813 réponses à ce sujet

[1000questions]

Volourn wrote...

"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.

your rants dont makes sense just like your hollow arguements, anyways continue

[Kilshrek]

Embargoed wrote...

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%f fire damage or physical damage is. If I'm getting a bonus, give me something that I can work with, something is 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 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. 

I figure that the story doesn't come at the cost of the game when it's not an interactive story book.

Origins didn't have a junk system as such, just bits and bobs here that you could sell, most of the drops in Origins were usable items which unfortunately didn't come up to anything against the unique or special items you get so their abundance made it seem like a metric crap ton of junk. DA 2 solved this problem with such elegance, by making (possibly) half of all items junk drops. Incredible.

The reason behind allowing the player 100% control over their companions is so they can customize the party to their play style. Instead of forcing me to take X along because X is the only person who knows how to hold a shield, I want to choose between X or Y and if X is a complete rat bastard then he can rot in a corner while I do interesting things and return to gloat in his face later, or something like that. Like you said, I don't want a companion shoved down my throat because they're the only one with a skill.

There should be a separation of gameplay and story elements when it comes to outfitting the party, yes it doesn't make sense to tell someone to put on this armour because it really brings out your thighs or something like that, but in the context of a game if you're playing a companion in a certain style then why shouldn't you be allowed to load them out in a manner that is optimum to that style?

Complexity =/= better gameplay for sure, but neither is simplicity.

[Huntress]

Statulos 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? 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.

I agree with you, I like to feel "the winner"; not killing that archdemon would have been a downed for DAO, not saving the tower for the templars or mages, would have been a devasteting event, not helping the elves would have been just wrong, even if you choose to speed their way to their god's...

Yes I like to save the world..  and guess what, there nothing more important that to save the world!

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Embargoed wrote...

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,

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.

Yes. Rethink back about one dimensional interaction with companions that you suggest earlier since you're the one who don't like to question companion's live. 

Embargoed wrote..

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.

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.

What? Like waiting for ages for them to do so? By the time they do start to open their mouth, I was too busy with main plot to pay my attention for them. Not to mention my mood after been ruined by waves after waves of tiresome combat. There is no longer private moment like the camp anyway.  

Embargoed wrote...
Which is why I asked for a compromise.

You honestly believed BioWare is going to do all the things you mentioned? There's no indication that they will implement things like ... commoner Hawke, chantry Hawke or merchant Hawke or slave master Hawke whatsoever.  Nor do any indication that they will ever try to find any compromising with regard to unique appearance. Not when they still have problem with their poor level of detail with regard to model facial structure,  it hard to distinguish the difference between characters physical appearance beside clothing from distant.

In any case, It's just all about Mike Laidlaw personal taste and people who agree with him.

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.

ME 2 armor has slider, I agree. Still look the same boring piece of clothing design with different color to me.

Embargoed wrote...
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.

You did tell people not to customize their companion because you want the game to upgrade the armor system for you and too lazy to change or upgrade for yourself. You claim it's your opinion but to me, you are trying to enforce your own system of gaming when you quote the guy before you earlier. 

Embargoed wrote...
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.

Micromanagement and customization is one way to replay the game over and over and over again without feeling boring doing the same tasks for 100 times. You want to pay $60 for one time used games,  doing the same simple things over and over again without micromanagement and customization is entirely up to you. That's what I say, stick with default unique appearance as long as you like. But don't dictate that to everyone else by revamping the game system. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 23 avril 2011 - 03:51 .

[Embargoed]

Kilshrek wrote...

Embargoed wrote...

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%f fire damage or physical damage is. If I'm getting a bonus, give me something that I can work with, something is 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 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. 

I figure that the story doesn't come at the cost of the game when it's not an interactive story book.

Origins didn't have a junk system as such, just bits and bobs here that you could sell, most of the drops in Origins were usable items which unfortunately didn't come up to anything against the unique or special items you get so their abundance made it seem like a metric crap ton of junk. DA 2 solved this problem with such elegance, by making (possibly) half of all items junk drops. Incredible.

