279 réponses à ce sujet

[mindbody]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Do you not understand what my complaint is?  The weapons all look huge, and yet are light.  I want to know how this is true, given that they're made from materials that are relevantly similar to real world materials (as we can discern from the appearance of armour and architecture in the setting).

Isn't it possible that architectural knowledge hasn't advanced far enough in Ferelden or the Free Marches to use the lighter materials to make larger buildings?  I know this doesn't gel with medieval history, but this is a different world.  On the other hand, look at the Circle tower. Isn't it possible that building would require super-light materials to construct using medieval methods? In fact, many of the Tevinter-style buildings might break the laws of physics unless they were either magically constructed or used materials with properties alternate from the real world.

[TEWR]

mrcrusty wrote...

*snip poodle pic

Yup that's me. Well, make me either a Chesapeake Bay Retriever, Siberian Huskie, or German Shepherd and that's me.

But not a poodle. I am not a poodle.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 mai 2011 - 11:49 .

[Wozearly]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

We may have to. It's purely personal taste, but I don't want Bioware to change the elves back because then they'd be catering to the whims of a small crowd since the people on here are not indicative of the entire amount of people playing the DA series.

Don't get me wrong, I do want them to listen to us. I just don't want some people making their version of the game through Bioware because there was one aspect they couldn't handle or put up with.

I don't think its possible to reliably estimate the preferences of people who don't appear on the forums. You could argue that the sample of people here is representative of the wider player base, or you could equally argue it isn't. If it is representative, then from my own observations there's more vocal griping about the DA2 elves than there is vocal support of the new look (although that's partly human nature) - that would present a credible argument for shifting their look away from the new one, albeit not necessarily meaning that making them exactly like DA:O is the right route.

If the people here are not representative of the wider user base, then its utter guesswork as to what the wider majority thinks, or whether they even have a strong opinion at all. There's no way of knowing barring canvassing their opinions via a different format, which no-one is likely to do over something so minor.

Its also next to impossible to be sure which of those cases is correct. As a gut feel, PC players are probably over-represented on these forums, as are long-term Bioware players (and, by default, previous DA:O players compared to those new to the series). As an example, its not a complete stretch to assume that PC players have different preferences to console players for a variety of reasons - but, as we've seen, gripes and cheers about DA2 are not purely platform-driven (or by any single factor that I can see).

Ultimately, whatever metric or weighting you could use to judge what the 'majority' of players would prefer or not prefer could be questioned. Neither we, nor Bioware, will ever know for sure what most people think.

However, where gripes appear on a reasonably regular basis, there would be justification for Bioware considering whether a change would be an improvement. I think the elven look has justified its place in this category, but my guess is that this is a low priority item on the agenda. It might justify visual tweaking in DA3, but a a return to the Origins look for elves feels intuitively unlikely, unless its part of a much wider attempt to airbrush DA2 out of the franchise's history (not likely). Fingers crossed we'll both be happy with the DA3 verison.

On your point about listening, Bioware does seem to be evidencing this more visibly than at this point after Origins' release. This can only be a good thing for players who have strong opinions about what they want to see changed, or left alone, in future parts of the franchise.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, but the problem I'm describing appears with ALL of them.  So it's cearly not the case that the mass problem with Iron was solved by moving to Red Steel, because the Iron weapons don't have the mass problem.  None of the mauls in DAO are too heavy to use.

Do you not understand what my complaint is?  The weapons all look huge, and yet are light.  I want to know how this is true, given that they're made from materials that are relevantly similar to real world materials (as we can discern from the appearance of armour and architecture in the setting).

Because the technique used to create them allows them to be. I don't understand. A moment ago you could agree that masterwork could make iron or steel mauls look like that and still be usable. But now you can't believe that non-masterwork can't do the same, despite the fact that technology is firmly established as not stagnant. If a master smith figures out how, and figures out how to teach other smiths to do it, why is it so impossible to believe that the other smiths might be able to do it too?

This is how I see it:

What you're saying:

1. Weapon crafting materials have evolved
2. Weapon crafting technique has not evolved

What I'm saying:

1. Weapon crafting materials have evolved
2. If #1 is true, it stands to reason that weapon crafting technique has also evolved

[Addai]

Agree or Disagree?

