813 réponses à ce sujet

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

I can see their pre-orders being cut in half at the very least, if there is a DA3, if the game comes out in less than 2 years not too many people will buy it, except the remaining sheep.

Actually, I think they could probably make an excellent DA3 in two years.  It would have to be a highly polished version of DA2, though.  Some of the directions taken in DA2 are going to make a certain segment of the fanbase unhappy, no matter how well they're implemented.  But with the framework in place, two years spent on more varied environments, deeper character interaction, etc. etc. could be enough to turn out a pretty good product.

As mentioned, it wouldn't be to everyone's taste, but it could be a game that meets its own internal objectives very well.  I think there are a lot of gamers out there who tend to take a game on its own merits instead of pre-conceived expectations, and a more refined DA2 could turn out to be a big financial winner.  I can already see the "This is what DA2 should have been from the beginning!" lines in reviews.

If that's the way they go, I hope they at least tone down the 15-foot vertical leaps and blood fountains.  I hate that sort of thing.  It wouldn't chase me away from an otherwise excellent game, though.

[ToJKa1]

FadiRS wrote...

Hope im wrong..but we live in a day/age where it's all about instant gratification, fast turn-arounds, assembly line mass production and bottom-line driven decision making.

"Mass produced" is exactly how i would call DA2, just a quickly created mediocre product. All the games i've bought this year (Crysis 2, DA2, even Portal 2, only slightly) show this kind of signs, but it is most blatant in DA2. However there is a chance that if this keeps going the industry will eat itself alive leaving the field open for small developers that can focus on smaller groups instead of everyone. But even if so it'll get worse before it gets better.

Yes, that is an armchair economist speaking, copying an idea that i heard from someone somewhere sometime ../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png But atleast i admit it

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

element eater wrote...

ManiacalEvil wrote...

I am afraid the reviews will make DA3 have combat like DA:O which I found boring and unreallistically slow, and return to unvoiced and list dialogue, instead of wheeled and voiced. Anyone else feels like this?

no this would make me happy 

I'm with you in part, ManiacalEvil (can I call you Maniacal?).  My single biggest problem with Origins combat (once the dagger dexterity thing was finally straightened out) was that the main character's combat style wasn't particularly significant.  What I mean by that is that everything was so third-person that you weren't playing your own character in combat--you were playing a whole team.  That decentralized my role-playing experience greatly. 

As others have pointed out, this essentially reduces the Baldur's Gate/Origins sort of game to a squad level miniatures game with story-telling elements.  (It's ironic to me how often newer games are derided for being action games with story-telling elements, in light of how I see these older team-based RPG's.)  In the ME games, for example, I saw the world through my character's specializaiton.  There are widely differing opinions on ME games, I know, but I think making the PC the central actor in an RPG is good for immersion and role-playing.

In Origins, my role wasn't a salient feature in combat or story-telling, because my teammates filled all the other roles in the same way and I played everyone the same way.  (I'd also be willing to see combat eventually that isn't just WoW style tank-and-spank, but it's a solid framework for now.)

[Embargoed]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

I can see their pre-orders being cut in half at the very least, if there is a DA3, if the game comes out in less than 2 years not too many people will buy it, except the remaining sheep.

Actually, I think they could probably make an excellent DA3 in two years.  It would have to be a highly polished version of DA2, though.  Some of the directions taken in DA2 are going to make a certain segment of the fanbase unhappy, no matter how well they're implemented.  But with the framework in place, two years spent on more varied environments, deeper character interaction, etc. etc. could be enough to turn out a pretty good product.

As mentioned, it wouldn't be to everyone's taste, but it could be a game that meets its own internal objectives very well.  I think there are a lot of gamers out there who tend to take a game on its own merits instead of pre-conceived expectations, and a more refined DA2 could turn out to be a big financial winner.  I can already see the "This is what DA2 should have been from the beginning!" lines in reviews.

If that's the way they go, I hope they at least tone down the 15-foot vertical leaps and blood fountains.  I hate that sort of thing.  It wouldn't chase me away from an otherwise excellent game, though.

