3 réponses à ce sujet

[Amanda Jo Dragon]

Let me go on the record and say that i love Dragon Age 2, it is really great. After buying it on the PS3 i played and finished it three times in a row once as a warrior, then a rogue and finally a mage, but the one thing that disappoints me is when i play a female character all the armor is so bulky and covers every inch of her, I wish there was sexyier armor, the type that uncovers her long legs and flat stomach, low cut to show of a little clevage.

You know the type of armor that you could imagine would cause the male warriors and yes even some female ones to hesitate and underestimate her, just long enough for her to turn them into bloody pools of goo, the only armor in the entire game that comes close is Isabellas custom armor.

Is it just me or does anyone eles out there wish the female characters could look sexy in battle?

To be honest i'm on my fouth play through now and i've resorted to wearing only gloves, boots and a helmet, so she does look sexyier getting splattered in blood in her underwear, and i swear some times the enermy does seem like it hesitates that split second it takes her to appear behind them to stab them in the back.:happy:

[Stanley Woo]

This is a reminder to everyone that inappropriate language is not permitted in our forums. Also, let's please try and stay on topic. Thank you.

[John Epler]

Akka le Vil wrote...

So gameplay = lore is stopped by a change of screen ?

Man, that's one of the most garbled and twisted reasoning I ever seen.

I don't think that's really all that absurd a statement, honestly.

Each time you introduce a different 'mode', for example, you're forcefully separating two aspects of a game. Combat uses different rules and interfaces than conversations, for example, and so there's a disconnect. What the_one is saying is that by making that disconnect even -clearer-, you make an even more apparent distinction between the two. The rules that apply in one don't apply in the other, but it's acceptable because, well, you're creating the expectation with the player that this is the case.

I think, though, that the solution is to push things the other way. Rather than further segregating the elements of gameplay, I believe that bringing them closer together is the answer. Of course, this is never going to be perfect - even something as simple as player skill can make something possible in cutscene that is, in most ways, impossible to that player in the game as a whole. And sometimes, the rules have to be broken a little bit - permanent companion death, while certainly interesting, is something that's fraught with its own problems if you allow it in combat as well as cutscenes. But it's definitely a goal to work towards. Each part of the experience should fit together, with less of an abrupt shift from one to the other. Wherever a player says 'okay, that doesn't make sense', it's our job as a developer to look at it and ask ourselves 'why?'

Making the transition into conversation less jarring, for example, is something I'm pretty interested in. Rather than clearly telling the player 'THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE MODES', I'd rather exploration and conversation transition organically into each other. It's a greater challenge in a 3D space than a 2D one, but I don't think it's insurmountable. LA Noire is an example of a game where something as innocuous as having the character walk a few steps forward at the end of a conversation already helps smooth that transition, and I think there's a lot more that can be done.

[John Epler]

the_one_54321 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...
Making the transition into conversation less jarring, for example, is something I'm pretty interested in. Rather than clearly telling the player 'THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE MODES', I'd rather exploration and conversation transition organically into each other. It's a greater challenge in a 3D space than a 2D one, but I don't think it's insurmountable. LA Noire is an example of a game where something as innocuous as having the character walk a few steps forward at the end of a conversation already helps smooth that transition, and I think there's a lot more that can be done.

But I feel the more important implication is in the environmental reaction to battle. When you had two different modes for combat and exploration, all environmental concerns in the exploration mode were eliminated in the battle mode, like in the example I talked about. Specifically in that example, the guards react to you in exploration mode based on the exploration game interactions, and they were no longer part of the interactions in the battle mode unless they are the ones that attacked you.

When you switch to a single mode system, as in DA:O, DAII, FFXII, BG, BGII, and so on, then you have to make the environment react to combat based on the same exploration interactions as in the games with a separate exploration mode. In this system you must have mechanics that cover both exploration and combat simultaneously in order to maintain internal consistency.

And I think that's an entirely fair point to make. When you try to bring all the elements of a game together (exploration, combat and conversation), it becomes rather more important that the logic remain consistent from one to the next. Certainly, the easiest way for us to get around this would be to add an even greater distance between the various 'modes' of gameplay by putting a load screen between them. I'd rather try and bring everything together, however. It's an approach that works for some games - at this point, it's less of a 'limitation' for them than it's part and parcel of the whole experience. Which doesn't make it a worse choice - just one that has been shown time and time again to work for that particular genre/type of game.

There are certainly tricks and ways to skirt the issue - make sure combats don't happen where the two could possibly conflict, for example, and limit conversations in the same way. However, those are even more constraints and I think that, while it may work from a 'okay, this makes more sense as part of the game world' way, it doesn't address the core problem.