966 réponses à ce sujet

[Reinveil]

tmp7704 wrote...

Volourn wrote...

he was a lead designer. That's a pretty big role. The fact you guys are making stuff up when you weren't there is funny. I wasn't eitehr but I can readn ther manual, and it quite frankly lists him as a Lead designer. Sounds pretty important to me - espciially since that's his role in DA2 as well. Gaider was a Lead Writer for both (and did a better overall job with DA2 in that regard)..

That comes from Brent Knowles' blog, i think -- Mr.Knowles was the second lead designer for Dragon Age, and supposedly was asked to take this postion after departure of James Ohlen, the man who was originally in charge. While he gives fairly detailed description of how the development of DA went over years, it doesn't even mention Mr.Laidlaw being made lead designer at any point, let alone his impact on the game. You can read into that what you will.

BUT THE MANUAL SAYS.

[Fruit of the Doom]

devSin wrote...

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

Sorry to JDS, you sound like a smart person and reasonable, I'm trying to get my point across and for some reason failing.

Try posting on Easy.

And the award for best post ever goes to...

Modifié par Fruit of the Doom, 14 avril 2011 - 08:26 .

[Kimberly Shaw]

Lol you guys crack me up

To me, dumbing down means making things less complex and more button-mashy and linear, if that makes sense. Yes combat would be less tactical if it were dumbed down but there is also dumbing down of inventory/gear management, dumbing down of side quests, dumbing down of romances (a BIG HEART MEANS I LOVE YOU), dumbing down of dungeon design, and I could go on here but you get the idea?

Not to say some things weren't 'smartened up' from DAO to DA2, cross class combos and the friendship/rivalry parts are fair to say more complex/smart but those are far and few between.

[Fruit of the Doom]

Reinveil wrote...

BUT THE MANUAL SAYS.

THE ORDER DICTATES!

Modifié par Fruit of the Doom, 14 avril 2011 - 08:28 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Actually, half the time it´s select an ability and watch the character finish a pointlessly over the top attack and then use the skill. If you haven´t been interrupted before. Mages are especially bad with those twirls. Getting hit because the character listened too many tales is not my idea of better responsiveness.

This is something I have been wondering. At times it feels like the ability gets delayed untill after the animation of the standard attack gets finished (especialy bad for the mages) . Not sure this is the case or if its simple a targening issue and I just happened to not have any mob 'hard targeted' at the time.

Is this just me or is it just a series of bad targeting incidents?

- TSD

I noticed this when I played as a mage the first time after playing as a rogue. 

Now playing as a mage again it's obvious that something is off. 

[Khayness]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Hate to say it -- but so was Origines most of the time.

- TSD

Origins encounters didn't consist of auto attacking fodder mooks (even animal monsters had skills to use lol) 90% of the time, the enemy variables were more, enabling you to chose from various approaches.

Like when the interviewer mentions the rogues.

You can't stealth and scout around anymore, positioning your rogue behind a though foe, quickly dispatching it and flanking the rest with your team while they are rushing the rogue (now that is something I find more tactical).

Now everyone just parachutes on you.

Modifié par Khayness, 14 avril 2011 - 08:33 .

[Volourn]

"BUT THE MANUAL SAYS."

Nowhere in his blog does he claimM Laidlaw did nothing for the game.

He's an ex employee pouting over his ex company so his opinions, at best, are coloured.

Why would BIO credit Laidlaw as a lead designer if that was not his duty? What motivation does BIO have to lie about that?

The ridiculous idiocy to try to pretend otherwise by the silly gooses here is mind numbing stupidity.

Laidlaw was a Lead Designer on DA1. This is FACT.

[Reinveil]

Maverick827 wrote...

Edli wrote...

So what happened to that philosophy in the sequel? Flashy animations, exploding bodies, animesque art design and mindless combat aren't really targetting us the mature folks are they?

No, the family-centric story with realistic conflicts was for the mature fans.  I'm sorry they didn't appeal to your supposedly mature sensibilities.  Maybe they should have went with a fairy tale again - those scream maturity.