The reason behind allowing the player 100% control over their companions is so they can customize the party to their play style. Instead of forcing me to take X along because X is the only person who knows how to hold a shield, I want to choose between X or Y and if X is a complete rat bastard then he can rot in a corner while I do interesting things and return to gloat in his face later, or something like that. Like you said, I don't want a companion shoved down my throat because they're the only one with a skill.

There should be a separation of gameplay and story elements when it comes to outfitting the party, yes it doesn't make sense to tell someone to put on this armour because it really brings out your thighs or something like that, but in the context of a game if you're playing a companion in a certain style then why shouldn't you be allowed to load them out in a manner that is optimum to that style?

Complexity =/= better gameplay for sure, but neither is simplicity.

You make some good points, and I agree that gameplay should be at the forefront; right alongside the story. Alpha Protocol is a shining example of a game with a great story, but terrible gameplay. However, when gameplay becomes more important, we see Blizzard games get developed, which is hardly a suitable replacement. (Hardly any story in Bliz games)

However, there's no reason we can't go halfway on this. Why don't we just aquire Armor Sets instead of X Pauldrons and Y Boots. That way, we can have armor customization for companions AND keep the same sort of logic that doesn't make me want to bash my head against my Xbox controller. 

Modifié par Embargoed, 23 avril 2011 - 03:56 .

[Kilshrek]

Embargoed wrote...

You make some good points, and I agree that gameplay should be at the forefront; right alongside the story. Alpha Protocol is a shining example of a game with a great story, but terrible gameplay. However, when gameplay becomes more important, we see Blizzard games get developed, which is hardly a suitable replacement. (Hardly any story in Bliz games)

However, there's no reason we can't go halfway on this. Why don't we just aquire Armor Sets instead of X Pauldrons and Y Boots. That way, we can have armor customization for companions AND keep the same sort of logic that doesn't make me want to bash my head against my Xbox controller. 

I think DA 2 got it half right really. iirc Torment did have sets for companions, as opposed to the piecemeal pickups that mean so little  in DA 2. I think that DA 2 should have been less afraid of blatant borrowing of the best elements from games (what was that about flattery again?) while maintaining its working elements. Armour sets for companions is what I would have liked to see tbh, and this is where I agree with you. Though I still like being able to customize my own kit. ME 2 really robbed me of any meaningful ability to change up my kit because the difference between pieces of armour was so insignificant I really only used it to make a look for my Shep that I liked.

I think the problem with Blizzard games is that the story is already set way ahead of whatever the player does, which is exactly my interactive story book scenario. Much like DA 2, whatever you do in a Blizzard game doesn't change the outcome, you just come along for the ride. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but that's not what I expected or want when I fired up DA 2.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

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

Isn't that what Varric did? Telling you a story? Therefore, DA 2 is an interactive book? You preferred it that way do you?

Embargoed wrote...
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.

The same applied to simplicity. It should not be shoved down my throat either. I do calculate the numbers to build different mages or warrior so every time I play a mage or warrior, it will never be the same warrior or mage that I've played before. Without lots of number there is no way to build different character. 

Embargoed wrote...
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?

There're not junks. BioWare DA 2 items are junks. All those so called junks to you is crafting component, which meant to create or design new weapon and armor or spell potion etc... which what make Diablo a revolutionary games before, due to crafting system. DA 2 loot however is useless junks and appropriately called junks. But I think it's merely to cover the poor crafting mechanism that BioWare couldn't get it done properly.

Embargoed wrote...
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.

D&D was designed to bring your friends to role play in mind. It require live human interaction. Not AI whose programmer need to for see in order to get the interaction right. Hence, why single player RPG cannot emulate the same experience playing roles with friends like D&D. But that's not an excuse to turn a role play game into interactive storybook or movie or action adventure. If you don't want to get involved with role-playing activity and rather be an audience observing the characters and the story, than why do want you to play an rpg? You can get that with playing adventure games or detective series or Super Mario. If you want action, beat 'em up and shooting games is far superior than hybrid rpg+ action game.