I really do like DA2, I just dislike some of the things about the combat.

Blood explosions need to go, along with teleporting waves. That and a whole new set of radically different caves and dungeons that aren't reused would make me preorder DA3 on the spot. 

I really did love the voiced protagonist. Mainly because I like to hear actual conversations being had, not a series of questions being selected from a list. I thought Hawke spoke naturally and the conversations flowed well. Everything fit aesthetically. 

The Warden, by comparison, was a boring character with no depth. He ran around and stared at people and asked a bunch of questions. Eventually he killed the Archdemon and did stuff. There was no character development or emotional impact, or anything aside from the Origin stories which felt dreadfully bare. I mean, how am I supposed to SERIOUSLY imagine that my Warden is angry? I am certainly not going to read the lines aloud and even if I did, the notion that the other characters could hear me strikes me as fancifully stupid . People tell me that "Obviously you don't know what ROLEPLAYING is because you're supposed to provide the depth by being your character..", but that's so mind-numbingly wrong that I feel like burying my face into both my palms. Roleplaying isn't by any means selecting a bunch of pre-determined responses from a list or saying things in your head using your "internal voice" or whatever. If I was the Warden, I would ditched Ostagar when I became a Grey Warden and returned to my Elven clan or something. Or, hell, I could've booked it to Kirkwall with my Human Noble when I had the chance. Nope, no option for that. Alistair just has to say please and suddenly you're tasked with killing the Archdemon. 

Lame.

DA2 had a lot of emotional impact behind the story and everything didn't feel like one giant disjointed series of events, especially considering how things eventually ended up coming together later in the story. The ending also got me excited for the next game. I really hope BioWare makes another one, and this time without reusing elements to the point of absurdity.

[DhammaWings]

Anyone afraid the bad review might make BioWare go back to Origins style?

I liked Origins, but after downward spiral into lowest common denominator (console) emphasis (no modding tools, general gameplay style, etc) I've more or less turned my back on BioWare. Fortunately, there are some games coming out later this year which I suspect will render Dragon Age an ill-fated example of a company gone horribly wrong.

But that's just me.

Modifié par DhammaWings, 22 avril 2011 - 07:56 .

[BlazingSpeed]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

ManiacalEvil wrote...

Unique and expansive. That reminds me of Kirkwall. And no area in Origins was unique and expensive, at least not in the mind blowing way Kirkwall was.

After saying that you lost all credibility. Sorry.

Indeed,

[Oloria]

To be honest, I don't really care what DA3 does with regards to combat - so long as there remains a "casual" option I can select to burn my way through it as fast as possible. In fact, was it one of the DA2 writers (Jennifer Hepler?) who said she'd like a button in games to skip combat altogether? I'm with her. Especially for second, third playthroughs. I just want to experience the changes in the story; I don't care to repeat the fighting over and over at all.

In DAO, combat was hours of dungeon crawling with little to no story progression to break it up (Deep Roads, Fade, Brecillian Forest). In DA2, "dungeons" are a better length, but this improvement is cancelled out by the tedium of multiple waves of enemies in nearly every single fight. So whether they revert back to DAO or stick with DA2, I'll probably still not enjoy it! I've never bought a Bioware game for its combat though.

The complaints about DA2's story being too "linear" are the ones that worry me (and perplex me, to be honest - perhaps they simply have a different definition of linear to me). Personally, I was very pleased to see the DA franchise move away from the gather army -> defeat big baddy -> save the world style plot. It's not that I didn't like DAO's story (far from it, it was a very enjoyable epic), but the darkspawn (at least in Origins) aren't the sort of enemy to provide much opportunity for moral dilemma. They're ugly, therefore they're evil.

I wanted more "difficult" decisions, like the decision to execute Loghain or not (I'll bet there are still debates raging on the DAO forums about that). The choices in DAO might have made more *immediate* impact on the world (if you count epilogue cards as impact anyway), but for me there wasn't much incentive to go back and choose different options unless you like to roleplay the traditional RPG "choose your alignment" type characters (lawful good through to chaotic evil).