Yes, the sister that hides from the magic police because she can conjure fire from the air, fleeing from a city sacked by demonic creatures, receiving help from a dragon lady, and getting back a mansion gambled away after mom ran off with an apostate mage are the very zenith of realistic.  And that's not even taking into account what happens to her in act 2.  And there aren't elves, dwarves, and other mythic creatures in DAII, so I guess you're right about the fairy tale thing...oh wait...

And if the story is supposed to be "family-centric", they did an incredibly poor job of executing it.  The folks defending this game can't even agree with the story is about.

[jds1bio]

BobSmith101 wrote...

jds1bio wrote...
I think I agree, but I'm not sure.  Tell me if I'm misinterpreting this, but I think you're saying that in the lower difficulty levels there are no tactics because you don't need to think, but at the higher difficulty levels there are tactics.  But, there should be tactics at all levels, just smarter ones at higher difficulty settings.

If I got that right, I get your viewpoint.  But isn't it still up to the player to decide what abilities to get, and when/how to use them?

And as for Hard/Nightmare, how else should they scale up the difficulty?  If they leave all the HP and stat checks the same, what other variables can they tweak?  They could be more hasty I guess, getting in two attacks for every one of yours.  They could do the opposite and decide to sit a round of attacks out also.  What is the solution?

A lot of that depends on the build. Much like DA there are a some broken builds.

There are lots of ways to do it and still keep the scaling. Have better equipped things show up , have different things show up. Just padding out the hit points makes things tedious.

Builds can be frustrating.  I still remember my gimpy scout/sentinel from KOTOR, still beat the game but the final battle was a bit brutal.  But, I was satisfied when I finally beat Malak.  Funny how that works.

Ok, so for example let's say on casual/normal a rogueish enemy will evade and backstab.  Are you saying that on Hard/Nightmare, enemy HP the same, but the enemy should then use Assassinate and Mark Of Death also? 

Is that different enough?  Or what about the High Dragon's heat-seeking fireballs?  That was certainly different, should more enemies have that kind of ability?

It just seems that this particular request of combat difficulty should be solvable, and I'm waiting for a solution to present itself that could be patched into the game relatively easily.

Modifié par jds1bio, 14 avril 2011 - 08:35 .

[Volourn]

DA1 story; all about the archdemon

DA2 story: all about the PC

da2 > da1

[Killer3000ad]

Shadowbanner wrote...

This man, Mr Laidlaw, should not occupy the position he's in.

He clearly does not understand what gamers liked from DAO. He's locked up in his own ivory tower ignoring the huge backlash to HIS decisions.

Some of his replies are downright offensive. i.e. "play on hard"

Mr Laidlaw, I play on nightmare and I rate your game as a 2, mediocre at best.

This man should be removed from his post asap before he further harms Bioware's and EA's corporate and financial interests.

He clearly does not understand his own product patronising his customers in such a clumsy manner.

NO LAIDLAW FOR DA3!

[Shadowbanner]

Vice-Admiral von Titsling wrote...

Glorfindel709 wrote...
Every time he says that he preferred something personally or didn't like something personally, it was something that got "fixed' in DA2 under the guise of innovation.

You noticed that too, eh?

It seems to me like it's less that he actually 'improved' anything as much as DA:O wasn't his game, so he wanted to make DA2 as little like DA:O as possible.

Explains why he slags off on DA:O so much.

Excellent points, I too believe this is the key to solving the DA2 riddle.

Laidlaw simply never liked DA:O (its too boring, too slow, too complex, too...) so he decided to "improve" (that is remove) what he disliked -pretty much everything- and deliver what he "thought" DA2 should be.

Guess what, DA:O was a critically-acclaimed success, and with good reason. So if it ain't broke don't fix it Mike.

Fans purchased DA2 expecting the sequel would follow-up when the fact is that's its a completely different and unrelated game which in itself isn't necessarily bad, but the fact is that the "sequel", AKA as "Mike's idea on what DA:O should have been", is downright awful and its Mike's fault and he's to blame, as in big time, period.

