494 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

The definition of gameplay is, in fact, "combat mechanics" when they are intended to include only the core of the meaning.

That's nonsense.  Anything the player does as part of playing the game is gameplay.  Inventory management is gameplay.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I never read the journal in these games anymore.  If I want to take notes, I take notes.  But if I don't learn something in the game from an NPC or from seeing some event take place, I don't know about it.

Yes, I now see how you'd be more critical about it. This is "your" story, after all, one that is yet to be shaped by "you," by experiencing and interacting with the environment.

I actually unlocked companion quests in Act 2 by some random journal entries appearing out of nowhere. I suppose you'd have had a much better overall experience with it. But my argument about tedium still stands. The quests unlock at random. So, unless you'd keep going in and out of companion's homes every now and then, with them repeating the same hardcoded lines in the interim, you'd never know when to look for those quests. I remember Anders (when I clicked on him) mentioning during some quest that he had something to discuss with me in the clinic, but not the others.

Things could have been done better.

I do dislike, though, how you can't hold Tab to highlght everyone with whom you can interact.  It worked in DAO, but DA2 doesn't allow it.  So in DA2 I have to try to talk to every single person, even those who have no lines of any sort.

This has resulted in me completing quests I wasn't even aware I had, and that, I think, is a serious design flaw.

True enough. Since you probably don't know about this: every time I find something that has been "lost," it just shows up both as a journal entry and on the area map. The game just assumes that I'd look at both, at the same time forgetting that plot helpers are just an "option" in the main menu. But I think it is generally assumed in-game that at least the journal would be used.

Bartrand's expedition.  Right at the start of the Act, Varric tells you that Bartrand needs an investor.  I put that information in by back pocket for later, and went about my business.  But from that moment on, people kept telling me how I was an investor in Bartrand's expedition, and how I was going to the Deep Roads, and that wasn't true.  I never responded positively when talking to Varric, and I never spoke to Bartrand about it at all.  Bartrand has no idea that I might invest in his expedition, so why does the whole world suddenly "know" what I'm doing next?  I don't even know that yet, and Bartrand certainly doesn't, which pretty much guarantees that it's not yet true.

The game's design seems to assume that Hawke will talk to Bartrand immediately after the Act opens and tell him about his plans to invest.  But my Hawke thought it best if he not mention the plan to Bartrand until after the funds had been raised, so for basically the whole of Act I in Kirkwall Bartrand had no idea Hawke was raising money for the chance to invest in the expedition, and yet somehow random NPCs would incessantly mention that they'd heard about Hawke's plan, when Hawke's plan at that point was known to a maximum of one person, and that person was Hawke.

Yes, I see your point. I didn't look at this so critically.

In theory, I think those little quests were a good way to reward exploration.  They were just terribly done.

Yes, I suppose they would be. But the real issue is to exactly know whom to return it to, as if all "lost" items somehow carried some ID tags and return addresses. Counterintuitive. So I question the whole concept itself.

But maybe I did miss something in the game. Do NPCs talk about items they have lost? Not in an interactive sense, but simply just saying thing out loud at random on the streets (not that I think that would be good)? It didn't appear to me that way, but I could be easily mistaken. I could swear that "owners" just randomly appear all over the place after I found those lost items.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 11 mai 2011 - 07:46 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Amioran wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Gameplay includes "all" interactive aspects of a game.

No, it doesn't. Artistic choices are indipendent from gameplay at its core.

I have no idea what you mean by "artistic choice."

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Its definition is so broad that its assessment is subjective at best. The OP was talking about "combat mechanics." It doesn't do well to his arguments by starting to obscure that.

The definition of gameplay is, in fact, "combat mechanics" when they are intended to include only the core of the meaning. Again, in this case, they have nothing to do with artistic choices (they can be tied to the term on a broader scale, but it is an arbitrary inclusion and only on the "outside" of the term).

