288 réponses à ce sujet

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

Almost every single argument on this board comes to down opinions.  I respect that you like inventory, but to me... bored.

  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.

Story.  Deciding what the character does.  Seeing what the writers have come up with.  Conversation with companions and other neat characters.  Watching my mage go from shooting birthday candles out of his nose to unleashing a hurricane of fire from a far more appropriate portion of his anatomy (read: penis).

Having all of that interrupted by having to make sure my characters are geared correctly, stocked with the proper quantity of potions, etc etc...  Not good.  That stuff bores me and I do not want to do it.

I'm fine with some learning and training... but those choices should mean something.  Do I choose earth or ice or fire?  (Wind blows, amirite?)  Given the option between being able to put a hat on my character's butt in a smaller world or spending time wandering around without butt-hats... I'll choose wandering around without butt hats.

[Khayness]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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).

Good Action-RPGs also have learning curves of their own, but they are more practical (like mastering the combat system).

That's why I loved the Gothic saga, you could kill a Black Troll with a twig on lvl 1 and bash in the master duelists' skulls if you knew how to fence really good.

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Watching my mage go from shooting birthday candles out of his nose to unleashing a hurricane of fire from a far more appropriate portion of his anatomy (read: penis).

Lol, it boggles my mind even more, if you like to become more powerful then why cripple yourself just because you are lazy?

Modifié par Khayness, 18 mai 2011 - 02:40 .

[Jamesnew2]

it was good... and is morriganslove still around >.> sigh....

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Khayness wrote...
Lol, it boggles my mind even more, if you like to become more powerful then why cripple yourself just because you are lazy?

I'm a long way from lazy.  I don't confuse busy work for real work, or real choices (story) for meaningless ones (Caver Tank/Aveline DPS).

[Nerdage]

I do like going to sleep in the middle of an argument... But anyway, back to business.

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.

You asked for things that make the gameplay better. I could list some bad things too, but I did say a while ago that I didn't think one game was much better than the other so I'm not pretending DA2 doesn't have problems, I'm just arguing that there were also areas where it was better than DAO.

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.

I don't see any actual proof in your argument, how is it less anecdotal than mine? "You're wrong." isn't a winning argument. My observation is that, when I tell a character to do something, they do it a whole lot faster than they did in DAO. That may be down to the fact that I set all my combat tactics to [Enemy -> Nearest Visible : Attack] and then issue ability commands manually, so I don't tell characters to take an action unless I know I want them to do it and that it will take them so much time to enact. If you're finding that you're telling characters do do things, then trying to countermand your commands mid-action only to find they're still busy, that's bad tactics on your part, not unresponsive gameplay.

Of course not.  He's not real.

You know what I mean. If it shows no tangible signs of emotion, there's no reason for the player to believe it's feeling emotion, especially when it's the only character in the game that behaves like that.

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.

You only ever get a set number of emotions in DAO, with the other characters responding to the implied emotion written into the line. You can tell yourself you're being sarcastic when you deliver a particular line all you want, but the other character will respond to the line as it was meant when it was written. That in mind, there's no reason to believe you had less control over your emotion in DA2 than you did in DAO, they may have removed some of your ability to pretend you're saying something you aren't (even if your version actaully contradicts the game's reaction) but emotion is something you give the character. How the character acts is (and has always been) pre-defined by the game, but there's no reason to believe your character feels anything other than what you want them to feel, since their feelings are entirely imagined anyway.

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.

You talk about it being the player's resposibility to keep the PC "in character" later, but now you want to ignore your character's backstory to try and undermine the main plot?

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.

So for a lot of the game you're forced to follow a quest line that has no personal significance to your character, repeatedly putting yourself in danger for what? The good of the land? Say you don't care about that? There's nothing that says you should unless you happen to pick the right alignment for it. It seems more likely you wouldn't care about that than you wouldn't care about Imoen or Irenicus.

My question is, why did you trek up and down the coast if you knew there was something imprtant that was happening somewhere else?

I was too low level to kill a room full of greater dopplegangers. My bad.

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.

