288 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerdage]

If there were a place you could see all of your companions' inventories it wouldn't be so bad, like the party camp in DAO, but in DA2 I found myself having to either find a party reform trumpet (the hell were those things about, anyway?) or just spam area transitions from the estate before I could safely sell the gear I'd collected.

Time spent managing your party's gear isn't bad, having to waste time fetching all of your companions just to see if they actually need upgrading is. To me, anyway.

[Merced652]

conceptually the game was good, even i will give it that. It was beyond horribly executed, but considering dev time it was probably better than could be hoped for. I wonder what a zelda game would like after 18 months dev time? Wonder how they do it... make a game for 4 years that is exclusive to one system and hope to be successful. Oh yea and that witcher game that came out today.. weird.

Modifié par Merced652, 17 mai 2011 - 11:55 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

nerdage wrote...

Time spent managing your party's gear isn't bad, having to waste time fetching all of your companions just to see if they actually need upgrading is. To me, anyway.

To a degree, I enjoy gearing the party.  Weapons and tinkets are fine.  There has to be a central management screen though.

[Drasanil]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
You didn't really reply.  :happy::happy::happy:  My point stands:  If you only put ten seconds of thought into gearing a companion, you might as well get rid of the gear completely and play the game... where there are actual important choices to make.

I did, even if it doesn't take me much time to do it, outfitting my companions allows me to better tailor them to the roles I want them to play in my party. Restricting equipment even with in the same classes, further restricts party composition.

Now, you didn't address my point. That the source of your hate is a "problem" that is entirely of your own making, rather than the actual mechanics behind it.  

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Drasanil wrote...

I did, even if it doesn't take me much time to do it, outfitting my companions allows me to better tailor them to the roles I want them to play in my party. Restricting equipment even with in the same classes, further restricts party composition.

Those aren't real choices.  Given the option between a system where I don't have to worry about gear at all and a system that lets me turn Aveline into DPS and make Carver tank, I'll choose the one that's lets me go straight into making actual choices.  While playing the game.

[Drasanil]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
Those aren't real choices.  Given the option between a system where I don't have to worry about gear at all and a system that lets me turn Aveline into DPS and make Carver tank, I'll choose the one that's lets me go straight into making actual choices.  While playing the game.

Deciding which companion to use is a meaningfull choice, what if you need a tank but hate Aveline? It affects how you approach the game fundementally and your enjoyment of it. Or are you saying that all companions are superfluous and get in the way of making choices?

Furthermore, since we're speaking of "choices" how does that make DAII "brilliant" given you never really had any choices, and those you did have always resulted in the same outcomes? From the looks of it, you'd be more likely to enjoy a movie than an RPG.

Modifié par Drasanil, 18 mai 2011 - 12:09 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]nerdage wrote...

It makes more sense that companions don't exude purple ooze because someone happens to be singing, or emit a big orange disk because they're being particularly inspiring. Moving most of the visual effects over to mages also seems to make more sense.[/quote]
Yes, I'll grant that.  I thought you were referring to DA2's tendency to make those visual effects is does have disappear during cutscenes and conversations, despite there being no in-game reason for that to occur.

I'll agree that DAO had too many flashy visual effects.

[quote]if I used more than three or four party-wide sustained abilities in DAO the game became almost unplayable with lag. Just my own experience.[/quote]
That might explain why I never had that problem.  I tended not to have a bunch of sustainable abilities up at once, because I generally found it to be an inefficient use of Stamina/Mana.  And I just didn't like the visual effects.

[quote]You could call that realistic. If you're in the middle of throwing a punch it's hard to change your mind and stop mid-way through. It's still a rationalization, but it's justifiable.[/quote]
But it does run contrary to BioWare's stated desire to make the game "more responsive".  In some respects, DA2's combat is less responsive.  DAO allowed moment-to-moment tactical revisions, while DA2 does not.

[quote]If you have to change your combat tactics because of a faulty game mechanic, it's bad.[/quote]
You always have to design your tactics around the game's mechanics.  DAO features a bonus to archery when firing from higher ground.  DA2 does not.  That drives tactical planning, but we can't really say that one of them is faulty.