Only the core of what meaning? And more on artistic choices. Whatever are you talking about?

A gameplay can be judged objectively, since it is mechanically comparable with another and it doesn't contain subjective parameters at its core (if not only on a theoric preference that, however, resides outside the context of it, same as an artistic parameter can).

As I have already replied to another poster previously, since I don't know what all is generally included under the term "combat mechanics," I'd like to reserve my judgment on whether DA:O or DA2 implements it better "overall." Surely, one would have to prove that all aspects of it is better in one game than in the other to settle the matter? A rather daunting (and fruitful?) exercise.

While either an artistic direction can be judged objectively it can be done so only on a certain aspect, the technical. There's a component that's subjective and this you cannot judge, since derived from aesthetic preferences

Sorry, couldn't comprehend any of that. If you'd just stick to using "combat mechanics," if that is what you intended to do, we could probably have a saner argument.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

So, unless you'd keep going in and out of companion's homes every now and then, with them repeating the same hardcoded lines in the interim, you'd never know when to look for those quests.

If there's no in-character reason for you to be visiting their homes over and over again, why were you doing it?

Since the problem you describe only appears to arise when you start metagaming, I don't have a lot of sympathy.  Howerver, this does then require that much of the game's content goes unplayed as players simply never learn about it, and that seems to be something BioWare specifically tries to avoid.

True enough. Since you probably don't know about this: every time I find something that has been "lost," it just shows up both as a journal entry and on the area map. The game just assumes that I'd look at both, at the same time forgetting that plot helpers are just an "option" in the main menu. But I think it is generally assumed in-game that at least the journal would be used.

Only once in DAO did you actually need a plot helper to find something in a timely manner (a hidden cache in the Deep Roads).  DA2 seems to make this mistake far more often.

As for he journal, DAO's journal didn't typically tell me things the dialogue hadn't, so it wasn't really a problem.  Plus there was the conversation log if I needed to go back to see what a quest-giver had said.

Yes, I suppose they would be. But the real issue is to exactly know whom to return it to, as if all "lost" items somehow carried some ID tags and return addresses.

"Exactly to whom to return it", I think, is something the player should have to work out based on the item description.  Go to a relevant area and ask around to see if anyone knows anything, and if you find the right person, then you can offer it to him (or not - I really hate how the game just automatically turned over the items without asking me).

Do NPCs talk about items they have lost? Not in an interactive sense, but simply just saying thing out loud at random on the streets (not that I think that would be good)?

I don't think so, no.

[Random70]

tonnactus wrote...

xkg wrote...


Combat mechanics is utter mess because of bad character stats implementation and bad balance.
for example :
My hawke has about 150 HP, Arishok 26370 HP. Cmon ???? that is 176 times more than me. Pure hack&slash with grinding combat.

And that was so much better in Origins?
It wasnt actually.Enemies like Jarvia,Arl Howe and Kolgrim also had a absurd amount of hit points,and the battles with them were as tedious as that.

Uh, not quite. Here's are few of the  'absurd' hit point levels from DA:O....

Archdemon: 4180
High Dragon: 4085
Cauthrien: 3415
Gaxxkang: 2140
Broodmother: 2032
Boss Bear: 1369 (Chanter's board sidequest)
Kolgrim: 1240
Howe: 1220
Fade Beast: 1157

I don't have an exact number for Jarvia, but on more than one occasion I've been able to one-shot her with an Entropic Death combo doing 1000+ damage.

Not exactly Arishok-like values, are they?

[veramis]

Sorry, Random70. Your numbers mean nothing to me. Fact is, enemies like Jarvia, Arl Howe, and Kolgrim also had an absurd amount of hit points.

[Sylvius the Mad]

veramis wrote...

Sorry, Random70. Your numbers mean nothing to me. Fact is, enemies like Jarvia, Arl Howe, and Kolgrim also had an absurd amount of hit points.

How can the numbes mean nothing?  The numbers mean everything.  The numbers are where all of the information is.