Couldn't you argue the same for the moments when you say the game imposes an emotion on the PC? If you're willing to allow the game to tell you what's important then is it such a stretch to have the game tell you what you should feel at any particular moment? For there to be a central story some things have to be true, least of which is that your character has to care enough to uncover it, so they're always telling you what to feel to a degree.

Modifié par nerdage, 18 mai 2011 - 04:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Drachasor wrote...

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).

Even Isabela can tank in a pinch, but the point is that someone is still tanking.  DA2 requires that your party have a tank.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Almost every single argument on this board comes to down opinions.  I respect that you like inventory, but to me... bored.

I suggest that the companions should manage their own inventory if you want them to, just as they'll act on their own in combat if you want them to.

But the game should let us do it if we want, because those choices impact so much of the rest of the game.  The difference between making Leliana an archer or a dual-wield backstabber in DAO has significant gameplay consequences.  A mage-heavy party probably needs an archer so everyone can attack at range, while an party with a warrior or two might benefit more from having a melee rogue handy.

DA2, though, forces you to have the companions behaving as BioWare sees fit, rather than as the player sees fit, and that reduces the opportunities for gameplay.

So, yes, maybe the game shouldn't require that you manage inventory, but nore should it forbid inventory management.

Story.  Deciding what the character does.  Seeing what the writers have come up with.

That's good for one, maybe two playthroughs.  Are you just done with the game, then?

Having all of that interrupted by having to make sure my characters are geared correctly, stocked with the proper quantity of potions, etc etc...  Not good.  That stuff bores me and I do not want to do it.

I still think that's part of the roleplaying.  If I'm making those inventory decisions in-character, then they're just as fun as dialogue choices because they're fundamentally the same thing.  They're expressions of that character's personality and preferences.

I don't really see how one is different from the other.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BSN ate my response.  Let's try again.
[quote]nerdage wrote...

I don't see any actual proof in your argument, how is it less anecdotal than mine? "You're wrong." isn't a winning argument. My observation is that, when I tell a character to do something, they do it a whole lot faster than they did in DAO. That may be down to the fact that I set all my combat tactics to [Enemy -> Nearest Visible : Attack] and then issue ability commands manually, so I don't tell characters to take an action unless I know I want them to do it and that it will take them so much time to enact. If you're finding that you're telling characters do do things, then trying to countermand your commands mid-action only to find they're still busy, that's bad tactics on your part, not unresponsive gameplay.[/quote]
What you descirbe simply isn't how the games work.  Characters who are auto-attacking in DAO can begin doing something else right now, no matter when right now is.  Characters in DA2 have to wait until after they've finished their current attack animation, which is of irregular length.

[quote]You know what I mean. If it shows no tangible signs of emotion, there's no reason for the player to believe it's feeling emotion, especially when it's the only character in the game that behaves like that.[/quote]
Since the player is the one who populates his mind, there's every reason for the player to believe that.  Your position only makes sense if you're relying on the game to tell you who your character is, rather than controlling that yourself.

[quote]You only ever get a set number of emotions in DAO, with the other characters responding to the implied emotion written into the line.[/quote]
Not true.  DAO gives you as many emotions are you can imagine.  You're talking about how the NPC lines are written, which has nothing to do with how the PC interprets those lines.

Even you, the player, can't be bothered by this unless you're unable to compartmentalise your roleplaying from your knowledge of game design.
[quote]You can tell yourself you're being sarcastic when you deliver a particular line all you want, but the other character will respond to the line as it was meant when it was written.[/quote]
Why is sarcasm always the example used in these discussions?  Is sarcasm something people actually want to use so often that it's a real problem.

I don't like sarcasm.  I don't use it, largely because the literal content of a sarcastic remark is typically a false statement, and I'd rather not be wilfully incorrect like that.

[quote]How the character acts is (and has always been) pre-defined by the game, but there's no reason to believe your character feels anything other than what you want them to feel, since their feelings are entirely imagined anyway.[/quote]
And if how the character acts contradicts how the character feels, what then?

Regardles, you're wrong about the actions.  What the PC says and how he says it has previously been determined by the player, not the game.  And actions of all sorts that take place off-screen have always been under the player's control.

