494 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

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.

A lot of people complained about that when Awakening came out. Dont know why they keep it this way...(easier to control plot progression??)

[MichaelFinnegan]

tonnactus wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

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.

A lot of people complained about that when Awakening came out. Dont know why they keep it this way...(easier to control plot progression??)

I haven't played Awakening, actually, and haven't been in this community for long to know about those complaints. But I can imagine why people would be upset.

In DAO, allowing the PC to talk to his/her companions helped to get deeper into the companions' back stories, to understand their characters, their motivations to join the PC, and so on. That helped in the interim, until the companions' quests opened up eventually. As far as I could see, the game eventually decided when it was time to take this progression further anyway, though at the same time giving the wonderful illusion to the PC that he/she had formed some kind of a lasting bond with them.



And honestly I'm at a loss to answer your question.
I don't think removing that ability actually helps anyway in plot progression. It just takes that wonderful illusion away. And, so, for instance, when Aveline eventually said she could trust me with her personal quest (which I won't reveal here), because she thought I was her only friend, I couldn't help feeling that I hardly knew her. The player experience is what eventually suffers. It ends up feeling a bit empty.

Sorry, I rambled for a bit there.

It probably had to do with reducing development time, to keep the costs low. I think it happened a bit with DAO, as well. Oghren's backstory wasn't developed all that well, in my opinion - which is why there were those hardcoded lines sometimes.

Perhaps someone else can answer your question better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

In terms of describing people's actual behaviour, yes, Nietzsche was wrong, but in terms of what makes sense, Nietzsche was right.

Sometimes people fail.  A set of opinions which risks cognitive dissonance is one of those times.

tonnactus wrote...

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 never played the expansions.

The core game was generally pretty good about this sort of thing

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

Look at feriendly fire.  In DAO, the enemies' friendly fire was about as dangerous to them as mine was to me.  In DA2, that's not even close to true.

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

Weaker darkspawn are lower ranked creatures.  Hawke and his party are roughly equivalent to Lietenant level opponents.  Can Lieutenants easily kill each other?  No, they can't.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 mai 2011 - 09:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I don't think removing that ability actually helps anyway in plot progression. It just takes that wonderful illusion away. And, so, for instance, when Aveline eventually said she could trust me with her personal quest (which I won't reveal here), because she thought I was her only friend, I couldn't help feeling that I hardly knew her. The player experience is what eventually suffers. It ends up feeling a bit empty.

The reasoning they gave for that was actually that it allowed them to craft more detailed cinematics during conversations because they'd know where the conversation would take place.

Totally not worth it.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 mai 2011 - 09:07 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Dormiglione wrote...

IN1 wrote...

Please explain how enemies materializing is an improvment?
Please explain how a body explosion after a single backstab is an improvment?

Please explain how are your questions related to game mechanics, first. Do you seriously think the concept of mechanics includes corpse explosion/enemy spawn animations? 

DA2:
Press Button A as much as you can. Run around and wait til you can use the next health potion (chicken run style). Dont stand still, move as much as you can, take cover (wait this is how i play a shooter). Look always up to the sky, no there arent any flying enemies, but teleporting waves.

Wow, now that is really what i waited for. A "RPG" that i can play like a shooter.

DAO:
Yes, the mage class is overpowered, Thats nothing new. Just avoid to use the overpowered spells like Mana Clash and others, made the fights again interesting.

Traps, i always had a NPC with me who was a trap expert.  A really tactical element.

I could think about a strategy, attack the main enemy or kill first his helpers.

/thread

[AlanC9]

tonnactus wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

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.

A lot of people complained about that when Awakening came out. Dont know why they keep it this way...(easier to control plot progression??)

IIRC it's about pacing and cues; I think Gaider talked about this back when DAA shipped. (Edit: plus what Sylvius said -- they weren't saying that for DAA, though.) The DAO system requires the player to control the pacing himself. If I don't want to run out all of a companion's dialogs early I need to deliberately hold off on some of them until later in the game. You also don't know when the companion actually has something new to say until you talk to them. So you end up starting a bunch of conversations only to find out the companion has nothing new to say, especially when outside of camp.

I'm replaying DAO right now, and I'm actually coming around to Bio's view on this. I'm finding the conversation system mostly annoying. Of course, that's partly because I got hit by that infamous Leliana lockout bug (didn't have the right fix loaded, I guess).

The DA2 companions having less to say doesn't have anything to do with how their conversations are triggered. That's a budget issue.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 mai 2011 - 09:43 .