Of the totals Random70 listed, only Cauthrien's hit point total was clearly absurd.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 mai 2011 - 10:06 .

[tonnactus]

Random70 wrote...




Uh, not quite. Here's are few of the  'absurd' hit point levels from DA:O....

Archdemon: 4180
High Dragon: 4085
Cauthrien: 3415
Gaxxkang: 2140
Broodmother: 2032
Boss Bear: 1369 (Chanter's board sidequest)
Kolgrim: 1240
Howe: 1220
Fade Beast: 1157

I don't have an exact number for Jarvia, but on more than one occasion I've been able to one-shot her with an Entropic Death combo doing 1000+ damage.

Not exactly Arishok-like values, are they?

Someone has also to compare/take into consideration the damage your party did in Dragon Age Origins compared with how much damage partymembers/hawke do now. In the end game,i have 100 dps with my staff attacks alone(playing as a mage and staff attacks are far more powerfull now),and if i use a cold or nature staff against qunari,this is doubled by their weakness to it and get additional 25 percent from elemental mastery(if a cold staff is used). So if the arishok "only" have 1240 points like for example kolgrim,i would simply annilate him in seconds with autoattacks alone.

By the way,i dont remember entrophic death even oneshoting "yellow" enemies.( i only put points in magic in Origins)



Captain Chase is not even a boss.

Modifié par tonnactus, 11 mai 2011 - 11:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

tonnactus wrote...

Someone has also to compare/take into consideration the damage your party did in Dragon Age Origins compared with how much damage partymembers/hawke do now. In the end game,i have 100 dps with my staff attacks alone(playing as a mage and staff attacks are far more powerfull now),and if i use a cold or nature staff against qunari,this is doubled by their weakness to it and get additional 25 percent from elemental mastery(if a cold staff is used). So if the arishok "only" have 1240 points like for example kolgrim,i would simply annilate him in seconds with autoattacks alone.

By the way,i dont remember entrophic death even oneshoting "yellow" enemies.( i only put points in magic in Origins)

You've just highlighted another problem.  Those auto-attacks could kill Hawke very quickly, and yet his enemies' auto-attacks do nothing of the sort.

[tonnactus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You've just highlighted another problem.  Those auto-attacks could kill Hawke very quickly, and yet his enemies' auto-attacks do nothing of the sort.

Why this is a problem exactly? Its not that there arent enemies who are a danger to your party,like rogues and blood mages.(not autoattacks,but still devastating if they hit)

[Xalen]

This thread is still going? Alright, I'll put my 0.02

I think OP kind of put himself into a corner combining in one post (even if in different contexts) phrases like "cold hard facts" and "downright boring"/"amateurishly designed"/"huge improvement" etc. (which are clearly subjective). Now people only notice the latter and just call OP on in (or bash DA2 outright - seriously, aren't there already enough threads for this? ugh). However, drawing a possibly wrong or at least controversial conclusion - we can see those "opinions" as such - does not invalidate the premise (the "actual facts" that are, really are hidden in the post).

But let's remove those subjective comments and take a look at the post again:

DAO/DAA

1) Differences between difficulty levels are minimal. DAO NM is, essentially, Normal where the enemies get a couple of insignificant fixed bonuses. Extremely short cooldown on health/mana potions

2) overpowered specializations like Arcane Warrior and DAA Spirit Warrior; useless specializations like Shapeshifter //still a bit subjective but really, who's going to argue with that one? 

3) ~30-40% of abilities/item properties either do not function properly, or do not work at all. Examples: abilities/properties that should modify threat do not do this (exceptions: AoS, Walking Bomb, Scattershot, Mind Blast, Cadash Stompers); abilities/properties that should modify attack animation speed either do not do this or do this in a buggy/messy/glitchy way; aura-like abilities stack (Rock Mastery, Rally); ; elemental spells applying states use incorrect resistance checks (Cone of Cold always assumes the target has a physical resistance of -1, for example); +X% healing property on items does nothing; crossbows being unaffected by attributes

DA2

1) The difficulty settings have their issues: the difference between Normal, Hard and NM is reportedly enormous. Cooldowns on hp/mana pots are adequate

2) little to no useless specializations/talents/spells, this time.