In DA2, I was more than OK with playing a protaganist that was as much caught up in events as she could exert control over them. A lot of people it seems were not. If DA3 moves back to the epic superhero saves the world plot, then it won't be the end of the world for me (haha), but I do hope Bioware won't shy away from "darker" stories in future (where sometimes you have to settle for less than the happiest outcome), even if they do so in a new franchise.

Sorry for overdoing the (parentheses) as usual. I'm addicted.

[Statulos]

I completely dissagree on that. What is the point of playing an RPG where you have no real impact on anything except the closest friends? If I want to reflect on the futility of life, I´d read Kierkegaard, not play an RPG.

A story that does not involve saving the world is fine. A story that does not deal with cataclismic events is fine. A story where nothing you do really matters to the outside world is not fine for an RPG.
A good close and personal narration is Planescape: Torment. DA2 is not.

[Volourn]

"I completely dissagree on that. What is the point of playing an RPG where you have no real impact on anything except the closest friends?"

You have plenty of impact in DA2.

[Statulos]

Volourn wrote...

"I completely dissagree on that. What is the point of playing an RPG where you have no real impact on anything except the closest friends?"

You have plenty of impact in DA2.

Where? The only power I have is the power to have a good seat in a conflict that I cannot change at all. Kirkwall is the same no matter what I do, the situation of the Fereldan refugees is the same, the situation of the mine and my bussines with it does not show any effective change, I am supposed to be wealthy and all but I cannot get half the nice items in the game because I´m always low on cash...

Modifié par Statulos, 22 avril 2011 - 09:10 .

[Oloria]

Perhaps it depends on what you most enjoy about playing RPGs.

I expect this might be controversial to admit lol, but being able to choose how my hero reacts to an event is more important to me than whether or not that reaction ultimately makes any real difference to the main narrative. To me, it's the choices that the protaganist makes that defines her character, not how the outside world responds to it. If it happens that two opposite choices lead to the same result due to circumstance outside her control, then I simply don't feel "cheated" by that, so long as I am enjoying the narrative.

Also, people obviously have different ideas on what makes a choice meaningful. To me, a meaningful choice should most importantly provide an opportunity to define your protaganist by her actions, and secondly provide motivation to playthrough a scene again (I want to see different dialog, different quest sequences etc). The immediate impact Hawke makes in DA2 is mostly limited to the personal lives of Kirkwall citizens and the companions, but I get to see something change in game as a result of my decisions, and the decisions made allow me to roleplay different Hawkes with different points of view on certain issues.

To others, it seems "meaningful" means a choice has to affect a major plot point at least. Both points of view seem valid to me, but if you lean towards the former, I think perhaps you're more likely to have enjoyed DA2's story than if you attach a lot of importance to being able to drastically alter the main theme of the story. EDIT: I'm not saying I'd be at all content with a 100% fixed narrative, but I can accept important points in the plot being constant, so long as the journey to get there is flexible enough.

Modifié par Oloria, 22 avril 2011 - 10:27 .

[Blight Nug]

abaris wrote...

TheJist wrote...

I honestly think this was one of the most detrimental parts of the "improvements" people don't keep being buds and follow you around if you do stuff they hate or violate their core beliefs I owuld much rather that they leave you or even try to kill you if you get on their bad side.

This.

Why would they stay - especially since the new instalment doesn't even have the "save the world" imperative.

Never noticed this, but now that its mentioned, I agree with you guys. It would make alot of sence in DA2 for you kill certain companions that share a opposite opinion on "the conflict". If implemented well, this could work well in DA2 or future DA games.

[Serpieri Nei]

Moving Back to Origins would entail 

A lot less recycling which is great in a game but bad for the environment.

More Interaction withCompanions. Where a player can spend the time to learn about their past,
challenges they have faced, the mistakes they have made, and the motives that now drive them. Instead of dealing with two dimensional stereotypes. That will only speak to you when triggered

Race/CharacterCustomization.  The Origin stories were one of the greater features that Dragon age had to offer. The least they can do is allow the player to chose the race if they want to continue streamlining and showing their customers they would rather save time and money.