[quote]You talk about it being the player's resposibility to keep the PC "in character" later, but now you want to ignore your character's backstory to try and undermine the main plot?[/quote]
Staying in-character has to do with the character's personality, not his history.

[quote]So for a lot of the game you're forced to follow a quest line that has no personal significance to your character, repeatedly putting yourself in danger for what?[/quote]
No, you're not forces to follow a quest line at all.  From the PC's point of view, there isn't a quest line.  There's just a bunch of quests, and there's no necessary connection between them.  Why the PC does any one of them is particular to that PC.  My first BG PC killed Tranzig by accident, not knowing who he was.  And he defeated the bandits simply in the process of collecting scalps for the bounty.

[quote]The good of the land? Say you don't care about that? There's nothing that says you should unless you happen to pick the right alignment for it. It seems more likely you wouldn't care about that than you wouldn't care about Imoen or Irenicus.[/quote]
BG features dozens of hours of gameplay without the PC ever knowing or caring about the main plot.  That's a great game.

Credit to DA2, it also opens with an extensive period of just doing whatever the player thinks is important without any need to acknowledge the existence of a main plot.  In terms of opening plot design, DA2 ranks among the top 3 BioWare games (along with BG and KotOR, and I think I'd put DA2 ahead of KotOR).

[quote]I was too low level to kill a room full of greater dopplegangers. My bad.[/quote]
Hmm.  I always max out my level before even getting to the city.  I would need to be racing through the story, blindly following just one quest line without yet knowing it was the important one, for that to be a problem.

Incidentally, I also like how BG's content isn't scaled to the PC's level.  If you meet something tougher than you, you die.  In your case, I likely would have retired that character, as I wouldn't have an in-character action available to him that didn't result in his death.

I had to do this in DAO.  I found myself facing Caridin at the end of the Anvil quest, but Shale switched sides and was fighting against me.  I couldn't win that fight, so I had to accept that that particular Warden didn't live to see the Archdemon.

[quote]Couldn't you argue the same for the moments when you say the game imposes an emotion on the PC? If you're willing to allow the game to tell you what's important [/quote]
But I'm not willing to do that.  That's my point.  Only I get to decide what's important to my character.

[quote]For there to be a central story some things have to be true, least of which is that your character has to care enough to uncover it, so they're always telling you what to feel to a degree.[/quote]
The central story of any RPG is always what my character does.  If he happens to die, then it's a short story.  If he really cares about the archdemon, then the story is about the archdemon.  If he cares about templars and mages, then the story revolves around templars and mages.

The story is created by the player's choices, not the other way around.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 mai 2011 - 07:16 .

[Khayness]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I'm a long way from lazy.  I don't confuse busy work for real work, or real choices (story) for meaningless ones (Caver Tank/Aveline DPS).

I know that you are one of those people who would nod eagerly if BioWare says that cannibalism is the only solution to world hunger, but in a game what consists mostly of combat encounters, gameplay choices have great impacts (since the story has mostly fake choices anyways).

Doing your homework and rolling with a very powerful party in order to plow through your foes quicker (thus progress in the story faster aswell) has its merits.

Modifié par Khayness, 18 mai 2011 - 07:27 .

[erynnar]

Khayness wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I'm a long way from lazy.  I don't confuse busy work for real work, or real choices (story) for meaningless ones (Caver Tank/Aveline DPS).

I know that you are one of those people who would nod eagerly if BioWare says that cannibalism is the only solution to world hunger, but in a game what consists mostly of combat encounters, gameplay choices have great impacts (since the story has mostly fake choices anyways).

Doing your homework and rolling with a very powerful party in order to plow through your foes quicker (thus progress in the story faster aswell) has its merits.

I agree with you Khayness.

[elearon1]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

  I also question why you buy RPGs if you dislike 'learning'

Story.  Deciding what the character does.  Seeing what the writers have come up with.  Conversation with companions and other neat characters.  Watching my mage go from shooting birthday candles out of his nose to unleashing a hurricane of fire from a far more appropriate portion of his anatomy (read: penis).