[quote]I know the same could be said of the animations in DA2, but personally "He's casting a spell so he can't take any other action" is easier to swollow than "He can't move to attack that enemy because his AI is broken".[/quote]
It seems implausible to me that the mage can't just stop casting that spell - especially since he could in DAO.

DAO's AI was predictable (though, I'm not terribly sympathetic to AI problems, as I tend to micromanage everything in a party-based game).  If it works consistently, I don't think it's broken.  And running to intercept an opponent rather than just chasing him would require a lot more processing power.  You're already complaining about lag - that would just make it worse.

[quote]Expression is what I want. This is probably one of those personal taste things we won't agree on but, if all the other characters can visibly and audibly express emotion, I feel my character should too. In (let's say..) BG, a lot of other characters' emotion was read in the text, so it made more sense that the PC's would be there too, but DAO just felt like an awkward middle ground.[/quote]
If I accept that DAO is an awkward middle ground, then the solution that satisfies both of us is to scrap the expression entirely and revert to text.

This cinematic presentation causes nothing but problems.

[quote]I'm talking about dialogue, my character doing what I tell it to (i.e. saying that I tell it to), surely that's gameplay?[/quote]
I deny that Hawke does what you tell him to do in dialogue, given that you can't know what it is he's going to do based on those paraphrased options, so you can't really be said to be telling him to do those things.

[quote]DA2 ran and looked better than DAO,[/quote]That's subjective, and I disagree on the second point.

[quote]it had more resposnive combat than DAO,[/quote]
It had differently responsive combat than DAO, as I've just explained.  And the speed of DA2's combat makes it much harder to use.  I can't agree that it is more responsive.  DA2 even still have the shuffle that was so derided in DAO.  If you trigger a melee talent in the middle of a close-packed crowd, and your target isn't already within range, Hawke will shuffle through the crowd to get in range exactly the same way he did in DAO.  So that's demonstrably not more responsive.  That's wholly unchanged. 

[quote]and I felt my character had more emotion than in DAO. [/quote]This makes no sense to me.  He certainly expressed more emotion in DA2, but there's no reason he couldn't have had the same emotion in DAO - you just had to impart it yourself.  And DA2 doesn't allow you to impart emotion yourself, as it will routinely contradict the emotion you choose by having Hawke express a different emotion.

You can feel that Hawke had more emotion all you want, but that's plainly not the case.  I don't think you thought that one through at all.

[quote]The reasons I thought those things were worse in DAO were really implied in the statements. It's all purely opinion, of course, but still valid.[/quote]
You're entitled to your own option, but not your own facts.
[quote]BG2 spoiler here, if anyone cares...
You can play BG not caring about Imoen, where the only reason you chase Irenicus is for power, if neither power nor Imoen are worth chasing... Well, is there a chaotic apathetic alignment? Although I agree it's nicer to be able to make your own choices, sometimes it adds alot to make a story line immediate (Bodhi kidnapping a romance, leandra being kidnapped). Times where there's no real reason not to do it, but preferably not for major plot arcs.[/quote]
I disagree completely.  You're writing here as if you want the game's narrative to provide all the motivations for your character.  But the writers don't know your character.  They know almost nothing about your character.  So your character's beliefs, values, and goals are also unknown to them.  Only you know those things.  That's why the game should let you choose actions and objectives, because otherwise those chosen for you might require out-of-character behaviour from your PC.

It's not required that the PC be apathetic for BG2 not to work.  All that's required is that the PC have some objective other than those listed which he deems more important.

At the start of BG, you're told to go to the Friendly Arm Inn.  But you don't have to do that.  If your character wants to do something else entirely, you can go do that.  That's a sign of an excellent RPG.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 mai 2011 - 12:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

There has to be a central management screen though.

I'll agree with that.

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Those aren't real choices.

How are those not real choices?  They're choices.  You can make them.  They have gameplay consequences.  How are they not real?

Given the option between a system where I don't have to worry about gear at all and a system that lets me turn Aveline into DPS and make Carver tank, I'll choose the one that's lets me go straight into making actual choices.  While playing the game.