No More Dialogue Wheel. So many failed responses and the loss of persuasion and special actions. It’s time
to go back to a superior system and not one that was rehashed from mass effect.

Companion Armors/Inventory –
Now I can actually use my hard earn drops and not only equip myself but my
companions as well. Providing them with the gear that would strengthen the
roles that I the player have defined for them.

Companion Roles. No more Relying on Bioware to force feed me companions that I don’t want. I choose, who to take, I choose what role they play, I choose who heals and who deals death, I choose if my Hero lives or dies by the actions that I take.

Warriors now remember how to Dual Wield.  It’s still a mystery on how they forgot too. It must of been Flementh and some weird sort of magic.

More Trees/Abilities/Specializations – Choices, How I love them. To be a Bard, or a Ranger, or master shapeshifting or lay waste to my enemies as a Battlemage or call upon ancient spirits to strengthen my sword arm.  This alone provides replayability and additional gameplay.

No more Mystical Ninjas. This requires no explanation.

Replay Value. How I love thee. A staple to a great game, if only DA2 was as strong in this area as Origins was then maybe the game could of stood on its own instead of being compared to its predecessor which seems to be unfair due to all its flaws and shortcomings.


All of this would be positive changes to mediocre game. 

Modifié par Serpieri Nei, 22 avril 2011 - 11:02 .

[SirShreK]

I think this must have been said earlier... but still..

AFRAID!! This is the very point of all the protest! We WANT Bioware to go back to DA:O.

[Embargoed]

Some of these bothered me, so check the parts in bold.

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Moving Back to Origins would entail 

A lot less recycling which is great in a game but bad for the environment.
Witty.

More Interaction withCompanions. Where a player can spend the time to learn about their past,
challenges they have faced, the mistakes they have made, and the motives that now drive them. Instead of dealing with two dimensional stereotypes. That will only speak to you when triggered
Uh, no? I'd really rather not sit down and ask some dude questions about his life. Expository dialogue is terrible, and I'd rather see some acutal character development, not a **** session where a character tells me how someone died and now he vowed revenge against someone or something stupid and cliche like that. Besides, all of the characters in DA2 had character development. Depending on your friendship or rivalry, they treated you differently and you could open up certain dialogue options, many of which rocked. 

Race/CharacterCustomization.  The Origin stories were one of the greater features that Dragon age had to offer. The least they can do is allow the player to chose the race if they want to continue streamlining and showing their customers they would rather save time and money.
I beg to differ. A race customization would entail far more money than allowing for simple origin changes. BioWare could give us the choice between a Human Noble, a Human Commoner, an Apostate, Etc. Stuff that a human might be.

No More Dialogue Wheel. So many failed responses and the loss of persuasion and special actions. It’s time
to go back to a superior system and not one that was rehashed from mass effect.
Superior system? Rehashed? Now you're getting into dangerous waters. The wheel is fine, when done right. And regardless of the paraphrased words, there are identifiable icons that tell the intent of the dialogue choice anyway. So... moot point?

Companion Armors/Inventory –
Now I can actually use my hard earn drops and not only equip myself but my
companions as well. Providing them with the gear that would strengthen the
roles that I the player have defined for them.
No. I'd rather not spend my time editing the armor of my companions, especially when that armor looks pretty plain and stupid. The only character that I want to customize armor for is my PC. If other characters want armor upgrades, we should buy some for them. I like the armor customization system in ME2, where we had sliders that changed between different looking armor pieces.  That seems like a worthwhile compromise. We get different looking armor pieces that we can customize that, hopefully, look pretty cool and give worthwhile bonuses. 


Companion Roles. No more Relying on Bioware to force feed me companions that I don’t want. I choose, who to take, I choose what role they play, I choose who heals and who deals death, I choose if my Hero lives or dies by the actions that I take.
Uh, no. Sorry. If a character is a healer, like Anders, than that character should have access to healing spells. You can choose for Anders a different path by going down the vengeance line and by putting points into offensive spell trees. Other than that, you shouldn't get to decide anything more. 