For DA3 might as well do an FPS and try to pull in the COD and HALO crowd. Mike, do you like the idea? I thought it would appeal to you.

PS next time ML is in front of a reporter he should be flanked by no less than 3 EA corporate lawyers whispering in his ear what he can or cannot say. His clumsy statements only further anger customers such as myself.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 14 avril 2011 - 08:53 .

[Sad Dragon]

Khayness wrote...

Origins encounters didn't consist of auto attacking fodder mooks (even animal monsters had skills to use lol) 90% of the time, the enemy variables were more, enabling you to chose from various approaches.

Like when the interviewer mentions the rogues.

You can't stealth and scout around anymore, positioning your rogue behind a though foe, quickly dispatching it and flanking the rest with your team while they are rushing the rogue (now that is something I find more tactical).

Now everyone just parachutes on you.

What i meant by this was that you didn't have to adapt much if anything most of the time in Origins. You could use one tactic the whole game -- I have done it plenty of times.

Mind you, I am not defending the encounter design -- the city gangs spawning in two waves got old but too be honest it didn't bother me that much. Never ending battlezones in Origines like the Deep Roads however did annoy me. If we are comparing encounter designs I would say both games have flaws.
But fighting two waves or ninja dwaves while running around Krikwall at night isnt something that I would reflect on when desiding if I should replay the game. Sadly the deep roads as well as the final battle in Origins are things that fall on that list

- TSD

[Relshar]

Well from what I read DA:3 will be exactly like DA:2 just with a different story and the same maps and sidequests. etc.
I will not be buying it.
You want my money please go back to the original format of DA:O.

[abnocte]

[quote]
[/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.[/quote]

[/quote]

I did play on Hard.

I played RPG since BG days so I guess I'm a veteran.
But "solid, and consistent challenge"? Combat didn't offer any challenge at all, I usually wiped my enemies without a sweat, only had problems with some boss battles where I ended up reloading a few times... 
I guess our definitions of consistent and challenge are different...

[Maverick827]

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?!

Modifié par Maverick827, 14 avril 2011 - 08:42 .

[AkiKishi]

jds1bio wrote...
Builds can be frustrating.  I still remember my gimpy scout/sentinel from KOTOR, still beat the game but the final battle was a bit brutal.  But, I was satisfied when I finally beat Malak.  Funny how that works.

Ok, so for example let's say on casual/normal a rogueish enemy will evade and backstab.  Are you saying that on Hard/Nightmare, enemy HP the same, but the enemy should then use Assassinate and Mark Of Death also? 

Is that different enough?  Or what about the High Dragon's heat-seeking fireballs?  That was certainly different, should more enemies have that kind of ability?

It just seems that this particular request of combat difficulty should be solvable, and I'm waiting for a solution to present itself that could be patched into the game relatively easily.

Something like that allowing of course for that PCs are not as buff as mobs. There is nothing really clever about invisible mobs one shotting characters. Rather on hard the AI should work as a team the same way the party does.

Ever play FF:Tactics Advanced ? Facing rookie versions of your classes was easy, once they started pulling out all the advanced abilities you had access to, totally different story.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Volourn wrote...

DA1 story; all about the archdemon

DA2 story: all about the PC

da2 > da1

Huh? 

DAO was about the Warden.  They even released a DLC about what would have happened without the Warden.

[Nozybidaj]

Relshar wrote...

Well from what I read DA:3 will be exactly like DA:2 just with a different story and the same maps and sidequests. etc.
I will not be buying it.
You want my money please go back to the original format of DA:O.

Man that would be classic if DA3 reused the exact same maps as DA2.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Volourn wrote...

"BUT THE MANUAL SAYS."

Nowhere in his blog does he claimM Laidlaw did nothing for the game.

He's an ex employee pouting over his ex company so his opinions, at best, are coloured.

Why would BIO credit Laidlaw as a lead designer if that was not his duty? What motivation does BIO have to lie about that?