Managing inventory is a part of gameplay.

[Mick301981]

Drasanil wrote...

nerdage wrote...

Mick301981 wrote...

Are there mods that remove the sustained ability effects?  I'm genuinely curious, as I am getting DAO for my bare minimum requirements laptop next week and anything that helps the game run better would be great for me.

Not that I know of. I looked on the nexus for one and didn't find any but that was a long time ago, might be worth a check.

Really I thought every one knew about this mod given it's popularity. The effects still play when you activate them but fade out after a few seconds.

Oh, geez, I already had this one bookmarked, but I had forgotten about it:blink:.

Well, I'm an idiot:lol:.

[Nerdage]

You always have to design your tactics around the game's mechanics.  DAO features a bonus to archery when firing from higher ground.  DA2 does not.  That drives tactical planning, but we can't really say that one of them is faulty.

Without in-game justification, a warrior won't chase an enemy if their angular velocity relative to the warrior is too high, that's sounds faulty.

DAO's AI was predictable (though, I'm not terribly sympathetic to AI problems, as I tend to micromanage everything in a party-based game).  If it works consistently, I don't think it's broken.  And running to intercept an opponent rather than just chasing him would require a lot more processing power.  You're already complaining about lag - that would just make it worse.

All it would have to do is add about half the character's distance from the enemy to the path the enemy is already on, then go to that point, since everything is moving at a constant speed. Repeat the procedure once a second or so (really not a lot, computationally) and you have a pretty reasonable 'intercept' behaviour. It's certainly not perfect, but it's better than "rotate on the spot until the enemy stops moving".

If I accept that DAO is an awkward middle ground, then the solution that satisfies both of us is to scrap the expression entirely and revert to text.

Or they could keep refining and improving the system they have now, the one that almost certainly has more broad appeal. I wouldn't be opposed the just returning to text, it makes alot of things much easier to do in-game (for the player and the developer), but it's not the only solution

I deny that Hawke does what you tell him to do in dialogue, given that you can't know what it is he's going to do based on those paraphrased options, so you can't really be said to be telling him to do those things.

It may just be coincidence, but one of the things that struck me about DA2 was how my I didn't have any of the "Why the hell did you just say that" moments that I got quite alot in Mass Effect. Not until my second playthrough, anyway... "What about love?" Where did that come from?! Still only that one time so far, though.

That's subjective, and I disagree on the second point.

You're entitled to your own option, but not your own facts.

It's all subjective! If you're trying to say one thing is/isn't better than another, but neither of them can actually be quantified (as in this case with gameplay), it's probably entirely opinion.

It had differently responsive combat than DAO, as I've just explained.  And the speed of DA2's combat makes it much harder to use.  I can't agree that it is more responsive.  DA2 even still have the shuffle that was so derided in DAO.  If you trigger a melee talent in the middle of a close-packed crowd, and your target isn't already within range, Hawke will shuffle through the crowd to get in range exactly the same way he did in DAO.  So that's demonstrably not more responsive.  That's wholly unchanged. 

It's sometimes as unresposive as DAO, but (I felt) it was more responsive for more of the time.

This makes no sense to me.  He certainly expressed more emotion in DA2, but there's no reason he couldn't have had the same emotion in DAO - you just had to impart it yourself.  And DA2 doesn't allow you to impart emotion yourself, as it will routinely contradict the emotion you choose by having Hawke express a different emotion.

You can feel that Hawke had more emotion all you want, but that's plainly not the case.  I don't think you thought that one through at all.

So the warden posessed no emotion itself, you're imposing emotion an something that's essentially inanimate, in a game world filled with emotional characters that felt awkward to me. Apparently it didn't to you, but like I said, it's all subjective anyway.

I disagree completely.  You're writing here as if you want the game's narrative to provide all the motivations for your character.  But the writers don't know your character.  They know almost nothing about your character.  So your character's beliefs, values, and goals are also unknown to them.  Only you know those things.  That's why the game should let you choose actions and objectives, because otherwise those chosen for you might require out-of-character behaviour from your PC.