Awesome, now I want a game in which my mage can do just those things.  As for the reasons you choose RPGs, I would suspect those are the reasons many people choose them.  I can forgive and ignore a lot, mechanically, if the story and character interaction and well done ... and, honestly, I could take or leave the more complex inventory ... it has some things going for it, but the micromanagment can get old. 

  (Wind blows, amirite?)

Wind, the power of kite. (cookie for anyone who gets the reference)

Given the option between being able to put a hat on my character's butt in a smaller world or spending time wandering around without butt-hats... I'll choose wandering around without butt hats.

I'd swear I read about that culture in a Jack Vance novel ... which goes a long way toward recommending it.  But, yes, I don't mind repeated maps, lack of inventory, or a few other things if the story is interesting and I feel like I have choices about where my character goes within that story.

Modifié par elearon1, 18 mai 2011 - 08:28 .

[Nerdage]

What you descirbe simply isn't how the games work.  Characters who are auto-attacking in DAO can begin doing something else right now, no matter when right now is.  Characters in DA2 have to wait until after they've finished their current attack animation, which is of irregular length.

Auto-attacking is still an action you've told them to do, even if only by not telling them not to in their combat tactics. It's no different to having a companion cast a spell, you have to tell them to do it knowing that there's a chance they'll be busy when you want them to do something else.

What I was referring with responsiveness was that, when a character is able to use an ability, there's a much shorter latency between the command and the action, especially with regard to the swiveling problem in DAO I mentioned earlier.

Since the player is the one who populates his mind, there's every reason for the player to believe that.  Your position only makes sense if you're relying on the game to tell you who your character is, rather than controlling that yourself.

The PC is the only character who's emotions are never realized in the game. When the camera cuts to the PC in the middle of an intense conversation and they and that default neutral expression on their face, then you pick your dialogue option and their expression remains unchanged, I find that jarring. If every detail about the acting were up to my imagination, as in BG, then it wouldn't not a problem, but it's not that I don't see the character acting out their emotion, it's that I specifically see them not acting it. 

Not true.  DAO gives you as many emotions are you can imagine.  You're talking about how the NPC lines are written, which has nothing to do with how the PC interprets those lines.

What I'm saying is that there's only one interpretation of the lines that matters, and that's how the game interprets them, which determines how it will respond to them. If you look at most of the dialogue choices in DAO they'll still fall into the archetypes you're given in DA2, the fact that they aren't labeled doesn't change the fact that "this particular line is an aggressive one and the NPC will respond accordingly".

And if how the character acts contradicts how the character feels, what then?

I know I don't always act how I feel; I do work I don't want to do because I know it has to be done, I act civil to others when I want nothing more than to shout at them because I know it's more productive. The character doesn't always have to wear their emotions on their sleeve for you to believe that's how they feel.

Staying in-character has to do with the character's personality, not his history.

Isn't their history part of their character? If they were a different person (if they thought differently, I mean) they'd have a different story, it's a large part of what defines them. Since you said you didn't finish BG2 I'm guessing you didn't play Throne of Bhaal? The story of how you come to be with Gorion? There's a hypothetical question posed to the PC that is "Would you be in Sarevok's place had Gorion raised him and not you?". Basically, if you had a different history, you'd be a different person, so in giving you a history they're giving you a template for your personality, and that template really compels you to care about either Irenicus or Imoen, which is why you're never really given an option to say you don't care about either.

No, you're not forces to follow a quest line at all.  From the PC's point of view, there isn't a quest line.  There's just a bunch of quests, and there's no necessary connection between them.  Why the PC does any one of them is particular to that PC.  My first BG PC killed Tranzig by accident, not knowing who he was.  And he defeated the bandits simply in the process of collecting scalps for the bounty.

To me a game is a story that has a start and an end, the end of BG being defeating Sarevok, when you get the end-of-game cinematic. Clearly this is an interpretation thing we aren't going to agree on, but to reach "my" end you still have to pass these hurdles that, on the face of it, you have no personal motivation to pass.

Incidentally, I also like how BG's content isn't scaled to the PC's level.  If you meet something tougher than you, you die.

Same. It's an annoying mechanic, especially when it's obvious (Oblivion..).