Warriors now remember how to Dual Wield.  It’s still a mystery on how they forgot too. It must of been Flementh and some weird sort of magic.
I agree that warriors should've kept their Dual Wield tree. 

More Trees/Abilities/Specializations – Choices, How I love them. To be a Bard, or a Ranger, or master shapeshifting or lay waste to my enemies as a Battlemage or call upon ancient spirits to strengthen my sword arm.  This alone provides replayability and additional gameplay.
Each character had access to a bunch of trees + at least two specs. I think this isn't an area that requires a whole lot of work. 

No more Mystical Ninjas. This requires no explanation.
Yes, this does. In DA:O, you had rogues that had shadows suddenly encase them in grey fog. That seemed pretty ninja-like to me. So long as bodies aren't arbitrarily exploding, I'm good.

Replay Value. How I love thee. A staple to a great game, if only DA2 was as strong in this area as Origins was then maybe the game could of stood on its own instead of being compared to its predecessor which seems to be unfair due to all its flaws and shortcomings.
The game had plenty of replay value. I played DA:O three times and hated it, mostly because I wanted to see how things would have developed differently with different choices. The only choices that really mattered were the ones at the end of each quest hub and a few sidequests. The entire game was a grind to get to the meat of the story, which got stale pretty quick. DA2 is good in that, despite the tedious wave system, casual makes battles go by in seconds. I can "skip to the good part" without the incredibly slow combat of DA:O.

All of this would be positive changes to mediocre game. 
Hardly

[Darkhour]

Volourn wrote...

If it fails, the Texas branch willbe closed. It wouldn't effect BIO EDM.

Keep telling yourself that.

"Once SWTOR comes out all their resources will go to that and Bioware will become a new Blizzard. "

Nope. Whole different division.

You don't think that division soaking up all the funds has any effect on al the cutbacks in other divisions?

"I don't think they have anyone left at Bioware that can make a good old school RPG anymore so I don't think Origins quality is even an option for Bioware anymore."

What's funny is that plenty of the same people repsonsible for their other games are still here including the two docs. Gaider has beena round since BG2. LMAO

Just because they worked under someone who knows what they are doing does not mean said followers can lead themselves.

And Gaider is a writter. He doesn't desgin games. The writting in and of itself is not the problem with DA2.  

[Nightnight]

It's not the bad reviews that will turn DA's direction back to Origins but rather the bad sales. Gamers have voted with their wallets.

[SOLID_EVEREST]

If they just canned the whole DA: 2 thing and stuck with a huge expansion pack for Origins it would've been way better. The ball was in EA's court and they dropped it quick. Businesses make the dumbest decisions. I miss the days when we got like 2 or even 3 expansion packs not some shoddy DLCs. Well, I guess they knew that the base would leave, but they thought that they could reel in the FPS crowd to make up for it. I don't think any business is ever going to reach CoD sales on an RPG no matter how much they try to include the FPS junkies.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Embargoed wrote...
Uh, no? I'd really rather not sit down and ask some dude questions about his life.

No one force you to do that. You can choose not to talk at all in DAO. I don't talk to Zevran all the time. It's fine if you don't like it. But that doesn't mean everyone else have to do the same as you do, 

Embargoed wrote...
Expository dialogue is terrible, and I'd rather see some acutal character development, not a **** session where a character tells me how someone died and now he vowed revenge against someone or something stupid and cliche like that. Besides, all of the characters in DA2 had character development. Depending on your friendship or rivalry, they treated you differently and you could open up certain dialogue options, many of which rocked.

One thing that differ adult fiction with children story is expository. Expository provide details that influence sense of depth and believable. Expository dialogue  allow you to know more about your companions. Hence, more the reason to care for them which DA 2 fail to deliver properly. 

Embargoed wrote...
I beg to differ. A race customization would entail far more money than allowing for simple origin changes. BioWare could give us the choice between a Human Noble, a Human Commoner, an Apostate, Etc. Stuff that a human might be.