Not all of the motivation, not all of the time, but there are surely times where the story will try and pick a subject close the the PC to play off. The Bodhi example is the best one I can think of right now, so: you've spent the first half of the game building a relationship with another character, there's no good reason to do this unless it's genuine, can't it be reasonably be assumed that this character is important to the PC? Especially since Bodhi does it to get to the PC, it's not the game's assumption, it's hers, even if she's wrong it still makes sense she'd come to that conclusion. Even then they don't force you to be emotional in the dialogue, the quest to revive them afterwards is even completely optional, but those can be some of the strongest moments if you're willing to become engaged in them and not try and fight them just for the sake of being awkward.

It's not required that the PC be apathetic for BG2 not to work.  All that's required is that the PC have some objective other than those listed which he deems more important.

This is a bit off topic, but you're kidnapped by a powerful mage, claiming you have "untapped potential" due to your lineage, he then basically kidnaps your long-time companion (in Candlekeep at least, even if you never had her in your party), leaving you stranded in a completely unfarmiliar part of the world. You also have no ties anywhere else and no home to return to, since Candekeep likely wouldn't take you back anyway. If your first priority is "Do you think anybody around here has some good errands to run" you probably haven't been paying attention to the story.

At the start of BG, you're told to go to the Friendly Arm Inn.  But you don't have to do that.  If your character wants to do something else entirely, you can go do that.  That's a sign of an excellent RPG.

There's still a main story that has to be pursued, the game won't end until you've done the quest line that has to be done, that's the case with every Bioware game, as are the side quests that you can just wonder off and do if you feel like. That said, the world shouldn't just wait for you to finish what you're doing, last time I played BG I remember wasting loads of time on side quests in the build up to the noble ball with Sarevok and the grand dukes, and thinking "why would they hold off the party indefinately while I trek up and down the coast?". Then, after the ball when he flees to the theive's guild, I decided to have another wonder around, and would you believe he just waited a few days in this tunnel for me? As nice as it is to have choices, the choices shouldn't always be yours, that's unrealistic writing, bordering on cheesy.

Modifié par nerdage, 18 mai 2011 - 01:43 .

[Everwarden]

darknoon5 wrote...
In all fairness, everytime I press a button, something awesome does happen.

Is it the off button?

[Dormiglione]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I'm not sure about brilliant, but it was better than DAO.

In your opinion DA2 is better than DAO. In my opinion DAO is better than DA2. You know, its really subjective when it comes to the question "what do i like more".

[HTTP 404]

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. 

Im glad you like it. 

many of us may not agree, including myself but I wont burst your bubble.  Also just ignore the "haters" that dislike your post.  You like what you like!

[kglaser]

Everwarden wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...
In all fairness, everytime I press a button, something awesome does happen.

Is it the off button?

Lolz.  Well-played, serah.

[Roxlimn]

Drasanil:

You don't need a tank in DA2. Ever. You choose to have a tank. That tank can be Aveline, but Carver and Fenris have tanking skills, too, and are better in specific instances.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]nerdage wrote...

Without in-game justification, a warrior won't chase an enemy if their angular velocity relative to the warrior is too high, that's sounds faulty.[/quote]
I literally never noticed that.  I tended to direct my characters to move to a location in the enemy's path, and then intercept it there.
[quote]Or they could keep refining and improving the system they have now, the one that almost certainly has more broad appeal. I wouldn't be opposed the just returning to text, it makes alot of things much easier to do in-game (for the player and the developer), but it's not the only solution[/quote]
But the system they have now has so far to go even to begin to approach adequacy.

Until they find some way to allow the player control of the PC that is anything vafuely similar to what he had with a silent protagonist, I don't want to see a voiced protagonist.  Let that R&D happen behind the scenes somewhere;  don't subject us to a half-realised mechanic that conflicts with the core gameplay of roleplaying.
[quote]It may just be coincidence, but one of the things that struck me about DA2 was how my I didn't have any of the "Why the hell did you just say that" moments that I got quite alot in Mass Effect.[/quote]
I'll agree those were less common in DA2.  I credit the intent icons for that.