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

You also don't know when the companion actually has something new to say until you talk to them. So you end up starting a bunch of conversations only to find out the companion has nothing new to say, especially when outside of camp.

I don't know, it's pretty simple system -- you generally get new conversation options on hitting new relationship thresholds, that's how they're gated in the dialogue files. So it's quite easy to know when the new stuff becomes available. If there's additional options, these are usually triggered by the companion themselves.

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You also don't know when the companion actually has something new to say until you talk to them. So you end up starting a bunch of conversations only to find out the companion has nothing new to say, especially when outside of camp.

I don't know, it's pretty simple system -- you generally get new conversation options on hitting new relationship thresholds, that's how they're gated in the dialogue files. So it's quite easy to know when the new stuff becomes available. If there's additional options, these are usually triggered by the companion themselves.

That wouldn't help with location-specific lines at all, of course.

But yeah, watching the meter would help with some of the the other lines. But that makes me have to watch the meter breakpoints. I don't necessarily mind having the meter, but I do mind being forced to pay attention to it.

[napushenko]

so in fact people bashing of da 2 is objectivity but giving it deserved props is subjectivity ? nice way of how things work around here.

and i would really, really loved to see people auto atack on hard diff through the game. in fact, those who say so probably didnt even played it.
and for the poster who quoted "move alot around ,run, wait for timer to use skills /potions, position yourself" as a bad thing cause its feel like shooter oposed to just stay in place and swing your sword. no comment.
and yeah, mash buttons. cause you mash em in both games you know. clean your eyeglasses folk.

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

That wouldn't help with location-specific lines at all, of course.

Isn't that something only Leliana had? Since there's few major locations in the game i don't really remember that option being ever a problem.

But yeah, watching the meter would help with some of the the other lines. But that makes me have to watch the meter breakpoints. I don't necessarily mind having the meter, but I do mind being forced to pay attention to it.

You don't need to pay attention to it. Hitting new threshold meant getting improvement to character-specific bonus, and that had large notification plastered right in the middle of screen when it'd happen.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

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.

A lot of people complained about that when Awakening came out. Dont know why they keep it this way...(easier to control plot progression??)

IIRC it's about pacing and cues; I think Gaider talked about this back when DAA shipped. (Edit: plus what Sylvius said -- they weren't saying that for DAA, though.) The DAO system requires the player to control the pacing himself. If I don't want to run out all of a companion's dialogs early I need to deliberately hold off on some of them until later in the game. You also don't know when the companion actually has something new to say until you talk to them. So you end up starting a bunch of conversations only to find out the companion has nothing new to say, especially when outside of camp.

I'm replaying DAO right now, and I'm actually coming around to Bio's view on this. I'm finding the conversation system mostly annoying. Of course, that's partly because I got hit by that infamous Leliana lockout bug (didn't have the right fix loaded, I guess).

The DA2 companions having less to say doesn't have anything to do with how their conversations are triggered. That's a budget issue.

Considering DA2 is pretty badly paced in parts how does this arguement apply just out of curiosity?

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

IIRC it's about pacing and cues; I think Gaider talked about this back when DAA shipped. (Edit: plus what Sylvius said -- they weren't saying that for DAA, though.) The DAO system requires the player to control the pacing himself. If I don't want to run out all of a companion's dialogs early I need to deliberately hold off on some of them until later in the game. You also don't know when the companion actually has something new to say until you talk to them. So you end up starting a bunch of conversations only to find out the companion has nothing new to say, especially when outside of camp.

I'm replaying DAO right now, and I'm actually coming around to Bio's view on this.

I disagree completely.  Giving the player greater control is always a good thing.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 mai 2011 - 10:21 .

[napushenko]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

IIRC it's about pacing and cues; I think Gaider talked about this back when DAA shipped. (Edit: plus what Sylvius said -- they weren't saying that for DAA, though.) The DAO system requires the player to control the pacing himself. If I don't want to run out all of a companion's dialogs early I need to deliberately hold off on some of them until later in the game. You also don't know when the companion actually has something new to say until you talk to them. So you end up starting a bunch of conversations only to find out the companion has nothing new to say, especially when outside of camp.

I'm replaying DAO right now, and I'm actually coming around to Bio's view on this.

I disagree completely.  Giving the player greater control is always a good thing.

I agree. But somehow, i cared more for DA2 companions, (except maybe Alistair) and felt that i knew them  better. Maybe because of cutscenes, their locations,  and because their dialogue with each other changed a lot through the story. Like they forged some relationships without you. 
I think that some sort of chit-chat would be good to implement. No major conversations outside specific plot triggers, but only to be able to small talk with them when you click them. Their history, views, opinions, things like that. 