Which BioWare don't.

Embargoed wrote...
Superior system? Rehashed? Now you're getting into dangerous waters. The wheel is fine, when done right. And regardless of the paraphrased words, there are identifiable icons that tell the intent of the dialogue choice anyway. So... moot point?

Which is not done right anyway. So no. it's not a moot point.

Embargoed wrote...
No. I'd rather not spend my time editing the armor of my companions, especially when that armor looks pretty plain and stupid.

That's your opinion. I rather have different looking armor for my companions every time I do my quest than with boring same looking guy/girls over and over and over again. 

Embargoed wrote...
The only character that I want to customize armor for is my PC. If other characters want armor upgrades, we should buy some for them. I like the armor customization system in ME2, where we had sliders that changed between different looking armor pieces.  That seems like a worthwhile compromise. We get different looking armor pieces that we can customize that, hopefully, look pretty cool and give worthwhile bonuses.

I don't care how you play your game. If you don't like customization, then don't customize. Just stick to default armor like Morrigan robe as long as you like. But don't force your preference on other people because I don't give a damn care about unique appearance.

Embargoed wrote...
Uh, no. Sorry. If a character is a healer, like Anders, than that character should have access to healing spells. You can choose for Anders a different path by going down the vengeance line and by putting points into offensive spell trees. Other than that, you shouldn't get to decide anything more.

Uh. no. Sorry. But last time I remember, any mages can learn any magic talent. Or only BioWare games has hidden class call healer?

I stop reading the rest of your post because I don't think we play the same RPG. It's pointless to bother myself any further.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 23 avril 2011 - 01:11 .

[TheBlackBaron]

Well, I liked DA2's combat. That's something they should keep and build off of (bringing actual tactical combat back to merge with its faster pace would be great).

Almost everything else (there are a few other things DA2 did better but it would take too long to list them)? ****, why would you be afraid of going back to DA:O? That's exactly what they need to do.

[Embargoed]

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

No one force you to do that. You can choose not to talk at all in DAO. I don't talk to Zevran all the time. It's fine if you don't like it. But that doesn't mean everyone else have to do the same as you do, [/quote]
So... apparently, I shouldn't bother with characters that I'll be playing with for the next 30-40 hours worth of gameplay. 

That doesn't quite sound right. Let's rethink that.

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
One thing that differ adult fiction with children story is expository. Expository provide details that influence sense of depth and believable. Expository dialogue  allow you to know more about your companions. Hence, more the reason to care for them which DA 2 fail to deliver properly. [/quote]It also means that instead of actual dialogue and character development, you sit down and hear the characters **** about their lives. DA2 had character development. DA:O had little character development.
Going around a campsite, asking questions may give me more information about a character, but that hardly equals true character development. When people cite character development in DA:O, they talk about hardening Alistair or Leliana. Well, in DA2 you have MANY such events, all of which develop your allies differently. I wont say more for fear of spoiling anything. This is a spoiler free forum after all.