The Combat - (7.5) - Unlike most of the complainers that the combat was ruined, I liked the faster pace of the game. However, this is easily countered by the introduction of waves. SERIOUSLY? What demented designer looked at Dragon Age, a game based on tactical positioning and squad coordination, and thought that the game needed a wave system where enemies fall out of the sky or appear out of thin air? Either cut that crap down or get rid of it entirely.

So that's just a few of my thoughts in comparing to Bioware's goals and I'm curious what the community thinks.

(husband)

I think I sort of disagree on the combat.    On the waves...

1) They need a way to simulate a large scale battle.    The waves do this in a way that isn't to tough on memory.


2) The long battles do make a different kind of challenge than the typical boss fight.    (It's more a battle of endurance than a desperate short term struggle to stay alive and bring the boss down).    So some people might welcome this than turning every fight into a boss fight or nasty ambush.    And it also makes the hero look more heroic, as in being able to dispatch large numbers of enemies like an action film star (Uma Therman's character in Kill Bill versus the Crazy 88 being a good example)


3) Some skills like Death Syphon are only really useful in large scale engagements.   IF you got rid of the wave battles you would actually nerf the utility of these abilities.     Besides this some character builds are also built for endurance and killing a multiple enemies, i.e. Two handed sword users.   So you might also inadvertenly nerf them as well.

[Cyakura]

Story : 6 ( would have given much higher rating if final act was more polished and more alternatives with companions Especially Merrill the b...h)

Graphics: 10 For me graphics is 50% of the game if not more

Combat: 8.5 I did not give it full 10 just cause companions' tactics are not good without additional mods.

[Guitar-Hero]

Cyakura wrote...

Story : 6 ( would have given much higher rating if final act was more polished and more alternatives with companions Especially Merrill the b...h)

Graphics: 10 For me graphics is 50% of the game if not more

Combat: 8.5 I did not give it full 10 just cause companions' tactics are not good without additional mods.

Can i ask you a question? what was it about the graphics that made you regard it so highly?

[tmp7704]

mindbody wrote...

You used the words "amount of material," not "quantity of matter."  The difference being, as you correctly pointed out in your response, density.

It doesn't change the fact the amount of material is one of the factors which proportionally affect the mass. The density of said material is the other factor, but it doesn't make my initial statement false. And i thought it's rather obvious i was talking about situation in which the material used remains the same, meaning the density does not change.

Furthermore, there are different alloys of the same metals, all of which will have different densities.

The alloys are combinations of metals. Since each of these metals has its own density, by changing the ratio between individual metals used to form the alloy the resulting density changes as well, that's not surprising. But again, the argument was made that there's expectation the "iron" in game has physical properties close to our own "iron", the "steel" is similar to our own "steel" and such. It'd be much easier to just handwave the entire thing if all materials used by the game were fully made up.

I recognize the desire to find flaws in the game in ways that can be physically quantified as a means of expressing personal distaste, but it seems like we are afraid to call the stylistic choices out as mistakes by themselves.

I don't think it's fear, really. For me personally it's genuinely a view that the stylistic choice in question was a mistake precisely because it goes against expectations based on the physics we're used to.

It's similar to confused and/or negative reaction to stylistic choice of say, making items called "swords" lack any cutting edges and stabbing points -- such reaction wouldn't be there if there wasn't expectation for a sword to actually have such features.

[Wozearly]

mindbody wrote...

Isn't it possible that architectural knowledge hasn't advanced far enough in Ferelden or the Free Marches to use the lighter materials to make larger buildings?  I know this doesn't gel with medieval history, but this is a different world.  On the other hand, look at the Circle tower. Isn't it possible that building would require super-light materials to construct using medieval methods? In fact, many of the Tevinter-style buildings might break the laws of physics unless they were either magically constructed or used materials with properties alternate from the real world.

I think there's a division between what is technically possible by a master in that field and what is possible by, say, your average smith or stonemason.

