you could capture and stop them from doing so, though some maps did employ random spawning. Other games such as Shadow Company featured this as well. I even want to say Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics had this, but I'm not entirely sure.

Roxlimn wrote...

Your rebuttal is invalid. You specifically stated that you didn't like the spawn mechanic in DA2, implying that you liked DA:O spawning better, without saying why.

A better rebuttal would be you saying that you didn't like either spawning mechanic, and neither DA2 nor DA:O combat, but that objection would only apply to you, since others have already mentioned like DA:O spawns better, without sufficient reasoning, so the characterization absolutely is accurate in that case.

For whatever reason, I see this as "reasoning I agree with." Examples and reasons have been given all over the forum, I think everyone can attest to that all ready. I can go on to give entire walls of text for why on everything I've said in my first post of this thread, but it would just echo the explanations and reasons others have mentioned.

[Merced652]

Mecher3k wrote...

Roxlimn has a fetish for being wrong. I honestly think he gets off from it, so just ignore him.

I thought he was trolling when he called that **** tactical spawn locations... i mean really?

[Roxlimn]

MingWolf wrote...
I never said the whole warriors in the range line doesn't make tactical sense. What I said is that there are better ways to handle tactics, with waves not being one of them. I have a long list of solutions, but really, just looking at some strategy game is probably good enough. I admire changing tactical situations, but do you really think taking away the realism of how your enemies execute their tactics is a step in the right direction? Whats the point of tactics when your enemies defy all logic of tactics by simply warping in for your benefit? Whats the point of it when almost every single encounter is this same way?  Over-the-top repetitive to me.   I'm sorry, but the materiality of tactics disappear right there. I'll give you the credit that they keep you on your feet, but beyond that, its just plain silly.

I have no set opinion on whether a realism approach to a tactical game design is good or bad.  In general, I think tactical design should be informed by tactical concerns, and that realism should be kicked to the curb.  If I want hard realism, I'll head out the door.  My life is exciting enough.

Tactics helps you win battles more efficiently.  This includes situations when they spawn right on top of your Ranged Line.  Not every single encounter is like this.  Hardly any two are exactly the same, in fact.  Sometimes the melee spawn on top of your Mages, sometimes Ranged behind, sometimes all spawns are decidedly in the far front unless you were stupid enough to wade into a situation that's not of your own making.

I find complex tactics to be even more important in a dynamic environment.  Granted, static plans won't mean much, but that's kind of the point, I think.

[Roxlimn]

skan5:

For whatever reason, I see this as "reasoning I agree with." Examples and reasons have been given all over the forum, I think everyone can attest to that all ready. I can go on to give entire walls of text for why on everything I've said in my first post of this thread, but it would just echo the explanations and reasons others have mentioned.

You're right. You'd just repeat things others have said, because the most reasoned argument that's usually leveled is "I just don't like it," which isn't much of a design argument.

"I like it like that," is the most consistent argument FOR a DA:O design rather than a DA2 design, and as I said, how else would you characterize that other than as a hankering for DA:O?

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Brockololly wrote...

I posted this in another thread, but figure it'll get buried there. From Game Informer:

Just some excerpts:

[/i]What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly. Origins on normal  delivered a pretty painful experience on the PC if you were new to RPGs, and I firmly believe that it turned people off. There's a very clear  "skill gap" between someone new to Dragon Age II and a returning Origins player, and I think it's very easy to forget how steep that learning  curve could be once you've overcome it.As such, we've made the early  game quests and encounters more forgiving, especially on normal, to help someone just getting their feet under them acclimate. Hard, however,  presents a solid, and consistent challenge to  veterans, and one where I think teamwork, pause and-play, and smart thinking are all quite important.

Why do I get the feeling that Laidlaw translated the 'dumbed down' comment to combat only?

Or does the difficulty slider introduce new NPC conversations, item descriptions, Codex entries and alternate endgames in DA2 now?

It definitely doesn't introduce a 'Your life in Lothering' intro like the Origins had, and I was under the impression that it was dialogue/roleplaying that turned new players off DA:O (hence the simplistic combat approach to DA2 with very minimal talking.)

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 15 avril 2011 - 08:33 .

[Roxlimn]

Laidlaw actually does have a point in combat terms. DA2's combat systems are more complex than DA:O, and better balanced. Narrative design is more sophisticated, too.

[Marko GW]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

I posted this in another thread, but figure it'll get buried there. From Game Informer:

Just some excerpts:

[/i]What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly. Origins on normal  delivered a pretty painful experience on the PC if you were new to RPGs, and I firmly believe that it turned people off. There's a very clear  "skill gap" between someone new to Dragon Age II and a returning Origins player, and I think it's very easy to forget how steep that learning  curve could be once you've overcome it.As such, we've made the early  game quests and encounters more forgiving, especially on normal, to help someone just getting their feet under them acclimate. Hard, however,  presents a solid, and consistent challenge to  veterans, and one where I think teamwork, pause and-play, and smart thinking are all quite important.

Why do I get the feeling that Laidlaw translated the 'dumbed down' comment to combat only?