3) The abilities and the properties are correctly implemented in 95% of the cases. Most of the mechanics glitches (Rally not transferring modals; shield armor rating stacking; Lacerate upgrade treated as a separate ability) were fixed in the very first patch. The only really serious bug that persists is the infinitely stacking Healing Aura. //Haste being affected by MR is also very frustrating

doesn't look all that wrong to me now...
 
 //btw, people calling IN1 a troll make me sad. They probably don't hang around in strategy forums much, because c'mon guys...
 

Modifié par Xalen, 12 mai 2011 - 12:52 .

[Teredan]

Xalen wrote...
 //btw, people calling IN1 a troll make me sad.
 

Doesn't deserve the pity. If people post things in a certain way that totally aims to aggravate then that's their damn own fault for receiving insults. He totally could have presented these so cold hard fact in a reasonable manner and have received way more productive and positive feedback.

[Gleym]

The combat for DA2 is garbage. My best friend called me up during one of his gameplays to tell me that he'd gotten up to get a cigarette and forgotten to pause the game. When he got back, his party was surrounded by corpses - apparently there'd been a spawning and his group had massacred everything with auto-attack. It wouldn't have been such a big deal if not for the fact that he hadn't once touched the Tactics menu and everything was set to default. And he was playing on Hard, for christ's sake.

[DreGregoire]

deleted

Modifié par DreGregoire, 12 mai 2011 - 04:51 .

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I disabled Plot Helpers.  If that turns off combat feedback, too, then that's terrible design.  Because there's no way I'm turning the Plot Helpers back on.

I had disabled the plot helpers in my game but still was able to see the state indicators in combat. As far as i can tell these two are unrelated.

[Amioran]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Erm...no. Gameplay includes pretty much everything. And not just combat mechanics. Even moreso if there's more to the game than just comabt.

The term can "open" to include more ample terms. For this I used the word "core".

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And yeah..waht you presented aren't really facts.
You what they say about statistics? That they are factual? That may be true, but what is extrapolated from those statistics isn't. Same here.

And it is exactly why I said I dont' want to talk about it. People like to see everything as they want. But this pertains more to "wanting to see what you care about", i.e. bias, more than anything else. So, to have a meaningful discussion on these things it would be necessary that the people debating could (at last momentarily) "erase" their bias and start considering only objective points.

Sadly, in a forum as this, it will never happen, for various motives.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's nonsense.  Anything the player does as part of playing the game is gameplay.  Inventory management is gameplay.

Academically gameplay means only "game mechanics". The rest can be included, argued and even agreed upon on various levels, but it is not the core of it.

Modifié par Amioran, 12 mai 2011 - 06:52 .

[Amioran]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I have no idea what you mean by "artistic choice."

Hmm.. now that I think of it the meaning can be interpreted in another way. "Art direction choices" it is more appropriate.

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Only the core of what meaning? And more on artistic choices. Whatever are you talking about?

The "core" means at the root, in its "purer" form. Artistic choices means art direction choices.

As I have already replied to another poster previously, since I don't know what all is generally included under the term "combat mechanics," I'd like to reserve my judgment on whether DA:O or DA2 implements it better "overall." Surely, one would have to prove that all aspects of it is better in one game than in the other to settle the matter? A rather daunting (and fruitful?) exercise.

Both, surely.

Sorry, couldn't comprehend any of that. If you'd just stick to using "combat mechanics," if that is what you intended to do, we could probably have a saner argument.

"Combat mechanics" and "gamplay" means the same thing academically. Naturally the term, then, can be used to include more things, but the true meaning (in its pure form) it is (said in other words) "game mechanics".