This is going over old ground, but as the majority of weaponry you pick up as random drops - including darkspawn weaponry - is likely to have been made by an 'average' smith, if this is physically impossible to achieve then its arguably not that relevant whether a more skilled smith could have done it using magical / technological means.

To be honest, I doubt whoever named the materials and designed the weaponry put as much thought into this issue as has been expressed by both sides in this thread. For what my 2 cents are worth, there are credible explanations for why the non-real materials and magically enhanced  weaponry would fit with reality. But this falls down when referring to normal materials assuming the average Dragon Age smith is using comparable technology to an average medieval age smith.

However, no sane architect would have created some of the buildings that you see in Ferelden. Heck, even Flemeth built a hut where the majority appears to only be accessible via the chimney - and there's always a fire burning merrily in the fireplace.

By the same token, no sane smith would create two-handed weapons of the dimensions used in origins. And no sane warrior would wear a sword on his back that was actively on fire the entire time - particularly not with long hair.

Sometimes we just have to suspend disbelief, right?

[Kabanya101]

1) The story did suck. To me, as soon as I played it, I hated it because the Warden didn't return. It felt like one big sidequest, or DLC. Who cares about some guy that wasn't even related to Origins? I stopped playing DA2 because of it. And even the parts of the game I played, the story felt so BLAH. All you heard is "The Quinari influence is tearing the city apart. And the mages are becoming frustrated." Shut up, and kill them, easy solution, why waste a whole game to do so.
SCORE: 0

2) Graphics did improve, but some things really annoyed my though. As your playing, look at the person's feet, they make the same movement regardless if your going upstairs or on top of rocks. Not a big deal, just a bit dumb. It looked like the character stayed in the same spot and the Earth was moving under him, it didn't feel like Real exploration. BUT....the biggest reason why it doesn't get a perfect score is because of the cutscenes. If someone was moving in the cutscene, they would be flickering in and out of the scene. AND the high dragon never showed up, I tried three times, no show in cutscene at the end of the fight.
SCORE: 7

3) Combat, the only highlight to the game. It brought the user more into the combat scene rather than hitting A and attacking automatically. Great upgrade from DA:O, but one problem to prevent it from being perfect. During combat, some powers would be fully charged with PLENTY of stamina, and you couldn't use them. It mainly happened when near a wall or when someone was behind you. It become frustrating because you needed to use Shield Bash to get someone away, and you simply couldn't use it for no reason.
SCORE: 9.5

[SnakeStrike8]

My main dissapointment lies in Bioware's inability to fix the skill tree. Laidlaw mentioned, repeatedly, that he disliked how players in Origins were forced to pick particular skills that they didn't want in order to get skills that they did want. I agreed with him, and I looked forward to his promise that this would be fixed in DA 2.
It was not. If I only want the Control ability from the Vanguard tree and I want to upgrade it to make it better, I cannot. I have to invest a point into Might before I can progress any further in the Vanguard tree.
I was possibly most dissapointed by this. I thought Bioware was going to fix that. They did not.
Shame on you, lads. Shame on you.

[mindbody]

tmp7704 wrote...

mindbody wrote...

You used the words "amount of material," not "quantity of matter."  The difference being, as you correctly pointed out in your response, density.

It doesn't change the fact the amount of material is one of the factors which proportionally affect the mass. The density of said material is the other factor, but it doesn't make my initial statement false. And i thought it's rather obvious i was talking about situation in which the material used remains the same, meaning the density does not change.

Furthermore, there are different alloys of the same metals, all of which will have different densities.

The alloys are combinations of metals. Since each of these metals has its own density, by changing the ratio between individual metals used to form the alloy the resulting density changes as well, that's not surprising. But again, the argument was made that there's expectation the "iron" in game has physical properties close to our own "iron", the "steel" is similar to our own "steel" and such. It'd be much easier to just handwave the entire thing if all materials used by the game were fully made up.

I recognize the desire to find flaws in the game in ways that can be physically quantified as a means of expressing personal distaste, but it seems like we are afraid to call the stylistic choices out as mistakes by themselves.

