288 réponses à ce sujet

[Joonsis]

Very much enjoyed this game.  I've played through with each class, couple of times as a female, once as a male.  The dialogue is great and the epic storyline is worth caring about.   Once again for me it is the banter between party members that really sets the DA franchise apart from other RPG's.  The combat system was also good, battles were completely absorbing, barely time to think.  I'm looking forward to the next.  Thanks Bioware!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Well there are mods that add friendly fire without the difficulty of nightmare. Check out the DA Nexus.

I know.  If I get back to the game, I'll install one.

I don't really understand why "Difficulty" is a setting at all.  On its own, difficulty isn't relevant to my gameplay.

?

I want gameplay that aids roleplaying.  Combat of all difficulties can do that if the combat fits coherently within the game's setting.  Some quests can be perilously difficult, and some quests can be cakewalks, but as long as the rules for each makes sense then the game has, I think, succeeded.

Having the game's mechanics adjusted to provide a static (or narrowly limited) standard of difficulty is a badly misguided priority.

[MonkeyLungs]

In RPG's the same ruleset that applies to the players should apply to the GM. In this case the computer is the GM and as such the enemies, encounters, and adventures etc. should all follow the exact same ruleset as the player.

This is why back in the day all my friends had the dungoen master's guide too .. even though I was DM like 95% of the time ... everyone wants to know the rules and know that the game is being played fairly (for lack of a better term).

In fact it goes one step further ... the rulesets for RPG's are also part of the fun for many role playing gamers. When there are disparate rulesets for the GM and the players some of the fun errodes.

[Boiny Bunny]

^ To futher that, this need not apply only to D&D or even RPGs. In general, I enjoy games where enemies have access only to the abilities that the PC has (although, sometimes they get them sooner than you can).

Enemy mages in DA2 are particularly bad in this regard.

[Skilled Seeker]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Having the game's mechanics adjusted to provide a static (or narrowly limited) standard of difficulty is a badly misguided priority.

But what if someone finds the stock difficulty too hard or too easy. Should they be punished? More choice is always a good thing. I understand your problem is with the game rules, so I don't see why you're against difficulty scaling.

[SilentK]

Ehmmm.... don't think I could manage anything more than normal on a boss-fight =) I'm more of a story-gamer anyways. Have friends who play everything on nightmare and so forth. If I couldn't play my DA-games and ME-games on a lower setting it wouldn't get played. Normal works most of the times, except when something really kicks me hard and I have to go down to casual....

[SilentK]

Joonsis wrote...

Very much enjoyed this game.  I've played through with each class, couple of times as a female, once as a male.  The dialogue is great and the epic storyline is worth caring about.   Once again for me it is the banter between party members that really sets the DA franchise apart from other RPG's.  The combat system was also good, battles were completely absorbing, barely time to think.  I'm looking forward to the next.  Thanks Bioware!

Glad you liked it     =)    I also love the banter and how you can follow your companions and see how they get to know eachother better along the game    

[Wivvix]

Grimmwor Runeforger wrote...

I have been playing DA2 since it came out.  I still have not finished my first play through.  I guess I am slow LOL.  But...that is what I love about it...it reminds me of BG2...which was the game that got me into PC gaming.  Developers...producers...fine job.  I LOVE it. 

Tragic. You obviously haven't played BG2 for a really long time either, otherwise you wouldn't have made such an erroneous comparison.

[godseiryuu]

I agree with you Wivvix. BG2 was a marvel of role-playing and if DA:O came close to the level of great role-playing of BG2 (except for the last DLCs and awakening which were pretty cheap I think), DA2 is horribly linear in it's scenario and far too simple in general to be compared with the immensely complex universe pictured in BG2. I did like DA2 though, just not as much as BG2 or DA:O.

Modifié par godseiryuu, 25 mai 2011 - 03:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

But what if someone finds the stock difficulty too hard or too easy. Should they be punished? More choice is always a good thing. I understand your problem is with the game rules, so I don't see why you're against difficulty scaling.

I do think the player should be able to adjust the gameplay to suit his preferences.  But targetting a level of difficulty as some sort of design objective - I think that's a mistake because it leads to these other perverse outcomes.

If they're designing a combat encounter in the game, and they find that they've made it too difficult, I would hope that instead of adjusting the rules that govern that encounter they would instead just remove one enemy from it, or adjust the terrain to give the player an extra tactical opportunity, or some other such thing.

This is why I think BioWare's D&D-based games were so good - they were locked into the ruleset, so they wre forced to design the encounters without making the rules nonsensical.  That, I think, is the proper way to design a game.  Build the setting first.  Define the rules within that setting.  Then tell a story that doesn't break those rules.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

But what if someone finds the stock difficulty too hard or too easy. Should they be punished? More choice is always a good thing. I understand your problem is with the game rules, so I don't see why you're against difficulty scaling.