Unfortunately, the reason for that was that I so often had no idea what a given option was going to produce.  In the very first dialogue wheel event in DA2, where Hawke can respond to Bethany, two of those paraphrases have no apparent connection to what she just said.  So DA2 tends to force me to choose the one available option that appears to make any sense at all, regardless of what it happens to say, while the others are simply confusing.

So yes, DA2 is less bad at having me choose options and then surprising me with something I wasn't expecting, but instead it gives me options where I have no idea what the resulting Hawke line will be.

I'm not sure that's better.  At least in ME I could just disable the voice-over and ignore the contradictions, but in DA2 the paraphrases themselves don't make any sense.
[quote]It's all subjective! If you're trying to say one thing is/isn't better than another, but neither of them can actually be quantified (as in this case with gameplay), it's probably entirely opinion.[/quote]
But you're presenting your opinion like you're on a debate team.  You're making a case for why something is good, and completely ignoring the downsides.  Yes, it's a matter of taste whether the good outweighs the bad, but the bad warrants mention.
[quote]It's sometimes as unresposive as DAO, but (I felt) it was more responsive for more of the time.[/quote]
I find it generally less responsive, because I find that responsiveness generally less predictable.  In DAO I can design my tactics around how the characters behave, but in DA2 that's harder because the character behaviour is so inconsistent.

For example, if Hawke is erforming an auto-attack, how long will he be tied up doing that before he can do something else?  In DAO, that answer was always the same, but in DA2 the answer isn't predictable unless you've been following the pattern of attacks and know when the longer attack is coming.

But I can't follow all of the characters' attacks all of the time in order to know that, so DA2 is simply harder to use and demonstrably less responsive to my commands.

you keep talking about what you feel with regard to the gameplay.  I'm talking about what cctually happens.  If it matters, measure it.  But instead, you're letting your anecdotal impressions inform your opinion.
[quote]So the warden posessed no emotion itself[/quote]
Of course not.  He's not real.
[quote]you're imposing emotion an something that's essentially inanimate, in a game world filled with emotional characters that felt awkward to me.[/quote]
Again, regardless of how it feels, DAO grants demonstrably more control over the PC's emotional state.  DA2 forces you down one of a handful of paths.  DAO allows you to define your own path almost without limit.

That you want the PC to express his emotion is relvant, and a point in DA2's favour for you, but it's simply nonsense to suggest that Hawke was somehow more emotional.

I don't care how you eel in the absence of the information that drives those feelings.  And if you don't know what those facts are, then you're more than a little frightening.
[quote]Not all of the motivation, not all of the time, but there are surely times where the story will try and pick a subject close the the PC to play off. The Bodhi example is the best one I can think of right now, so: you've spent the first half of the game building a relationship with another character, there's no good reason to do this unless it's genuine, can't it be reasonably be assumed that this character is important to the PC? Especially since Bodhi does it to get to the PC, it's not the game's assumption, it's hers, even if she's wrong it still makes sense she'd come to that conclusion. Even then they don't force you to be emotional in the dialogue, the quest to revive them afterwards is even completely optional, but those can be some of the strongest moments if you're willing to become engaged in them and not try and fight them just for the sake of being awkward.[/quote]
I'll admit I never got that far in BG2.  I've never seen Chapter 3.

However, based on your description that sounds terrific, as it creates an opportunity for a strong emotional reaction from the PC.  My favourite part of KotOR is how the game allows a strong reaction to the big plot twist reveal.  But the game doesn't require it.  The game doesn't forse it on you.  And that's the difference.