Edit: Companion customization is a rich addition to gameplay. When you want to improve something you don't simply throw away everything. You need to add something that helps. And for party base RPG, companion customization is a welcomed addition.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 23 avril 2011 - 04:23 .

[AAHook2]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

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.)

I had a different experience in my Origins run. My favorite was a Commoner Dwarf Rogue who I fashioned as a sort of thief, Robin Hood type.
I specialized as an Assassin and basically I became powerful enough to Stealth into a room or section ahead of my crew, picked out targets of import, used poison weapons and a heavy backstab attack. Often times I could clear half the area before my backup arrived to clean up.
It felt like a fit especially when in Denerim when you took thief missions as the Fox.
Morally it also put you in a gray area, but you could play as a thief with a heart of gold and it worked out fine with your companions. Some decisions you could be savvy and full of cunning, while other times you could do the "right thing" without effecting your Companion stats to heavily. 

It was a bit of a mini game to act in a way you wanted with decisions, but also manipulate the approval ratings. Gifts offered a sort of cheat in this regard, but generally, I pleased the people I wanted to which worked out well enough for me.

[Serpieri Nei]

Embargoed wrote...

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

The Friendship/Rivarly system is not worth replaying a game for a few different lines of dialogue. Where the outcome remains the same. And your so called dialogue wheel is rehashed, or haven’t you played Mass Effect? And it seems you don’t have much faith in a device that you feel is only fine when done right. It's a shame that you playing a story driven game, yet do not want to know abything about the companions that are part of the story. I think you be happier with the system used in Guildwars, where you just hire henchmans.

Editing Armor, are you a Modder. Armor looks plain and stupid? You must be referring to the robes and leather armors. Yes Bioware has a lot of work to do with their art department in that field.  You want sliders armors now
for the protagonist? Do you enjoy paying more for stuff that should off already been in game. Did you also purchase the alternate costume packs for ME2?

Sorry but being forced to take a companion with you based on what role it’s been pigeon holed in is the opposite of having choice, and makes taking other companions pointless. And if Anders really was a healer then why was the spirit healer tree prohibited to him?

Come now, I’m sure you know what we mean by Ninja Like. Or do you prefer having templars in full plate armor disappear and reappear while doing a back flip. Or mobs appearing out of thin air or out of wood work.  Maybe it was a spell that lets them pass through wood?

Sorry, DA2 has very little gameplay value and can be completed in just under 30 hours doing all quests, including companion and side quests. And as I said earlier, I won’t subjugate myself to mediocre gameplay for a few different lines of dialogue. And the non-stop waves of mobs that you have to grind through for every few
steps that you take. Which by the way is very tedious on nightmare difficulty that requires no tactics but it does tries ones patience since it just takes longer to kill them, and the only thing you have to watch out for is friendly fire.

You also seem to be forgetting that the traits I listed are from a critically acclaimed game called Dragon Age: Origins. A title that DA2 will be very hard pressed to be even nominated for.

Modifié par Serpieri Nei, 23 avril 2011 - 04:35 .

[AAHook2]

Oloria wrote...

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.

I sometimes don't know what game people are playing when they describe Origins. It was what you wanted it to be. There were tons of gray area decisions. One of the nicest surprises happened to me when playing through the Bracilian Forest when I figured out that you could side with the Werewolves.
The ending was quite touching actually. I was honestly a little bored at first going through the Dalish Camp, and thought that it would be a standard kill the werewolf monster quest, but the story that unfolded yielded a really beautiful reconcilliation/forgiveness angle that I frankly didn't expect.