Or does the difficulty slider introduce new NPC conversations, item descriptions, Codex entries and alternate endgames in DA2 now?

It definitely doesn't introduce a 'Your life in Lothering' intro like the Origins had, and I was under the impression that it was dialogue/roleplaying that turned new players off DA:O (hence the simplistic combat approach to DA2 with very minimal talking.)

Well said Shadow..!

He simply doesn't get it, or he doesn't want to. All I know is that he should stop giving interviews, he just makes matters worse.

Modifié par Marko GW, 15 avril 2011 - 08:41 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Roxlimn wrote...

Laidlaw actually does have a point in combat terms. DA2's combat systems are more complex than DA:O, and better balanced. Narrative design is more sophisticated, too.

Perhaps he does, but the question was:

What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

Laidlaw chose to answer only one facet of the question. Plenty of role-players felt that it was the culling of certain RPG elements that 'dumbed down' DA2, so that the Action gamer crowd wouldn't be scared away by having to, for instance, read.

DA:O had a lot of pacing to set the stage, which Action gamers might have have found boring having to plough through dialogue and the nuances of their character's backstory. DA2 got rid of that and just said, "Go kill stuff." which is great for the Action crowd and 'dumbed down' for the RPGers who wanted more interaction rather than action.

[Shadowbanner]

Kastagir wrote...

I for one will not buy another Bioware game that has Laidlaw in a lead role (developer or otherwise - make him a tester, but not a lead). I wouldn't say he needs to be fired, but his ideas clearly don't represent or cater to the preferences of the majority of players. Put him back on the console-based action RPGs where his experience seems to come from (I wouldn't buy those anyway) and keep him away from serious RPG efforts like Dragon Age.

For a future Dragon Age title to succeed, it will require a longer development cycle and Laidlaw's absence.  The ones that feel the most betrayed are the early adopters - those people who pre-ordered the game out of loyalty or 'faith' in Bioware as a developer.  Even though many people like the new gameplay and artistic bent, enough 'controversy' has been created to give even the most devout Bioware fans pause enough to hold off pre-ordering another Dragon Age game until they see what it's like.  Bioware has used its dupe card.  It won't get another.

Bioware will either do it right next time, or (if they simply can't) this will be the end of the Dragon Age franchise.

Ditto.

[Shadowbanner]

Volourn wrote...

What's funny with all this praise DA1, diss DA2 and then blame DA2 all on Liadlaw 9and Gaider) is that both of these guys played huge roles in DA1 as well.  While pretending the syck and can't make games LMAO


"Just look at the sales figures."

Selling more than 1 mil in less than 2weeks, and at a faster pace than DA1. And, much cheaper to produce. L0L

I already corrected you in this very thread when you wrote that DA2 remained at the same price. It hasn't. In the UK its dropped in Amazon 65% in less than one month (and its no one-week promotion). To top it off they give away ME2 too. Link:

http://www.amazon.co...33&sr=8-3-spell

What you fail to understand, and is now becoming highly suspicious, is that although DA2 has sold faster than DAO on release and in excess of 1 millions units, its because people such as myself preordered it banking on DA:O success.

What you really have to look to gauge DA2 success are the updated sales figures. And I tell you they are nose-diving because of gamer's word of mouth.

They are not going to hit 4 or 4,5 million target units as intended. DA2 is a flop already. In fact it's an epic failure thanks to Mr Laildlaw's ill-conceived design changes.

A man who clearly dislikes DA:O should not have been put in charge of its sequel as it stands to logic. Hence the widespread backlash.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 15 avril 2011 - 09:14 .

[Melca36]

Roxlimn wrote...

Laidlaw actually does have a point in combat terms. DA2's combat systems are more complex than DA:O, and better balanced. Narrative design is more sophisticated, too.

You are beginning to sound like a paid schill more than anything else.

The combat is different but dumbed down to pander to the young gamers.
Its also way too fast in some areas and the exploding bodies is utterly ridiculous.

They need to come up with a compromise that is fair to all fanbases instead of pandering to the group that dont like rpgs to begin with.

Modifié par Melca36, 15 avril 2011 - 09:37 .

[Loc'n'lol]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

Laidlaw chose to answer only one facet of the question.

Well, perhaps that's because "dumbed down" is such an incredibly vague term that doesn't really describe anything, except a strong feeling of "I don't like it".

[Edli]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

Laidlaw chose to answer only one facet of the question.

Well, perhaps that's because "dumbed down" is such an incredibly vague term that doesn't really describe anything, except a strong feeling of "I don't like it".

Dumbed down means less complex.

[Shadowbanner]

Edli wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

And if the story is supposed to be "family-centric", they did an incredibly poor job of executing it.

The story is supposed to be family-centric, and they did an incredible job of executing it.

Oh no, I stated an opinion without any relevent argument to sustain it: what shall you do now?!

They did such a good job that the majority of the players wanted to bang Bethany.

Ha ha ha, you too? I was feeling kind of guilty because of this.

Merrill seems too young, Isabela is too much of a STD ****.

Bethany seemed like the logical choice, only that she was your in game sister!!