[quote]Embargoed wrote...
I beg to differ. A race customization would entail far more money than allowing for simple origin changes. BioWare could give us the choice between a Human Noble, a Human Commoner, an Apostate, Etc. Stuff that a human might be.
[/quote]
[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...Which BioWare don't.[/quote]I think you mean didn't.And I know that they didn't, you didn't have to point that out. I was suggesting something that could've been implemented as a sort of compromise.
[quote]Embargoed wrote...
Superior system? Rehashed? Now you're getting into dangerous waters. The wheel is fine, when done right. And regardless of the paraphrased words, there are identifiable icons that tell the intent of the dialogue choice anyway. So... moot point?[/quote][quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...Which is not done right anyway. So no. it's not a moot point.[/quote]
[quote]Embargoed wrote...
No. I'd rather not spend my time editing the armor of my companions, especially when that armor looks pretty plain and stupid.[/quote]
[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...That's your opinion. I rather have different looking armor for my companions every time I do my quest than with boring same looking guy/girls over and over and over again. [/quote]Which is why I asked for a compromise. 
[quote]Embargoed wrote...
The only character that I want to customize armor for is my PC. If other characters want armor upgrades, we should buy some for them. I like the armor customization system in ME2, where we had sliders that changed between different looking armor pieces.  That seems like a worthwhile compromise. We get different looking armor pieces that we can customize that, hopefully, look pretty cool and give worthwhile bonuses.[/quote]
[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...I don't care how you play your game. If you don't like customization, then don't customize. Just stick to default armor like Morrigan robe as long as you like. But don't force your preference on other people because I don't give a damn care about unique appearance.[/quote]Well that seems like a stupid thing to say. I liked the way Alistair's scale armor looked, but hated many of the other armor styles in the game. Should I decide to keep that armor despite the fact that it's weak? Well, here's the thing. Victory in combat requires that I upgrade. If I use weak armor late game, then it's far more likely that my character is going to die, making combat needlessly hard. I just want a few good looking armors to switch between. Armors that I don't have to collect from dead people, crypts, and tombs. Don't tell me how to play a game, because I sure as hell didn't go tell anyone how to play theirs. I simply gave an opinion and a suggestion.
[quote]Embargoed wrote...
Uh, no. Sorry. If a character is a healer, like Anders, than that character should have access to healing spells. You can choose for Anders a different path by going down the vengeance line and by putting points into offensive spell trees. Other than that, you shouldn't get to decide anything more.[/quote]
[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...Uh. no. Sorry. But last time I remember, any mages can learn any magic talent. Or only BioWare games has hidden class call healer?Last time I remember, characters were characters, not cardboard cutouts that you could mess around with illogically. Bethany can learn a healing spell, which is perfectly fine. However, Anders, according to the game, has an unnatural talent with healing spells. Thus, he gets access to the group heal. What's the problem with that?[/quote] 
[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...I stop reading the rest of your post because I don't think we play the same RPG. It's pointless to bother myself any further.[/quote]
You like mircomangement in your RPGs. I don't. Or rather, I don't like extensive micromanagement. The less time I spend in a menu, the better. I don't need to agonize over the stats of a weapon; I'd rather agonize over moral story choices.  
Obviously there is a disconnect here. While I dread using the term, I must hesitantly call you a fan of older style rpgs. The micromanagement in those were pretty pervasive, a big reason why I hate Baldur's Gate 2. I prefer the direction BioWare is going, with a greater emphasis on the meat of the game rather than the distracting numbers and boring menus. Don't get me wrong, I like customization, but not if it sacrifices 
I think we need to find a middle ground here. I guarantee, had BioWare had at least 6 months to polish DA2, the game would've fared better. 

[Kilshrek]

@ Embargoed

I think the problem here may be that the entire style of game is unsuited to you if you don't like micromanaging during combat. As in, the more out and out type of action RPG's of which there are quite a few in the market. Games like DAO and BG are really losing out. I'd rather not have another Dungeon Siege or Diablo or Titan Quest. There are games like that out there already. They lack the "moral" choices because that's how those games roll. Less micromanagement extends to making tough choices.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you but the type of game you're describing isn't so much a game as an interactive story book, which is rather what DA 2 was. I don't want an interactive story book, I believe there are a few out there as well. I want a game with a story. I think managing my companions equipment and making sound decisions in battle is covered by a game with a story. The meat of the game that you describe should include the mechanics, not exclude it. Otherwise what separates that game from a book?

[Embargoed]

Kilshrek wrote...

@ Embargoed

I think the problem here may be that the entire style of game is unsuited to you if you don't like micromanaging during combat. As in, the more out and out type of action RPG's of which there are quite a few in the market. Games like DAO and BG are really losing out. I'd rather not have another Dungeon Siege or Diablo or Titan Quest. There are games like that out there already. They lack the "moral" choices because that's how those games roll. Less micromanagement extends to making tough choices.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you but the type of game you're describing isn't so much a game as an interactive story book, which is rather what DA 2 was. I don't want an interactive story book, I believe there are a few out there as well. I want a game with a story. I think managing my companions equipment and making sound decisions in battle is covered by a game with a story. The meat of the game that you describe should include the mechanics, not exclude it. Otherwise what separates that game from a book?