[Gleym]

tonnactus wrote...

Sure...

Always fun to see undiluted denial at work. "What's this? Someone had a gamebreaking moment in my favourite game?! CLEARLY THIS IS ALL FABRICATION! Proceed to skeptical aloof response!"

[Sylvius the Mad]

napushenko wrote...

I agree. But somehow, i cared more for DA2 companions, (except maybe Alistair) and felt that i knew them  better.

Having not played through all of DA2, I can't compare them directly, but being able to control more of how the companions dress and what skills they learn I think helps a lot with me getting to know them - because I'm the one deciding what their characteristics are.

If I have Wynne learn Blood Magic, that says a lot about Wynne.  If I have Leliana wear heavy armour and act as a tank, I learn a lot about that particular iteration of Leliana.

DA2 doesn't offer this level of control, and thus DA2 doesn't allow us to get to know the companions as well.

[Guitar-Hero]

This seems rather biased, i prefere DA2 combat to DAO, but i don't list down a bunch of flaws that i ( in my own subjective opinion) believe a game to have slap a "this is simple fact" sticker on it and call it a day, ofcourse the science concerning the new game mechanics would be improved it's a newer game, that doesn't mean the game mechanics implemented would improve the overall experience, you can't just say" hey we know the rest of the game sucked, but atleast the game mechanics are better" that'd be like saying here have this burger, the bread is made of **** but atleast it's a real steak.

[Alexander1136]

um dragon age 2 combat system was so lame that i dont even feel like playing it a 3rd time, Origins on the other hand I have played countless times, because you can do things like Ambush the enemy before they just fart into existance like they do in dragon age 2.  you could also trust spells like Cone of Cold would always work no matter the foe. But the replacement for it in dragon age 2 "petrify" blows and usually doesnt work on human bosses especially if they just have a lame ass shield that templar abilities cant destroy.  plus you used the words buggy or glitchy more times than they existed in the DA:O fight system. IMHO the only thing da2 added that was any good was the speed the characters had with weapons out. the dashing and button smashing not so much but the fact that they could move around relitlvly normally with weapons draw was the only plus i noticed. i also liked the range that the mages have in da2 they dont shuffle in front of the bad guy and start poking they actually just start chucking fireballs from were they are standing. The rest tho.. I liked Dragon Age:Origins way more over Dragon Age 2 fight system.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

IIRC it's about pacing and cues; I think Gaider talked about this back when DAA shipped. (Edit: plus what Sylvius said -- they weren't saying that for DAA, though.) The DAO system requires the player to control the pacing himself. If I don't want to run out all of a companion's dialogs early I need to deliberately hold off on some of them until later in the game. You also don't know when the companion actually has something new to say until you talk to them. So you end up starting a bunch of conversations only to find out the companion has nothing new to say, especially when outside of camp.

I'm replaying DAO right now, and I'm actually coming around to Bio's view on this.

I disagree completely.  Giving the player greater control is always a good thing.

For me, it depends on the kind of choice we're talking about. RP choices? Sure, more are always better. Choices about pacing aren't RP choices, though -- they're more like directing choices. That's Gaider or Laidlaw's job, not mine.

And trying to find out if my companions have anything new to say at this point in the game isn't any kind of choice at all. It's just me fighting the interface

@ Sarah: Welcome back. Hey, I'm just giving the theory here. Can't talk about the practice on a non-spoiler board, can we?

[AlanC9]

And as long as we're in the total disagreement deparment....

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If I have Wynne learn Blood Magic, that says a lot about Wynne.  If I have Leliana wear heavy armour and act as a tank, I learn a lot about that particular iteration of Leliana.

DA2 doesn't offer this level of control, and thus DA2 doesn't allow us to get to know the companions as well.

It's more accurate to say that DA2 doesn't let you change the companions. You're not learning that iteration, you're creating that iteration.

And that's a power over the NPCs that I don't want and shouldn't have, except possibly as a result of actual dialog and plot events.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Amioran wrote...

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".

Let me clarify - combat mechanics are part of gamepaly, but they are not the only thing that makes it.
And the terms used by the OP were combat mechanics, not game mechanics. Thus, claiming that gamplay is defined by only a single compaonent of it, is absurd.

This is pretty much a semantics issue. Use of proper wording is important.

If one wants to discuss comabt mechanics, or game mecahnics in general, one should use those two words. Gameplay is a broader term.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlanC9 wrote...

And as long as we're in the total disagreement deparment....

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If I have Wynne learn Blood Magic, that says a lot about Wynne.  If I have Leliana wear heavy armour and act as a tank, I learn a lot about that particular iteration of Leliana.