There was the Harrowmont vs. Bhalen angle which had long lasting ramifications. Later there was Branka and whether to help her or kill her. There was the Anvil of the Void. None of those were easy decisions, and sometimes doing what seemed like th right thing to do had very dire ramifications, or prevented you from unlocking comething later on in the game, but you were forced to live with your decision...it was poignant.

There was the drama of Redcliffe of whether to spare a boy, or make it easier for yourself by letting him die. You could spare Jowan, or have him killed.
There were more decisions in this game than I can bear to mention.

I don't understand the argument that there were fewer decisions to be made like Loghain's trial.
You could choose to sacrifice yourself in the end if you felt you wanted a "darker" game.

I suppose I don't think your arguments stick very well for me. I disagree.

[Embargoed]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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

Isn't that what Varric did? Telling you a story? Therefore, DA 2 is an interactive book? You preferred it that way do you?

What's your point?

Embargoed wrote...
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.

The same applied to simplicity. It should not be shoved down my throat either. I do calculate the numbers to build different mages or warrior so every time I play a mage or warrior, it will never be the same warrior or mage that I've played before. Without lots of number there is no way to build different character. 

Sure there is. That's why we have different talent trees, different classes, different specializations. There are plenty of other options. Sitting down and calculating every last tiny percentage bonus that I get is tedious and doesn't add anything to the game. Besides, it can hardly be said that the 6% bonus to damage makes your character any more different than anyone elses. 

I'm not advocating the complete removal of numbers, just their simplification. BioWare screwed up the loot system in this game, so I'd like them to fix and improve it next time around.  

Embargoed wrote...
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?

There're not junks. BioWare DA 2 items are junks. All those so called junks to you is crafting component, which meant to create or design new weapon and armor or spell potion etc... which what make Diablo a revolutionary games before, due to crafting system. DA 2 loot however is useless junks and appropriately called junks. But I think it's merely to cover the poor crafting mechanism that BioWare couldn't get it done properly.

If you're talking about crafting in DA2, it's done WAY better. Its... streamlined. [trollface]

Embargoed wrote...
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.

D&D was designed to bring your friends to role play in mind. It require live human interaction. Not AI whose programmer need to for see in order to get the interaction right. Hence, why single player RPG cannot emulate the same experience playing roles with friends like D&D. But that's not an excuse to turn a role play game into interactive storybook or movie or action adventure. If you don't want to get involved with role-playing activity and rather be an audience observing the characters and the story, than why do want you to play an rpg? You can get that with playing adventure games or detective series or Super Mario. If you want action, beat 'em up and shooting games is far superior than hybrid rpg+ action game.

Here's the thing, I don't want to play Super Mario. I want to play an RPG, but one that doesn't suffer from some sort of OCD obsession with stuff that's been done for years. There are others  

Edit: Companion customization is a rich addition to gameplay. When you want to improve something you don't simply throw away everything. You need to add something that helps. And for party base RPG, companion customization is a welcomed addition.
We can do without companion customization and still increase replayablitiy. Planescape Torment did it. 

[Gatt9]

Volourn wrote...

"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.

1.  Gaider keeps commenting he wants to add even more icons to the dialogue system,  further moving the games into the "I don't wanna hafta read!" catagory,  despite the fact that an RPG needs to strive towards more interaction not less.  He also is one of the people who keep making claims that "People who don't like DA2 are a minority and don't count".

2.  The Docs aren't in charge.  EA is.  That's what happens when you sell your company to someone else.

3.  Now would be a very good time for you to go and do some research prior to making claims.  Bioware has never been a big money maker.  They've done well,  but they're not a huge revenue source.  Not worth hundreds of millions for a studio whose product lines generally generate under 100 million apiece.  EA paid the price not for Bioware,  not for their product lines,  they paid it for Star Wars.  They want the next WoW,  and they think SW is it.  That's why they bought Bioware,  and if SW fails,  Bioware's gone.  EA doesn't want the RPG deptartment.  They've already killed what was the world's biggest cRPG studio and product line once,  for no reason other than they could.  They're certainly not going to keep Bioware around when they shut down Origins.  Honestly,  Origins did so well that Hollywood made a movie out of one of their games (Wing Commander),  why would they keep around a studio who's product don't even crack 5 million in sales?