I don't think it's fear, really. For me personally it's genuinely a view that the stylistic choice in question was a mistake precisely because it goes against expectations based on the physics we're used to.

It's similar to confused and/or negative reaction to stylistic choice of say, making items called "swords" lack any cutting edges and stabbing points -- such reaction wouldn't be there if there wasn't expectation for a sword to actually have such features.

I think the disagreement arose in the first sentence where you meant "quantity of the same material" I interpreted as "quantity of any material (even two different ones)." 

I say fear because preference of style would be argued by many as totally subjective, so people instead stick to arguments over what's physically possible or consistent. 

The problem is, and I think we're in agreement here, style affects many things beyond the size of swords or speed of movement. The style of DA2 reinforces a sort of cartoonish exaggeration pervading the entire game -  culminating with the two primary movers in Kirkwall being insane, which trivializes the meaning of everything that say and do.

In DA:O, the oversized weapons and blood spatters and invisible rogues were merely inconsistencies which could be ignored or dismissed as abstractions. It seemed the devs otherwise tried to adhere to real-world expectations. Despite the inconsistencies, DA:O screamed that you should take it seriously.

[Woofy128]

I love how some of you unregistered users feel entitled to rate the game. It's really cute.

[tmp7704]

mindbody wrote...

I think the disagreement arose in the first sentence where you meant "quantity of the same material" I interpreted as "quantity of any material (even two different ones)." 

Ahh, i see. That makes sense; it didn't occur to me it could be interpreted in such manner because, like you pointed out, that'd be wrong thing to say

[napushenko]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

My main dissapointment lies in Bioware's inability to fix the skill tree. Laidlaw mentioned, repeatedly, that he disliked how players in Origins were forced to pick particular skills that they didn't want in order to get skills that they did want. I agreed with him, and I looked forward to his promise that this would be fixed in DA 2.
It was not. If I only want the Control ability from the Vanguard tree and I want to upgrade it to make it better, I cannot. I have to invest a point into Might before I can progress any further in the Vanguard tree.
I was possibly most dissapointed by this. I thought Bioware was going to fix that. They did not.
Shame on you, lads. Shame on you.

Shame on them for not giving you all on silver platter ? I liked skill system in DAO, and i like it even more in DA2. You want to actually spew blizzards and infernos without actually knowing winter`s grasp or flame blast ? same for warior talents, wouldnt it be nice that we blizzard, scatter, cleave opponents without actually knowing how to use the sword.
they even catered to your types by giving the (you need # points in this school to get this talent option), so please.. dont use heavy words such as shame on you, they have more pressing concerns like.. fix the breastsize of  thedas girls or change their eyecolors. 

[Tommy6860]

mindbody wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Do you not understand what my complaint is?  The weapons all look huge, and yet are light.  I want to know how this is true, given that they're made from materials that are relevantly similar to real world materials (as we can discern from the appearance of armour and architecture in the setting).

Isn't it possible that architectural knowledge hasn't advanced far enough in Ferelden or the Free Marches to use the lighter materials to make larger buildings?  I know this doesn't gel with medieval history, but this is a different world.  On the other hand, look at the Circle tower. Isn't it possible that building would require super-light materials to construct using medieval methods? In fact, many of the Tevinter-style buildings might break the laws of physics unless they were either magically constructed or used materials with properties alternate from the real world.

Well, given the fact that one cannot role-play this imbalance and unrealistic effects (they are just there) makes technology assumption not possible aside from the settings being medieval. But to add, you're not taking into account that DA2's storyline is nearly taking place at the same time as Origins. The technology theme isn't as if Hawke in Kirkwall happened a hundred years or later for that to advance.

[Tommy6860]

Woofy128 wrote...

I love how some of you unregistered users feel entitled to rate the game. It's really cute.

Why? Some of those players have very good reasons not to register their games. It also doesn't diminish their opinions because they are unregistered players; the main gist of the game still plays the same way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Because the technique used to create them allows them to be. I don't understand. A moment ago you could agree that masterwork could make iron or steel mauls look like that and still be usable. But now you can't believe that non-masterwork can't do the same, despite the fact that technology is firmly established as not stagnant. If a master smith figures out how, and figures out how to teach other smiths to do it, why is it so impossible to believe that the other smiths might be able to do it too?