DA2 doesn't offer this level of control, and thus DA2 doesn't allow us to get to know the companions as well.

It's more accurate to say that DA2 doesn't let you change the companions. You're not learning that iteration, you're creating that iteration.

And that's a power over the NPCs that I don't want and shouldn't have, except possibly as a result of actual dialog and plot events.

Forcing NPC's to do things SPECIFICLY agaisnt their character - like making Wynne a Blood Mage = bad.

HOWEVER, being able to customize your party NPC's to maximize their effectivenes in battle (like giving them more appropriate armor and weapons, choosing more usefull spells) is a must IMHO.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

In terms of describing people's actual behaviour, yes, Nietzsche was wrong, but in terms of what makes sense, Nietzsche was right.

Sometimes people fail.  A set of opinions which risks cognitive dissonance is one of those times.

Is this about reason vs. prejudice? If so, prejudice comes with an inertial component. Taking that Galilean example, the geocentric theory he (and others) disproved eventually subsided, making Nietzsche actually right "in the end." But anything well reasoned, is done so within a set of assumptions, making it a mere hypothesis, to be proven/disproven with new data.

But as new notions replace old ones, these new ones tend to become tenacious. Harder to dislodge, gaining that inertial component again as time goes by.

So, yes, I agree.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I don't think removing that ability actually helps anyway in plot progression. It just takes that wonderful illusion away. And, so, for instance, when Aveline eventually said she could trust me with her personal quest (which I won't reveal here), because she thought I was her only friend, I couldn't help feeling that I hardly knew her. The player experience is what eventually suffers. It ends up feeling a bit empty.

The reasoning they gave for that was actually that it allowed them to craft more detailed cinematics during conversations because they'd know where the conversation would take place.

Now that I think about it, It plays out in cut scenes, instead of the characters standing around like they did in DAO.

I was thinking that converstions could at least have been enabled always at companions' homes. Somewhat like ME2 does. It at least somewhat feels like ME2 (or even ME) now, in that the protagonist is now voiced.

Totally not worth it.

Totally. Those time "lapses" in the storyline aren't helping either. The game now simply assumes that I know more about my companions because I lived with them for 3 years (during Act 2); without actually allowing me to experience it. Hence the way that scene with Aveline played out, I think. Why even assume that I'd have become her friend? (Or did that have something to do with the friendship-rivalry system?)

I don't care about the cinematics. I would have vastly preferred  more content, more conversations, more involvement, and ultimately more immerison.

[MichaelFinnegan]

AlanC9 wrote...

IIRC it's about pacing and cues; I think Gaider talked about this back when DAA shipped. (Edit: plus what Sylvius said -- they weren't saying that for DAA, though.) The DAO system requires the player to control the pacing himself. If I don't want to run out all of a companion's dialogs early I need to deliberately hold off on some of them until later in the game. You also don't know when the companion actually has something new to say until you talk to them. So you end up starting a bunch of conversations only to find out the companion has nothing new to say, especially when outside of camp.

That's true. Many a time, I'd end up having the same conversations with my companions, and sometimes, only the primary lines would remain (the first tier lines), and nothing further, which would be annoying. I count that as an implementation issue. I think instead it may have been better to allow the companions to actually initiate conversations to allow new lines of dialogue to open up. In ME2, we had a slightly different implementation in Yeoman Chambers doing that job (but maybe it happened only when their quest lines opened up).

But what might have been even better, at least in an open world sense, would be to actually allow the PC to somehow open up the new lines, maybe simply by the process of exploration. Like in Jacob's case, instead of the game informing via Kelly that Jacob wanted something and only after the dialogue opening up the planetary system for exploration, it would probably have been better to allow the player to actually explore that system and find out for himself. It's just a thought.

The DA2 companions having less to say doesn't have anything to do with how their conversations are triggered. That's a budget issue.

Even I think it's a budget issue. It is really annoying because it seems the game events unfold so badly with the lack of such conversation.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If I have Wynne learn Blood Magic, that says a lot about Wynne.  If I have Leliana wear heavy armour and act as a tank, I learn a lot about that particular iteration of Leliana.

What do you mean by "when you have Wynne learn blood magic"? For that to convincingly work for me, that would need to have hooks within the plot/story also. I don't think just "giving" Wynne that specialization makes any sense - it is totally against her portrayed character. Now, to allow the PC to influence her to become a blood mage and then to open up that specialization  - now that would be interesting. As far as I remember DAO didn't do any such thing; it just allowed the PC to choose her second specialization for her.