4.  From the reviews I read,  JE wasn't all that great.  In fact,  prior to DA2,  it was considered Bioware's worst effort.  Stange that Laidlaw and new lows for Bioware seem to go hand in hand isn't it?

5.  I've been watching this Industry for nearly 30 years.  I've noticed something important,  when you make grandiose statements that fall flat,  and alienate audiences,  you don't end up working for big name studios when the roof caves in on you.  Gaming History is rife with people like Laidlaw,  haven't seen any of them make anything in years.  When you antagonize audiences,  and you fail with your "One true vision!",  no one wants your baggage.  Laidlaw never should've put down people for enjoying DAO's type of gameplay.

6.  You're very confused.  Laidlaw didn't win,  he's digging a really deep hole.  Bioware didn't win either,  the game isn't selling,  which makes that hole alot deeper (Studios don't put you in charge of things when your products fail,  especially when you just publicly ticked off a good portion of the audience).  I didn't lose,  I still have $60 in my account,  that'll go to Iron Tower or Double Bear instead.

[Mercannis]

ManiacalEvil wrote...

This game is not as well rated as the previous game, I think we can all conclude that. Am I the only one afraid that the nostalgia backlash this game received will make BioWare games become less actiony in the future? I immensely enjoyed DA2 and I'd go as far as to classify it as one of my top 5 games (Origins didn't make it, a bit too boring and slow). I really enjoy how actiony yet tactical the combat was, how deep the characters were (being able to talk to your family really made those characters awesome)

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?

EDITED to remove spoilers.

Afraid? No on the contrary im hoping with every bone in my body that they will go back to the Origins style. Also please drop the condescending crap, im talking about the "Nostalgia" comment. People have different opinions than you do, deal with it.

[Radwar]

I'm afraid Bioware will stick to the DA2 style. Although DAO wasn't perfect, no game is, it's still light years ahead of DA2 in terms of quality. I would've prefered if they would've built on DAO's strong points and improve upon it's weaknesses instead of doing a complete 180 degrees on alot of stuff and rushing DA2. Seriously if Bioware's continues the trend they're going for with DA2, then I certainly won't be buying DA3 & I'm certainly ain't buying any DLC for DA2.

[Radwar]

What Bioware should do is move Laidlaw to another game (Jade Empire 2 or whatever), and get down on their knees & plead Brent Knowles to come back & Lead design DA3.

Modifié par Radwar, 23 avril 2011 - 09:45 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Embargoed wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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

Isn't that what Varric did? Telling you a story? Therefore, DA 2 is an interactive book? You preferred it that way do you?

What's your point?

Since you like DA 2, I figure this type of interactive story book suit you, no?

Embargoed wrote...
Sure there is. That's why we have different talent trees, different classes, different specializations. There are plenty of other options.

Bah! with 3 points per level to distribute and 7 level to learn a skill and that's about 3 skills branch per game play? Please, you are dreaming.

Embargoed wrote...
Sitting down and calculating every last tiny percentage bonus that I get is tedious and doesn't add anything to the game. Besides, it can hardly be said that the 6% bonus to damage makes your character any more different than anyone elses.

Blame that on DA 2 leveling system. 1 point in strength should  reflect stronger attack but they level up ninjas too. So, instead of making PC stronger, it makes PC weaker. I find much older RPG with stat system more effective than today RPG. They used numeric value to heavily shape the character, which is bad if it's not efficient enough. But overall, skill like charisma to influence barter and persuasion is useful. It was just a matter of implementation and effectiveness. But instead people like you don't know how to use it and allow free pass for lazy developer to remove them. Completely.