Creating space for emotions is good.  Writing them in advance is game-killing.
[quote]This is a bit off topic, but you're kidnapped by a powerful mage, claiming you have "untapped potential" due to your lineage, he then basically kidnaps your long-time companion (in Candlekeep at least, even if you never had her in your party), leaving you stranded in a completely unfarmiliar part of the world. You also have no ties anywhere else and no home to return to, since Candekeep likely wouldn't take you back anyway. If your first priority is "Do you think anybody around here has some good errands to run" you probably haven't been paying attention to the story.[/quote]
Perhaps my greatest complaint about BG2 is how rigidly defined the PC's backstory is.  But if you ignore that, the PC could well simply not believe Irenicus, or decide that you don't care and you want your life back.  Skepticism and denial are valid responses to just about anything, and often create good roleplaying oppotunities.
[quote]There's still a main story that has to be pursued, the game won't end until you've done the quest line that has to be done,[/quote]
Not true.  Sometimes BG ends when the PC dies.

And regardless, the PC doesn't necessarily know what the main plot is for much of the game.  You really have to reach chapter 5 before that becomes at all clear.
[quote]that's the case with every Bioware game, as are the side quests that you can just wonder off and do if you feel like. That said, the world shouldn't just wait for you to finish what you're doing, last time I played BG I remember wasting loads of time on side quests in the build up to the noble ball with Sarevok and the grand dukes, and thinking "why would they hold off the party indefinately while I trek up and down the coast?".[/quote]
My question is, why did you trek up and down the coast if you knew there was something imprtant that was happening somewhere else?

BG is terrifically designed, I think, in that those side-quests exist regardless of whether you know about them, and you can do them or not, and the plot advances as the PC learns about it, so from an in-character perspective the pacing is always taut and urgent regardless of what the PC does, as long as the player keeps the PC acting in-character.
[quote]Then, after the ball when he flees to the theive's guild, I decided to have another wonder around, and would you believe he just waited a few days in this tunnel for me? As nice as it is to have choices, the choices shouldn't always be yours, that's unrealistic writing, bordering on cheesy.[/quote]
I'd rather that after a certain point wandering off to do your own think simply made the game unwinnable, but BioWare doesn't do that to avoid annoying more casual players.  Since the problem doesn't really arise unless the PC acts like an idiot, I don't have a problem with that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Roxlimn wrote...

Drasanil:

You don't need a tank in DA2. Ever.

I dispute that.  There simply aren't enough crowd-control options available to avoid melee entirely.

Anyone who is getting hit by melee attacks is, in that moment, a tank.  DAO didn't require one, but DA2 does.

[Drachasor]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

Drasanil:

You don't need a tank in DA2. Ever.

I dispute that.  There simply aren't enough crowd-control options available to avoid melee entirely.

Anyone who is getting hit by melee attacks is, in that moment, a tank.  DAO didn't require one, but DA2 does.

I have found that Carver and Fenris can tank just fine if you fill them up with AoE CC abilities.  Knocking enemies over a lot does a great deal to ensure that they don't take too much damage.  Add on one or two sustainable defensive abilities and you are good to go (though Fenris seems to do just fine with his unique tree here).



On another note, I noticed people were talking about equipping characters earlier.  Personally I found that the items in DA2 make equipping trinkets a lot more troublesome.  I've found myself spending a bit too much time figuring out what trinket each person should get.  I think a large part of this is suddenly a lot of the same stats are good for everyone, and there's a lot of stats that seem to do pretty much the same thing but in different ways.  It seemed a no harder to me to manage all the equipment my companions were wearing in DA:O...a large part of that was because equipment felt more distinctly good for one person or another.  As others have noted, it also didn't help that the star rating was messed up, declaring +mana/stamina items that couldn't even cover the cost of a 3rd of an ability as a lot better than they actually were.

I will say I'm a bit annoyed how everyone is locked into one weapon choice.  That seems a bit ridiculous to me.  Heck, warriors can't even use bows.  Overall there are a lot of unnecessary restrictions in this regard.

[blauterranit]

Keeping apart Bethany and Carver, you can have a great team with only Anders and Fenris if you are a rogue. Combat system alows you to do such thanks an inteligent combination of abilities and tactics. But perhaps you need play the game 3 or 4 times for realize which of every options works better, you'd never ignore the skills of one companion from each other. The team must be concepted as a whole one entity (abilities, tactics, weapons, potions) , then you'll enjoy battles much more that first game.