Modifié par Amioran, 12 mai 2011 - 06:59 .

[Alpha1234]

Wait what??
DAO's combat system is much more similar to the baldurs gate and NWN series style of combat, which is "if it aint broken, dont fix it".

DA2 on the other hand was for me like this: "WAA! SPAM ENEMY WITH AOE SPELLS! SPAM SPAM WITH AOE DAMAGE! CARNAGE! FIREBALLS AND ARROW AOE! FLOOD THE ENTIRE LEVEL WITH AOE"

well.. it sort of felt like this. DA2 combat was just a spamfest of generic enemies where there was essentially no difference between an ordinary bandit and a wraith. They dealt the same damage and they received the same aswell. I felt that i was killing the same preset of enemies just that they had different skins on them. And then there was the ridicolous speed and killing 400 enemies in a matter of minutes.. meh.. i didnt like it at all.. this aint bioware.

[MichaelFinnegan]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...

So, unless you'd keep going in and out of companion's homes every now and then, with them repeating the same hardcoded lines in the interim, you'd never know when to look for those quests.[/quote]
If there's no in-character reason for you to be visiting their homes over and over again, why were you doing it?[/quote]
I didn't say I was. Since I refer to the in-game journal, those quests simply "unlocked" after a particular unrelated story event. As far as I could see, there was no reason why those entries materialized when they did.

[quote]
Since the problem you describe only appears to arise when you start metagaming, I don't have a lot of sympathy.[/quote]
Granted. It would be metagaming.

[quote]
Howerver, this does then require that much of the game's content goes unplayed as players simply never learn about it, and that seems to be something BioWare specifically tries to avoid.[/quote]
But my point is that it doesn't appear as if they have avoided it. As far as I could see, if one doesn't refer to the journal, how I described it (i.e. by metagaming) would probably be the only way to unlock most of those companion quests. I might be wrong about this, but it appears some DA2 quests require you to look at the journal. You can probably let me know when (or if) you complete Act 2.

[quote]
[quote]True enough. Since you probably don't know about this: every time I find something that has been "lost," it just shows up both as a journal entry and on the area map. The game just assumes that I'd look at both, at the same time forgetting that plot helpers are just an "option" in the main menu. But I think it is generally assumed in-game that at least the journal would be used.[/quote]
Only once in DAO did you actually need a plot helper to find something in a timely manner (a hidden cache in the Deep Roads).  DA2 seems to make this mistake far more often.[/quote]
But how did you know that you completed all available quests? Did you look at the journal at the end of DA:O?

And even in DA:O, companion quests wouldn't actually unlock in a very logical manner. For some of them, only when I digged deeper into their backgrounds, by constantly talking to them, was I able to unlock them. And that too happened at certain points in the plot. For example, after doing "Anvil of the Void" quest, when I talked to Shale, I unlocked her personal quest. DA2 is different in this sense, because I don't even get to talk to my companions. The game solely decides when I can do this.

[quote]
As for he journal, DAO's journal didn't typically tell me things the dialogue hadn't, so it wasn't really a problem.  Plus there was the conversation log if I needed to go back to see what a quest-giver had said.[/quote]
I think I relied entirely on the journal. If the journal was consistent in only capturing what happened in-game, then I suppose taking notes would not even be required. After all, a personal journal is just for that purpose - you record what you know for future reference. But it isn't implemented all that well in DA2. For instance, some NPCs would tell me to go somewhere, but the journal would also capture additional information - such as the time of the day, etc. Talking to Varric the first time in the Hanged Man puts additional entries in the journal under the "rumors" section, which Varric never tells anything about. Quite inconsistent at best. 