The central story of any RPG is always what my character does.  If he happens to die, then it's a short story.  If he really cares about the archdemon, then the story is about the archdemon.  If he cares about templars and mages, then the story revolves around templars and mages.

The story is created by the player's choices, not the other way around.

Really, this goes with what I said about a story with a start and an end, we aren't going to agree on it because our personal interpretations differ. As they do on DA2, so there's a good chance this argument will just keep going.

[cihimi]

Yes, well, after two months, I'm done playing until the next DLC or expansion or whathaveyou.

[EugeneBi]

I did a couple of playthroughs and on the third was forced out by the Izzy bug. I tried several times to finish it (because I hate half-finished anything) and simply cannot. This game was born fatally too soon. It is a miscarriage, no amount of DLC would help. Amen.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]nerdage wrote...

Auto-attacking is still an action you've told them to do, even if only by not telling them not to in their combat tactics. It's no different to having a companion cast a spell, you have to tell them to do it knowing that there's a chance they'll be busy when you want them to do something else.

What I was referring with responsiveness was that, when a character is able to use an ability, there's a much shorter latency between the command and the action, especially with regard to the swiveling problem in DAO I mentioned earlier.[/quote]
And I'm talking about the responsiveness in terms of the character doing what you tell him to do when you do it.

In DA2, actions happen faster, but the characters perform them in their own time.  In DAO, actions take longer, but characters will perform them immediately upon being instructed to do so.

DA2 is different from DAO in this respect, yes, but not through increased responsiveness.  Responsiveness has to do with how quickly the game responds to your input, and DAO responded faster.

You like the faster actions.  That's fine.  But that has nothing to do with responsiveness.
[quote]The PC is the only character who's emotions are never realized in the game. When the camera cuts to the PC in the middle of an intense conversation and they and that default neutral expression on their face, then you pick your dialogue option and their expression remains unchanged, I find that jarring.[/quote]
Whereas, I don't, because I know what his emotions are, and I tend to play stoic characters anyway.  Those moments in DAO where the PC did express emotions (like the aghast expression when Daveth dies) were my least favourite parts of the game.
[quote]If every detail about the acting were up to my imagination, as in BG, then it wouldn't not a problem, but it's not that I don't see the character acting out their emotion, it's that I specifically see them not acting it. [/quote]
Again, so the solution there is to abandon cinematic presentation.
[quote]What I'm saying is that there's only one interpretation of the lines that matters, and that's how the game interprets them,[/quote]
And I'm saying that the only interpretation that matters is whatever interpretation the player has when he selects it.  Because that's how the line is delivered.

Then the NPC responds, and whatever that response is will drive the PC's next reaction.  I honestly don't understand the problem you're describing unless you take the NPC reaction as evidence that you were wrong about what the PC said, and that's just crazy.  Because you know with certainty what the PC said.  There's no evidence which can dissuade you.
[quote]If you look at most of the dialogue choices in DAO they'll still fall into the archetypes you're given in DA2, the fact that they aren't labeled doesn't change the fact that "this particular line is an aggressive one and the NPC will respond accordingly".[/quote]
But it does, because the PC doesn't have to intend a line in a given way.  But in DA2, the icon contains some of the information about what the line will actually say.  If we didn't have paraphrases in DA2, then I could just ignore the icons and turn off the voices, but since I need the icons to work out what the paraphrases mean I'm locked in to those three responses each time.  In DAO I had 3*n responses (where n was the number of different ways I could imagine saying each of the lines - and even that assumes that I accepted the written line as an accurate representation of what the PC actually said rather than just an abstraction of what was said).

You're letting the game limit your character more than I am.  Why?  Do you not want to design a complete character yourself?
[quote]Isn't their history part of their character? If they were a different person (if they thought differently, I mean) they'd have a different story, it's a large part of what defines them.[/quote]
Sure, but since you can define the personality you want first, you can then work out how those past events lead to that personality outcome.