Embargoed wrote...
I'm not advocating the complete removal of numbers, just their simplification. BioWare screwed up the loot system in this game, so I'd like them to fix and improve it next time around.  

Now you see it's simplification. Tomorrow, BioWare will see it's complexion which lead to removal. I've seen enough of removal already and I don't believe it's going to end. Until it's not as simple as playing Tetris, we'll continue to see removal/streamlined again and again. 

Embargoed wrote...
If you're talking about crafting in DA2, it's done WAY better. Its... streamlined. [trollface]

Huh? You called crafting runes ONLY is way done and better? I don't even find it innovative and encouraging. Because all I can do is just upgrading gears with little value not worth my time to invest. Obviously you have no idea what makes Diablo so addictive in term of crafting. Have you ever, in your life as a gamer  created super gear by mixing unknown materials and feel excited with your own creation? Don't answer. You have no idea what I'm talking about. 

Embargoed wrote...
Here's the thing, I don't want to play Super Mario. I want to play an RPG, but one that doesn't suffer from some sort of OCD obsession with stuff that's been done for years. There are others  

Here's the thing. Unless you want to play Super Mario, stick to your simplicity and play your role properly without affecting other people enjoyment who wish to try other element of RPG. You don't want to craft. Don't craft. You don't want the numbers. Then use auto level up and keep your opinion to yourself. You don't want to question the companions life then don't question them. But don't ruin it for others who do want to do so. You're too lazy to customize the companions then don't customize at all. Don't ruin it for others who do love to customize their companions appearance. Stick your opinion to yourself. Don't try to influence others to follow your simple way of role playing.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 23 avril 2011 - 10:10 .

[abaris]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Here's the thing. Unless you want to play Super Mario, stick to your simplicity and play your role properly without affecting other people enjoyment who wish to try other element of RPG. You don't want to craft. Don't craft. You don't want the numbers. Then use auto level up and keep your opinion to yourself. You don't want to question the companions life then don't question them. But don't ruin it for others who do want to do so. You're too lazy to customize the companions then don't customize at all. Don't ruin it for others who do love to customize their companions appearance. Stick your opinion to yourself. Don't try to influence others to follow your simple way of role playing.

And here's the thing I don't get about game developers. Everything you mentioned can easily be left out by the player. But if its not there, its not there. So, all I can read into this fact is they're catering to the lowest common denominator, thereby leaving the ones loving complexity no chance at all.

I have to admit, I am a casual player when it comes to certain aspects. Crafting or alchemy was never my thing, but I always loved the fact that its there for me to use if I felt like it. And the most important thing, and also the thing I loved most about Bioware games, were the companions. The possibility to interact with them whenever I felt like it and the possibility to give them wondrous items, thereby making them look better.

All I can say, if they continue down the DAII path, there's nothing there to attract me to Bioware games. To use a business term, they're losing their USP, since everything else about their games can be summarized as been there, done that.

[Ottemis]

In alot of ways DA:O and DA2 are not to be compared at all.
Think about it, DA:O is rpg ala BG, the life expectancy of those games is LONG, especially seeing bioware provided us with all the tools to expand upon the game via the toolset. If you look around on the community-pages it'll give you a hint as to how the community is evolving in their offerings of custom content for DA:O. Most of them also put alot of extra focus on getting their custom content to be lore-friendly.
Aside from that we've had numerous years between BG and DA release. It's been a long time coming, but honestly, what's the point of having had DA2 be a clone of DA? The toolset release would have been rendered useless for DA that way. We don't need an expansive new rpg ala DA:O so quickly after it's initial release in my honest opinion. Big risk of snowing one or the other under.

What they did with DA2 wasen't at all such a great leap, It's roughly been proven a working formula: it worked for ME2. I enjoy both the DA and the ME line, and my opinion in this matter is, I don't care what they do with DA3, aslong as it comes. All 4 games are stellar games on their own, but you should be open to looking at them as seperate entities, instead of comparing everything which ultimately changes nothing but make you miserable and make the chance bigger bioware will throw in the towel and stop continuation of an already epic line of games. That or fall into repitition, which really wouldn't be a positive thing either.