I found the same problems you're mentioning in system combats, but I found also the solution in the same game and tools because I was incomformist with my firsts experiences. I repeat, DA2 would be a great game if scenarios were more, more more elaborated. (I've been playing TW2 for the first 4 hours yesterday and NO ONE location was the same, you really believe you are in a different place everytime you change of locations, and that is a 50% of the reason it makes you want to play and immerse yourself in a lost outland)
So, take the whole DA2 except scenarios and put it into a grapihc world similar in quality to TW2, and you'd have a great, great, game. Environament in a RPG pretending elapse along 6-8 years requires more effort that this one Bioware (or EA) has given us.

Sorry but comparisons will be unstoppable. For further DLC they'll must do an extreme attempt for avoid the crack is coming soon. Errors of this size are highly expensive to pay, even more for a firm of EA-Bioware level.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How are those not real choices?  They're choices.  You can make them.  They have gameplay consequences.  How
are they not real?

They're dumb choices.  They're "Look!  I put a hat on my car!  I invented a car hat!"  They're dumb choices.

Managing inventory is a part of gameplay.

Managing inventory is boring.  Part of hockey is learning to skate.  I don't want to do that in an NHL video game.  I want to put two teams on the ice (three teams would cool though) and watch them skate around.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Dormiglione wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I'm not sure about brilliant, but it was better than DAO.

In your opinion DA2 is better than DAO. In my opinion DAO is better than DA2. You know, its really subjective when it comes to the question "what do i like more".

Yup.

[Dragoonlordz]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How are those not real choices?  They're choices.  You can make them.  They have gameplay consequences.  How
are they not real?

They're dumb choices.  They're "Look!  I put a hat on my car!  I invented a car hat!"  They're dumb choices.

Managing inventory is a part of gameplay.

Managing inventory is boring.  Part of hockey is learning to skate.  I don't want to do that in an NHL video game.  I want to put two teams on the ice (three teams would cool though) and watch them skate around.

A more accurate analogy is not your car hat idea (amusing as that is) but whether you put your pants/trousers/skirt/dress on or not before you walk out your house and head to work in the morning.

Managing inventory is only boring to some, it's not boring to everyone as shown on these forums a lot of people do like it just like others do not. If you like to watch the ice hockey teams in your second analogy then why not rent a movie/watch tv instead of playing a game, I also question why you buy RPGs if you dislike 'learning' which is basically on the same level as training/leveling which almost all RPGs have inculding Bioware titles. That training gains you skills much like how training/learning to skate allows the ability to skate and skate better the more you train. Learning/training and leveling is core to RPG titles in general though there are a few exceptions.

P.s. I WANT a hat car now...

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 mai 2011 - 02:19 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
P.s. I WANT a hat car now...

I took that picture, sir.  I demand royalties.  :lol:

[Khayness]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I also question why you buy RPGs if you dislike 'learning' which is basically on the same level as training/leveling which almost all RPGs have inculding Bioware titles. That training gains you skills much like how training/learning to skate allows the ability to skate and skate better the more you train. Learning/training and leveling is core to RPG titles in general though there are a few exceptions.

User input isn't cool anymore.

There is a word for it when you refuse to understand the system in order to use it to your advantages, so you want your advantages without effort, but it gets thrown around quite a lot in these boards so I'm not saying it.

[Dragoonlordz]

Khayness wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I also question why you buy RPGs if you dislike 'learning' which is basically on the same level as training/leveling which almost all RPGs have inculding Bioware titles. That training gains you skills much like how training/learning to skate allows the ability to skate and skate better the more you train. Learning/training and leveling is core to RPG titles in general though there are a few exceptions.

User input isn't cool anymore.

There is a word for it when you refuse to understand the system in order to use it to your advantages, so you want your advantages without effort, but it gets thrown around quite a lot in these boards so I'm not saying it.

The way I see it genre wise.

Leveling/learning/training an RPG core to me >

Has it = RPG
Has a reduced/simplified version of it = Action/RPG (DA2 fits in this part)
Does not have it = Action

Bioware make RPG's and Action RPG's (with one exception of that Sonic game).