If a game tells a story, then it might as well be an interactive book. 

I'm not saying that I don't like mircomanaging during combat. I like pausing and giving orders to my companions. I like being all tactical and not mashing buttons. Believe me, I understand the complexities of RPGs. I play D&D regularly with my friends so I understand tactics and numbers and all of that. All I'm saying is that DA2 and ME2 went in the right direction. Complexity shouldn't be shoved down my throat in terms of numbers and the like, mostly because I don't sit and caclulate how much 6% fire damage or physical damage is. If I'm getting a bonus, give me something that I can work with, something that isn't mind-numbingly boring.

Why do rpgs HAVE to have a loot system with tons of junk anyway? Why do I HAVE to customize my companion armor when there are suitable replacements for such a system anyway?

And, don't rpgs have their roots in games like D&D anyway? So shouldn't we move away from companion customization as a result? I hardly tell my friends how to play their character, and if I'm being immersed into a game's universe, then I don't think I'm going to tell the other characters how to dress unless I'm feeling particularly douche-like. 

I guess I'm just saying that an RPG doesn't always need to have the same mechanics it's had since it's conception. 

Modifié par Embargoed, 23 avril 2011 - 02:58 .

[Volourn]

"Just because they worked under someone who knows what they are doing does not mean said followers can lead themselves.

And Gaider is a writter. He doesn't desgin games. The writting in and of itself is not the problem with DA2. "

The dcos have been in charge from day. From SS to DA2 and all the games inbetweem./ Good, bad, ugly. It don't matter. if you have a beef with BIO take it up with.. though I warn ya.. they cna't ehar you over their hundreds of millions of dollars.

Laidlaw worked on the awesome JE so he knows how be a LD. He worked on tyhe awesome DA1 so he knows how to be a LD. he worked on the awesome DA2 so he knows how to be a LD.

Laidlaw wins. BIO wins. I win. YOU lose.

[gotthammer]

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Moving Back to Origins would entail 

A lot less recycling which is great in a game but bad for the environment.

More Interaction withCompanions. Where a player can spend the time to learn about their past,
challenges they have faced, the mistakes they have made, and the motives that now drive them. Instead of dealing with two dimensional stereotypes. That will only speak to you when triggered

Race/CharacterCustomization.  The Origin stories were one of the greater features that Dragon age had to offer. The least they can do is allow the player to chose the race if they want to continue streamlining and showing their customers they would rather save time and money.

No More Dialogue Wheel. So many failed responses and the loss of persuasion and special actions. It’s time
to go back to a superior system and not one that was rehashed from mass effect.

Companion Armors/Inventory –
Now I can actually use my hard earn drops and not only equip myself but my
companions as well. Providing them with the gear that would strengthen the
roles that I the player have defined for them.

Companion Roles. No more Relying on Bioware to force feed me companions that I don’t want. I choose, who to take, I choose what role they play, I choose who heals and who deals death, I choose if my Hero lives or dies by the actions that I take.

Warriors now remember how to Dual Wield.  It’s still a mystery on how they forgot too. It must of been Flementh and some weird sort of magic.

More Trees/Abilities/Specializations – Choices, How I love them. To be a Bard, or a Ranger, or master shapeshifting or lay waste to my enemies as a Battlemage or call upon ancient spirits to strengthen my sword arm.  This alone provides replayability and additional gameplay.

No more Mystical Ninjas. This requires no explanation.

Replay Value. How I love thee. A staple to a great game, if only DA2 was as strong in this area as Origins was then maybe the game could of stood on its own instead of being compared to its predecessor which seems to be unfair due to all its flaws and shortcomings.


All of this would be positive changes to mediocre game. 

I'll just say, 'this'.

To answer the OP: Nope, I'm not afraid. I actually hope all the criticism makes it a certainty that the next DA game (if there'll be another one...) will be of Origins' style.