It makes me a little bit sad sometimes to see the strong critisizm towards DA2 when really, it's a solid game. It's just not a clone of DA:O. And shouldn't have been in my opinion.
DA3 is a different story, but I'm patient enough to wait and see, and I trust them to know what they're doing. Bioware has given us some great games sofar, and I thank them for it. I'm positive ME3 and DA3 are both games, yet again, that I will thouroughly enjoy.

This is not me saying I don't think any of them have fields where they need improvement, I'll just be happy if Bioware keeps bouncing their games between either direction as they both, roughly.. simply work. Not the same obviously, but work nonetheless.

Lastly, this is not a new argument, these things surface after every sequel to ANY game with a strong fan and player base. You gain some, you lose some. But change is almost always nessecary and that blade cuts both ways. That coincidently ALSO means change will be as much nessecary for the next sequel.

You either trust them to give you a decent product, or you don't. I trust them explicidly, and I will keep buying their games if they continue in the trend both lines of games have been going.
They are obviously allowing growth, its safe to say they will listen to what all of us have to say, and they'll adept asmuch as they can in developing the next games in line.
So yeah, on with constructive critisism.

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 avril 2011 - 10:57 .

[abaris]

Ottemis wrote...

What they did with DA2 wasen't at all such a great leap, It's roughly been proven a working formula: it worked for ME2.

They are very different animals. I liked ME2. ME2, as opposed to DAII kept the dialogue options. You could still talk to your companions whenever you felt like it. A very crucial element when it comes to companion based RPGs and also an element giving you the feeling of not being alone in whatever you're doing. Also the simplified combat of ME2 didn't totally abandon its predecessor. Your characters didn't suddenly jump like monkeys on speed and last time I checked, not one of the enemies exploded in a gory shower of body parts.

And yes, you have to compare DAII to DAO. DAII is building on the fame of its predecessor, its sold as an AAA title RPG for the same price as DAO.

[Ottemis]

I said roughly, if i'd have gone into detail that'd make my post epicly long. There are loads of differences obviously, but also a red line in similarities.

I'm not keen on talking to companions whenever I feel like it, when they have nothing new to say.
"I have some questions about the grey wardens" "Such as they are" "-> back"
The addition is maybe in feeling to have more freedom while you ultimately have none, it annoyed me, at any rate.

DA2 shares it's background story and lore with the first game yes. But as I've said, we didn't need another DA:O clone in gameplay, it would have served no purpose, we have a supply of DA:O additional content from the toolset community still, look into it and keep an open mind.

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 avril 2011 - 11:13 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Ottemis wrote...
I'm not keen on talking to companions whenever I feel like it, when they have nothing new to say.
"I have some questions about the grey wardens" "Such as they are" "-> back"
The addition is maybe in feeling to have more freedom while you ultimately have none, it annoyed me, at any rate.

Then make more dialogues. Why is it so hard to add another 100 line of dialogues with BioWare talents? I made 100 lines of dialogues per character in my stand alone mod DA O:Genesis. And I'm still working on it from time to time alone. It should be easy and fast enough for BioWare skillful artist. Removing expository dialogue as an excuse for character development is lame or plain lazy. Nor does 3-4 dialogue per ACT with one dimensional interaction is realistic to me.

Ottemis wrote...
DA2 shares it's background story and lore with the first game yes. But as I've said, we didn't need another DA:O clone in gameplay, it would have served no purpose, we have a supply of DA:O additional content from the toolset community still, look into it and keep an open mind.

I agree. But we certainly don't need another Mass Effect 2 with medieval or Super Mario or Dynasty Warrior or Jade Empire setting either.