The ridiculous idiocy to try to pretend otherwise by the silly gooses here is mind numbing stupidity.

Laidlaw was a Lead Designer on DA1. This is FACT.

Having worked in various corporations, I can tell you that titles don't always mean much. 

When did Laidlaw come onto the DA:O project, what were his duties at that time, and what actual influence did he have on the game?  Or was he brought in to start work on DA2 even as DA:O was being wrapped up, or brought on to handle porting the game to other platforms, or something else?  Do we in any way know these things?

[DraCZeQQ]

I would even get over streamlining ... its like the Dark Force ... its not better or stronger, just easier and more tempting ... but what I wont never ever get over is when game aspect make no sense ... plot holes and utter non-senses, butchering own lore ... thats something imposible to overlook

and srsly NO ONE! pushed them to release too soon ... if they wanted they could release the game with a year delay, get it more polished and everything (for example new Batman: Arkham City was finished fall 2010 and the developers just said "ok game is done, but we will take whole year to test and polish it!" ... and Im pretty sure that game will be mind blowing)

[Volourn]

"DAO was about the Warden. "

Nope, it was about the archdemon.

The entire game right from the open video was about stopping the archdemon and the blight. The warden was just a means to the end to get the player involved but it wansot about the warden.

From the get go, DA2 was all about the PC. Just comapre the opening cutscene with the old grey warden - he's about the blight to DA2's opening with Varric and the Seeker - it's all about the PC.

DA1's story is about stopping the archdemon and it's told through the eyes of the warden.

DA2's story is about the champion (PC) and is told through the listening of the Seeker and experienced by the player first hand.


"Having worked in various corporations, I can tell you that titles don't always mean much. 

When did Laidlaw come onto the DA:O project, what were his duties at that time, and what actual influence did he have on the game?  Or was he brought in to start work on DA2 even as DA:O was being wrapped up, or brought on to handle porting the game to other platforms, or something else?  Do we in any way know these things? "

True, but as the peons we are all we know is what is in the manula and their posisiton. Laidlaw is a Lead designer on DA1. This is fact.Not for us to try to  argue otherwise. BIO thought it fitting to give him that title.

Modifié par Volourn, 14 avril 2011 - 08:50 .

[ItsToofy]

Volourn wrote...

DA1 story; all about the archdemon

DA2 story: all about the PC

da2 > da1

Somehow me thinks you didnt play the same da:o i did, especially seeing as you forget that loghain had a larger part in the story than the archdemon, you essentialy had to fix a civil war to even reach the climactic battle, but dont let me question your opinions, they are evidently superior and require ignorance to understand

[jds1bio]

BobSmith101 wrote...

jds1bio wrote...
Ok, so for example let's say on casual/normal a rogueish enemy will evade and backstab.  Are you saying that on Hard/Nightmare, enemy HP the same, but the enemy should then use Assassinate and Mark Of Death also? 

Something like that allowing of course for that PCs are not as buff as mobs. There is nothing really clever about invisible mobs one shotting characters. Rather on hard the AI should work as a team the same way the party does.

Ever play FF:Tactics Advanced ? Facing rookie versions of your classes was easy, once they started pulling out all the advanced abilities you had access to, totally different story.

No I haven't.  But I've played lots of games over the years with tactics that were more involved than DA2, of course.  Partly because they were games purely focused on tactics.

But in DA2 when archers were shooting at me from a distance, and sword-wielders were picking on the weakest ranged character, while mages stood back and tried to separate my tank duos, I thought they were using tactics.  When enemy assasins would appear from the shadows and assassinate the character that was attacking the strongest melee enemy, were they not using tactics?  Or were they being really dumb?

[Big_Chief]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Relshar wrote...

Well from what I read DA:3 will be exactly like DA:2 just with a different story and the same maps and sidequests. etc.
I will not be buying it.
You want my money please go back to the original format of DA:O.

Man that would be classic if DA3 reused the exact same maps as DA2.

It would almost be worth it, just to see how people react.