This is how I see it:

What you're saying:

1. Weapon crafting materials have evolved
2. Weapon crafting technique has not evolved

What I'm saying:

1. Weapon crafting materials have evolved
2. If #1 is true, it stands to reason that weapon crafting technique has also evolved

Except that #1 isn't true.  There are a variety of materials available, but they're all relevantly similar in their ability to produce superlightweight weapons.  I don't understand why you're talking about an evolution opf materials when those materials make no difference at all to the size of the weapons.  Silverite weapons aren't bigger than Grey Iron weapons, and yet they would have to be for your position to make any sense.

I don't think you're thinking this through.

[Gotholhorakh]

WRT weapons:

The notion of enormous and/or heavy and/or ornate weapons being wielded easily (or sometimes involving feats of superhuman/magical strength to grasp and use) is really not new in mythology, legend, anecdotal history and fantasy literature. Far from it.

Somebody wielding an enormous sword or shield with legendary strength and speed in a context that is ultimately supposed to be you living a myth, should come as no surprise to anybody

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 12 mai 2011 - 06:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

WRT weapons:

The notion of enormous and/or heavy and/or ornate weapons being wielded easily (or sometimes involving feats of superhuman/magical strength to grasp and use) is really not new in mythology, legend, anecdotal history and fantasy literature. Far from it.

Somebody wielding an enormous sword or shield with legendary strength and speed in a context that is ultimately supposed to be you living a myth, should come as no surprise to anybody

It's not something I enjoy.

Look at NWN.  Those weapons were normal-sized.  I like those weapons.

[Gotholhorakh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

WRT weapons:

The notion of enormous and/or heavy and/or ornate weapons being wielded easily (or sometimes involving feats of superhuman/magical strength to grasp and use) is really not new in mythology, legend, anecdotal history and fantasy literature. Far from it.

Somebody wielding an enormous sword or shield with legendary strength and speed in a context that is ultimately supposed to be you living a myth, should come as no surprise to anybody

It's not something I enjoy.

Look at NWN.  Those weapons were normal-sized.  I like those weapons.

Well.. aesthetically speaking, I completely agree.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

WRT weapons:

The notion of enormous and/or heavy and/or ornate weapons being wielded easily (or sometimes involving feats of superhuman/magical strength to grasp and use) is really not new in mythology, legend, anecdotal history and fantasy literature. Far from it.

Somebody wielding an enormous sword or shield with legendary strength and speed in a context that is ultimately supposed to be you living a myth, should come as no surprise to anybody

It's not something I enjoy.

Look at NWN.  Those weapons were normal-sized.  I like those weapons.

Gotta agree with Sylvius on this one; I too vastly prefer normal sized weapons. Once the tool set is out (hope springs eternal) I fully intend to replace every OTT standard model with ones based on historical weapons. Honestly, real world weapons are sleek, sexy and deadly - and for the life of me I just cannot fathom those who prefer the grossly exaggerated versions - not saying people are wrong for liking it - just that I do not understand it.

While an argument can be made that in myths and legends, some "heroes" possessed extraordinary weapons/armor/shields" and could weild them due to superhuman strength or magical ability, by definition those people and their weapons would have been unique. Yet in DA2's case, every weapon is "super-sized" and the lowliest peon sword fodder handles them with ease. So with all due respect, I do not think your argument works here.

Edited because my key board is sticky and I keep making typoes.

Modifié par CaptainBlackGold, 12 mai 2011 - 06:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've already installed a mod to replace the model for Hayder's Razor with something less whimsical.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I've already installed a mod to replace the model for Hayder's Razor with something less whimsical.

Link, plz?

www.dragonagenexus.com/downloads/file.php

It's not the best solution, but it purports to replace the Hayder's Razor model with the model for Meredith's greatsword, which at least matches the art style of the rest of the game (I admit I haven't actually run the game since installing this).

It took me forever to find this mod, because the creater misspelled "Hayder" in the description, so searching for "Hayder" doesn't find it.