EDIT: I don't get it. You said you don't keen on talking to companions whenever you feel like it, yet it obvious to me you used up all the dialogue options. What are you doing exactly? Talking to companions whenever you feel you like it to the point they have nothing else to say? Shouldn't you not talking to your companions at all if you're not so keen to do so?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 23 avril 2011 - 11:51 .

[Ottemis]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Ottemis wrote...
I'm not keen on talking to companions whenever I feel like it, when they have nothing new to say.
"I have some questions about the grey wardens" "Such as they are" "-> back"
The addition is maybe in feeling to have more freedom while you ultimately have none, it annoyed me, at any rate.

Then make more dialogues. Why is it so hard to add another 100 line of dialogues with BioWare talents? I made 100 lines of dialogues per character in my stand alone mod DA O:Genesis. And I'm still working on it from time to time alone. It should be easy and fast enough for BioWare skillful artist. Removing expository dialogue as an excuse for character development is lame or plain lazy. Nor does 3-4 dialogue per ACT with one dimensional interaction is realistic to me.

Ottemis wrote...
DA2 shares it's background story and lore with the first game yes. But as I've said, we didn't need another DA:O clone in gameplay, it would have served no purpose, we have a supply of DA:O additional content from the toolset community still, look into it and keep an open mind.

I agree. But we certainly don't need another Mass Effect 2 with medieval or Super Mario or Dynasty Warrior or Jade Empire setting either. 

EDIT: I don't get it. You said you don't keen on talking to companions whenever you feel like it, yet it obvious to me you used up all the dialogue options. What are you doing exactly? Talking to companions whenever you feel you like it to the point they have nothing else to say? Shouldn't you not talking to your companions at all if you're not so keen to do so?

I agree, more dialogues, although I have to say the banter and midquest additional conversations between you and the companions are not to be overlooked, they often affirm a companions character or give you new insights aswell. Increased immersion. But I would say that goes for all 4 games.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
I agree. But we certainly don't need another Mass Effect 2 with medieval or Super Mario or Dynasty Warrior or Jade Empire setting either. 

On this specificly, I've had a recent convo with a friend:

DA2 has merrits, I just think they should make sure to focus DA differently and more classical than ME2's more progressive style. DA2 definitely shows it works, but it seems a tad bit redundant since ME already provides it.

I replied:
 Yes, agreed. Still I'm rather glad they altleast did it once.

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 avril 2011 - 12:44 .

[Ottemis]

EDIT: I don't get it. You said you don't keen on talking to companions whenever you feel like it, yet it obvious to me you used up all the dialogue options. What are you doing exactly? Talking to companions whenever you feel you like it to the point they have nothing else to say? Shouldn't you not talking to your companions at all if you're not so keen to do so?

I'm keen on talking to them, not keen on trying to and getting nothing but repetition, in that sense I preferr that if there's going to be dialogue options unlocking only at certain points in the story, the game alerts me to the options being there rather then wasting time trying and dealing with the disappointment.

In DA2, you get a new quest, that hypes me, and I go talk to the companions happily. It's a subtle difference, I pref the DA2 way of doing it. Still obviously I'd much more preferr the DA:O/ME1 way being more viable through there being alot MORE dialogues to be had.

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 avril 2011 - 12:44 .

[Ottemis]

Having said that, they're minor gripes for me. I think all games offer enough information and dialogue with companions to bond with them, or them repulse you, either way.
More is always better though, if done properly. I wouldn't want more if it takes out of the quality.

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 avril 2011 - 12:36 .

[Darkhour]

Volourn wrote...

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.

Is "dcos" the new term for EA execs?

Laidaw was not the lead designeer of DA:O.   Jade Empire, like DA2, was never recieved well. JAde Empire is considered the DA2 of its time. So two games he has actually been the lead designer for have been failures. Go figure.

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

Not making a profit is not Bioware winning. Having EA dump the DA franchise because of Laidlaw's incompetence is not Laidlaw winning.  Never playing another DA title again is not you winning.  Being right is not me losing.