I do think the player should be able to adjust the gameplay to suit his preferences.  But targetting a level of difficulty as some sort of design objective - I think that's a mistake because it leads to these other perverse outcomes.

If they're designing a combat encounter in the game, and they find that they've made it too difficult, I would hope that instead of adjusting the rules that govern that encounter they would instead just remove one enemy from it, or adjust the terrain to give the player an extra tactical opportunity, or some other such thing.

This is why I think BioWare's D&D-based games were so good - they were locked into the ruleset, so they wre forced to design the encounters without making the rules nonsensical.  That, I think, is the proper way to design a game.  Build the setting first.  Define the rules within that setting.  Then tell a story that doesn't break those rules.

I like the D & D ruleset, but some of the rules were nonsensical, which is why a lot of role playing groups had house rules. Also some of the rules could not be implemented in the form written, so compromises had to be made. The small indie company Basilisk games took this into account when they developed Eschalon II. You could modify some of the games parameters and mechanics at the start of the game.
As an example, If you wanted food and water requirements you could check the box at the beginning and that mechanic is implemented.

Choice can be very good.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

But what if someone finds the stock difficulty too hard or too easy. Should they be punished? More choice is always a good thing. I understand your problem is with the game rules, so I don't see why you're against difficulty scaling.

I do think the player should be able to adjust the gameplay to suit his preferences.  But targetting a level of difficulty as some sort of design objective - I think that's a mistake because it leads to these other perverse outcomes.

If they're designing a combat encounter in the game, and they find that they've made it too difficult, I would hope that instead of adjusting the rules that govern that encounter they would instead just remove one enemy from it, or adjust the terrain to give the player an extra tactical opportunity, or some other such thing.

This is why I think BioWare's D&D-based games were so good - they were locked into the ruleset, so they wre forced to design the encounters without making the rules nonsensical.  That, I think, is the proper way to design a game.  Build the setting first.  Define the rules within that setting.  Then tell a story that doesn't break those rules.

I like the D & D ruleset, but some of the rules were nonsensical, which is why a lot of role playing groups had house rules. Also some of the rules could not be implemented in the form written, so compromises had to be made. The small indie company Basilisk games took this into account when they developed Eschalon II. You could modify some of the games parameters and mechanics at the start of the game.
As an example, If you wanted food and water requirements you could check the box at the beginning and that mechanic is implemented.

Choice can be very good.

I'm certainly not saying BioWare should use anything like the D&D rules.  I'm saying that the way BioWare designed those D&D-based games was better because they weren't allowed to fiddle with the rules to produce specific gameplay outcomes.

[schalafi]

I played Origins, then Awakening, then DA2, and I think the whole problem is comparing one to another. I didn't expect Awakening to be a sequel to Origins, and I enjoyed the game for it's own sake. I was surprised when I played Da2 to find that It wasn't a sequel at all, but a story of a new place in Thedas with all new characters. I liked DA2 for itself, but I think Bioware made a mistake in labeling it a sequel. To me it seemed more of an add-on like Awakening.

Modifié par schalafi, 25 mai 2011 - 09:03 .

[Icinix]

Its been said time and time again. But if you label something as a sequel, you cannot complain that people shouldn't expect it to be a sequel.
I wouldn't go see The Empire Strikes Back and not expect it to be about Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Darth Vader. I wouldn't see Back to the Future 2 and not expect time travel, I wouldn't play Crysis 2 and not expect a nano suit and aliens and so on and so fourth etc etc.

But also this whole we shouldn't compare games etc is a joke. If we don't compare how do you measure success and what works?  If that was the case, someone could re-release Kroz and we'd all have to claim it was the greatest game of all time because we weren't allowed to compare it and had to have no expectations.

I came into DA2 expecting Dragon Age 2 - With every intention of it being compared to DA1, being that generally, sequels aim to be better than the first and carry on in someway from their point of origin.  
Regardless of my views, my argument is against the argument that it shouldn't be compared to a game it was part of the series for and that people should look at it like no other game has ever been made before.

Etc etc...and so on and so fourth.

Whew. Now thats out of my system. I feel a little better.

[Faust1979]

Icinix wrote...

Its been said time and time again. But if you label something as a sequel, you cannot complain that people shouldn't expect it to be a sequel.
I wouldn't go see The Empire Strikes Back and not expect it to be about Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Darth Vader. I wouldn't see Back to the Future 2 and not expect time travel, I wouldn't play Crysis 2 and not expect a nano suit and aliens and so on and so fourth etc etc.

But also this whole we shouldn't compare games etc is a joke. If we don't compare how do you measure success and what works?  If that was the case, someone could re-release Kroz and we'd all have to claim it was the greatest game of all time because we weren't allowed to compare it and had to have no expectations.