We're not taking two identical people, sending through different life experiences, and seeing how different they are when they come out.  We're taking two identical people, looking at their disparate pasts, and working out how different they must have been at the start.
[quote]Since you said you didn't finish BG2 I'm guessing you didn't play Throne of Bhaal?[/quote]
I did not.
[quote]The story of how you come to be with Gorion? There's a hypothetical question posed to the PC that is "Would you be in Sarevok's place had Gorion raised him and not you?". Basically, if you had a different history, you'd be a different person, so in giving you a history they're giving you a template for your personality, and that template really compels you to care about either Irenicus or Imoen, which is why you're never really given an option to say you don't care about either.[/quote]
Except, I never found my BG character to be that different from Sarevok.  The only difference was that he knew he was Bhaalspawn and I didn't.
[quote]To me a game is a story that has a start and an end,[/quote]
It does, but I'm saying that you get to decide what the end is.
[quote]the end of BG being defeating Sarevok, when you get the end-of-game cinematic.[/quote]
But that's not the end of the story.  That's the end of the game.  If your story doesn't see the end of the game, then the two don't match up.
[quote]Clearly this is an interpretation thing we aren't going to agree on, but to reach "my" end you still have to pass these hurdles that, on the face of it, you have no personal motivation to pass.[/quote]
You appear to be playing a game.

I, on the other hand, am playing a character.

And my approach more closely matches how RPGs work.  In an early AD&D manual, there's an essay in the front about how to win the game.  And the answer is: the game doesn't have a traditional end.  Winning the game involves playing it well and having fun with it.  If you roleplay your character in a way that you enjoy, that's as much as you can ever get from the game.  There's no winner.  There's no end.

That's how I think CRPGs work.  That's how I play CRPGs.

[blauterranit]

"The PC is the only character who's emotions are never realized in the game. When the camera cuts to the PC in the middle of an intense conversation and they and that default neutral expression on their face, then you pick your dialogue option and their expression remains unchanged,..."

Sorry, maybe I haven't understood... Are you telling that Hawke's face does not convey emotions along conversations?

[Sylvius the Mad]

blauterranit wrote...

"The PC is the only character who's emotions are never realized in the game. When the camera cuts to the PC in the middle of an intense conversation and they and that default neutral expression on their face, then you pick your dialogue option and their expression remains unchanged,..."

Sorry, maybe I haven't understood... Are you telling that Hawke's face does not convey emotions along conversations?

He's talking about DAO, not DA2.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I, on the other hand, am playing a character.

No, you're playing a videogame.  Call it what you like, playing a videogame is all you're doing.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Khayness wrote...

Doing your homework and rolling with a very powerful party in order to plow through your foes quicker (thus progress in the story faster aswell) has its merits.

Any videogame that requires you to do homework to play isn't worth playing.  It's a videogame.  It's for playing.

If someone needs to invest time planning to play their videogames, they need to do more with their real lives.

;)

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 18 mai 2011 - 11:24 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[TLDR snips]

I still think that's part of the roleplaying.  If I'm making those inventory decisions in-character, then they're just as fun as dialogue choices because they're fundamentally the same thing.  They're expressions of that character's personality and preferences.

Sylvius The Mad:  Equating chosing which magical pants to put on to talking to a woman.  You read it here first folks.

:P:P

I think you spend too much time on RPGs.  There's a point where a player need to say "It's just a videogame."  You can hype everything up to be an expression of devotion to a "grand and noble craft" or an expression The True Art but it's still... just a videogame.  And it's here to entertain.  And there is no way no how, that you could flirting with a girl to chosing equipment. 

[Nerdage]

You wanted somebody who likes DA2 to tell you what they thought was better about it compared to DAO, and I told you some of the things I liked about it more. The fact that you didn't think think they were better is probably why you didn't like DA2 in the first place, but it was never my intention to try and change your mind since I know giving you my opinion isn't going to change your own, in the same way that you aren't going to convince me I didn't like DA2 by giving me your interpretation.

That being the case, nothing is going to come of this argument and I give up. It's been fun.

[lobi]

I ate a chicken sandwich yesterday.

[lobi]

with mustard! Adventurous I am.

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

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

Wow, this threads on crack apparently.

[Faust1979]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Did the OP just seriously compare DAII to BG? Seriously? This has to be a troll post.

So anyone that shares a different view point has to be a troll?