[quote]
[quote]Yes, I suppose they would be. But the real issue is to exactly know whom to return it to, as if all "lost" items somehow carried some ID tags and return addresses.[/quote]
"Exactly to whom to return it", I think, is something the player should have to work out based on the item description.  Go to a relevant area and ask around to see if anyone knows anything, and if you find the right person, then you can offer it to him (or not - I really hate how the game just automatically turned over the items without asking me).[/quote]
I can concede that, although I could still question where that description actually came from. Another detail: descriptions of plot items end up in the journal and not in the inventory (there won't even be any such item in the inventory). So, opening up the journal would be the only way to go about it in DA2.

[quote]
[quote]Do NPCs talk about items they have lost? Not in an interactive sense, but simply just saying thing out loud at random on the streets (not that I think that would be good)?[/quote]
I don't think so, no.[/quote]
Well, I remember sometimes that some random guy would say that he's lost something as I passed him (and I didn't return anything to that guy). Funny how such things are implemented, without a discernable driving motive. I wonder if Bioware intended to put all such details in the game, but just ran out of time in the end...

[tonnactus]

Gleym wrote...

The combat for DA2 is garbage. My best friend called me up during one of his gameplays to tell me that he'd gotten up to get a cigarette and forgotten to pause the game. When he got back, his party was surrounded by corpses - apparently there'd been a spawning and his group had massacred everything with auto-attack. It wouldn't have been such a big deal if not for the fact that he hadn't once touched the Tactics menu and everything was set to default.

Sure...

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Amioran wrote...

Academically gameplay means only "game mechanics". The rest can be included, argued and even agreed upon on various levels, but it is not the core of it.[/quote]
That doesn't make any sense, either, as the mechanics would include things over which the player has no control.  How can it be gameplay if the player has nothing to do with it?
[quote]tonnactus wrote...

Why this is a problem exactly? Its not that there arent enemies who are a danger to your party,like rogues and blood mages.(not autoattacks,but still devastating if they hit)[/quote]
The problem is the world-breaking asymmetry.  If I'm a bit reckless with my sword and accidentally hit my mage companion, he dies.  But if an Ogre is reckless throwing a boulder, his allies are only mildly inconvenienced.

The game mechanics don't make any sense.  So, if we then use Amioran's pointless and arbitrary definition of gameplay, DA2's gameplay is a disaster.
[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I didn't say I was. Since I refer to the in-game journal, those quests simply "unlocked" after a particular unrelated story event. As far as I could see, there was no reason why those entries materialized when they did.[/quote]
Well, then anyone roleplaying his character (and not metagaming) would never act based on those quests, as the character would be unaware of them.
[quote]But my point is that it doesn't appear as if they have avoided it. As far as I could see, if one doesn't refer to the journal, how I described it (i.e. by metagaming) would probably be the only way to unlock most of those companion quests. I might be wrong about this, but it appears some DA2 quests require you to look at the journal. You can probably let me know when (or if) you complete Act 2.[/quote]
And this might be true, but if so that's a huge design flaw.  If roleplaying one's character doesn't allow one to play the game as it was intended, then the game is badly broken.
[quote]But how did you know that you completed all available quests? Did you look at the journal at the end of DA:O?[/quote]
I consulted the journal in DAO fairly regularly, as it actually did contain useful information about quests without constantly forcing metagame knowledge down my throat.
[quote]And even in DA:O, companion quests wouldn't actually unlock in a very logical manner. For some of them, only when I digged deeper into their backgrounds, by constantly talking to them, was I able to unlock them.[/quote]
I thought that made sense.  You only learn what your companions want by speaking with them
[quote]And that too happened at certain points in the plot. For example, after doing "Anvil of the Void" quest, when I talked to Shale, I unlocked her personal quest.[/quote]
Shale's quest also unlocks shortly after you find her if you've already done Anvil of the Void.  She even asks the question herself, rather than making you figure it out.
[quote]That's how DA2 is different in this sense, because I don't even get to talk to my companions. The game solely decides when I can do this.[/quote]
You can talk to your companions are their home base.  If you want to talk to them, go there.