I came into DA2 expecting Dragon Age 2 - With every intention of it being compared to DA1, being that generally, sequels aim to be better than the first and carry on in someway from their point of origin.  
Regardless of my views, my argument is against the argument that it shouldn't be compared to a game it was part of the series for and that people should look at it like no other game has ever been made before.

Etc etc...and so on and so fourth.

Whew. Now thats out of my system. I feel a little better.

The game follows on from events from the first game so thus it's a sequel but a lot of characters would be hard to come back since there are so many different endings to the game it would be quite silly.  It just makes sense to create new characters while still being able to talk about some events that happened in the last

[Morroian]

Icinix wrote...

Its been said time and time again. But if you label something as a sequel, you cannot complain that people shouldn't expect it to be a sequel.

The franchise is about Thedas in the Dragon Age not particular characters ergo DA2 is a sequel. BW made this clear well before DA2 came out.

Modifié par Morroian, 25 mai 2011 - 10:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

The franchise is about Thedas in the Dragon Age not particular characters ergo DA2 is a sequel. BW made this clear well before DA2 came out.

Based on the combat mechanics alone, the two games aren't both recognisable as being in Thedas. 

[Morroian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Morroian wrote...

The franchise is about Thedas in the Dragon Age not particular characters ergo DA2 is a sequel. BW made this clear well before DA2 came out.

Based on the combat mechanics alone, the two games aren't both recognisable as being in Thedas. 

To me they are, DA2 felt like a Dragon Age game to me even with the changes.

[Persephone]

Morroian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Morroian wrote...

The franchise is about Thedas in the Dragon Age not particular characters ergo DA2 is a sequel. BW made this clear well before DA2 came out.

Based on the combat mechanics alone, the two games aren't both recognisable as being in Thedas. 

To me they are, DA2 felt like a Dragon Age game to me even with the changes.

This.^

[MorrigansLove]

Persephone wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Morroian wrote...

The franchise is about Thedas in the Dragon Age not particular characters ergo DA2 is a sequel. BW made this clear well before DA2 came out.

Based on the combat mechanics alone, the two games aren't both recognisable as being in Thedas. 

To me they are, DA2 felt like a Dragon Age game to me even with the changes.

This.^

Not for me.

[Skilled Seeker]

simfamSP wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Morroian wrote...

The franchise is about Thedas in the Dragon Age not particular characters ergo DA2 is a sequel. BW made this clear well before DA2 came out.

Based on the combat mechanics alone, the two games aren't both recognisable as being in Thedas. 

How so? They are both party based games, each with the same basic tactical/stragety implementation. Though it was done much better in Origins, they are still recognisable in general.

I wish sometimes however, they would warn you with some signs a boss is up. In Origins you could tell in the Deep Roads that you were going to face something scary, so you better get ready.

I hate it when I'm forced to enounter a boss with no significant sign beforehand. It's like they pop out of the air for no apparent reason.

Which bosses are these? DAO had more ninja bosses than DA2. I can only think of one ninja boss in DA2. You knew that you were going to have to fight the others before you met them. Maybe not the specific boss, but you could tell that a boss encounter was coming.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 25 mai 2011 - 11:15 .

[Icinix]

Morroian wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Its been said time and time again. But if you label something as a sequel, you cannot complain that people shouldn't expect it to be a sequel.

The franchise is about Thedas in the Dragon Age not particular characters ergo DA2 is a sequel. BW made this clear well before DA2 came out.

@ Morroian and Faust1979 - 

I was complaining about the argument people are using that you shouldn't expect it to be a sequel. Even though it is.

Not about the characters they used.

If I say I don't like Teddy Bear Picnic 2: Wrath of the ants because its not like Teddy Bear Picnic 1: Making the picnic - its a poor argument to say I shouldn't have expected it to play and perform in a manner similar to the first.   Particularly when I'm coming out and saying It doesn't feel like I'm playing a Teddy Bear Picnic game.

Modifié par Icinix, 26 mai 2011 - 03:00 .

[In Exile]

Icinix wrote..
I was complaining about the argument people are using that you shouldn't expect it to be a sequel. Even though it is.

Not about the characters they used.

If I say I don't like Teddy Bear Picnic 2: Wrath of the ants because its not like Teddy Bear Picnic 1: Making the picnic - its a poor argument to say I shouldn't have expected it to play and perform in a manner similar to the first.   Particularly when I'm coming out and saying It doesn't feel like I'm playing a Teddy Bear Picnic game.

I never expected them to follow up on the Warden after DA:O ended just because of all the plot threads they left open and would have hard a time fixing. When I played DA:A, a game that takes my choices and background and LIs and just forces you to be a Grey Warden, I realized that I wouldn't be able to play a DA:O2 that involved any kind of plot hook for my Warden.