Since I decided that I'm not going to magically swap out companions without physically going to get them (this is how I think the game should have been designe,d so I'm glad it does actually let me do this), I find myself at the home base of my companions fairly often.
[quote]I think I relied entirely on the journal. If the journal was consistent in only capturing what happened in-game, then I suppose taking notes would not even be required.[/quote]
Yes, and this is what I think the journal should do.  This, and only this.
[quote]After all, a personal journal is just for that purpose - you record what you know for future reference. But it isn't implemented all that well in DA2. For instance, some NPCs would tell me to go somewhere, but the journal would also capture additional information - such as the time of the day, etc. Talking to Varric the first time in the Hanged Man puts additional entries in the journal under the "rumors" section, which Varric never tells anything about. Quite inconsistent at best.[/quote]
Yes, DA2's journal is horrible.
[quote]I can concede that, although I could still question where that description actually came from. Another detail: descriptions of plot items end up in the journal and not in the inventory (there won't even be any such item in the inventory). So, opening up the journal would be the only way to go about it in DA2.[/quote]
Again, DA2 is very poory designed.  Recall that DAO did actually put plot items in your inventory, so they could have item descriptions.  That was a vastly superior system.
[quote]Well, I remember sometimes that some random guy would say that he's lost something as I passed him (and I didn't return anything to that guy). Funny how such things are implemented, without a discernable driving motive. I wonder if Bioware intended to put all such details in the game, but just ran out of time in the end...[/quote]
Remember when BioWare would release a game "when it's done".  That used to be their stock answer to questions about release dates.  When is the game coming out?  When it's done.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I thought that made sense.  You only learn what your companions want by speaking with them

Yes, that's right.

You can talk to your companions are their home base.  If you want to talk to them, go there.

Yes, I am aware of this. But the issue to me was that they don't talk all the time. If I remember correctly, there is only one point at which each of them actually talked to me during Act 1.

Since I decided that I'm not going to magically swap out companions without physically going to get them (this is how I think the game should have been designe,d so I'm glad it does actually let me do this), I find myself at the home base of my companions fairly often.

Now  that is the information I was looking for. I was a bit nonplussed about how you'd discover those plot points without relying on the journal and/or resorting to metagaming. Now I don't think you'll face such issues. And won't be as bewildered as I was. Perhaps the gameplay isn't as broken as I originally made it out to be.

It was quite interesting talking to you on this. Thanks for those insights.

[AlanC9]

Amioran wrote...
-  Galileo provided proof on its well known theory, yet nobody believed him neither with proof. The reality is that if you are convinced of something neither evidence can destroy that idea. "Memory says: 'I have done this'. Reason says: 'I cannot have done this' and it remains inamovible. In the end, reasoning wins" - Nietzsche.

Nietzsche was wrong about this. It's more typical for the ideas to change to match the memory; you change your values to match what you actually did, because you don't want to think of yourself as the sort of person who does things he believes are wrong. Cognitive Dissonance 101.

Edit: yeah, there are other proposed mechanisms to explain this phenomenon. I just picked the one I like best.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 mai 2011 - 07:12 .

[tonnactus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The problem is the world-breaking asymmetry. 

While if agree with that,is there any game actually where this isnt the case? I mean,in Origins  we have human enemies with more hitpoints then ogres.(even "alpha" ones)

Remember Marjoleine? "Fighting" in noble clothes and with fists against armored knights with swords.
An absurd amount of hitpoints.
Ridicoulus.
And she could kill you with her bare fists. If this  wasnt world-breaking,i dont know what is.


I also like Origins more then Da2,but seriously the game wasnt better in this regard in the slightest.

But if an Ogre is reckless throwing a boulder, his allies are only mildly inconvenienced.

I actually saw the Ogre outright kill weaker darkspawn on nightmare.(except the grunts who had really high health)

Modifié par tonnactus, 12 mai 2011 - 07:47 .