252 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I thought DA2 worked much better for mages and archer.

My playthrough as an archer, experienced the problems with frontloading damage on long autoattack animations disagres with this statement. Having your character inmobilized and unable to respond for a second, making the game responsiveness nonexistant, was quite annoying.

That's not really speed related.  That's "responsivenes".  Apparently having our characters unable to do anything at all repeatedly throughout combat is more responsive than them being able to respond immediately to our commands.

Front-loading the damage and then having uninterruptable animations following was a terrible idea.  I desperately want them never to do that again.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Really, what we have here are some bad ideas, combined with some good ideas poorly implemented.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 juin 2011 - 06:54 .

[Valus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Front-loading the damage and then having uninterruptable animations following was a terrible idea.  I desperately want them never to do that again.

Yes please. Gameplay-wise hands down my least favorite thing in this sequel. I don't miss the shuffle game but I'm convinced that didn't have to be remedied at the expense of the ability to cancel animations.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Valus wrote...

I don't miss the shuffle game but I'm convinced that didn't have to be remedied at the expense of the ability to cancel animations.

I don't miss the shuffle game because IT'S STILL HERE.

Start a new game.  Put Carver in a crowd of enemies.  Tell him to use Mighty Blow against an enemy in that crowd who isn't adjacent to him.

Watch the shuffle.

[Mr.House]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't miss the shuffle game because IT'S STILL HERE.

Start a new game.  Put Carver in a crowd of enemies.  Tell him to use Mighty Blow against an enemy in that crowd who isn't adjacent to him.

Watch the shuffle.

Please don't give Mike ideas Sylvius!

Modifié par Mr.House, 02 juin 2011 - 08:28 .

[Valus]

Valus wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Valus wrote...

Um...um...damn.

Oh oh. English voice acting was still top notch (like the absolute ONLY thing I think Dragon age has over the Witcher). Corinne Kempa and, to a lesser degree, Claudia Black are literally carrying this franchise for me.

I dunno TW2 VA was pretty good. Play Scoi'atel path in Act 1 where you lead Ioverth into Flotsam, really epic VA stuff. Or the Vergen invasion (defense or assault).

Yeah, on my third play through I just got to act 2 last night siding with Scoi'atel and decided to lead him in instead of the all out assault option i took the first time.

But no doubt. I think Vernon Roche, Saskia, and a bunch of others were just phenominal and obviously Geralt got himself an acting coach since TW1. TW2 voice acting was very deep, especially considering this is a Polish company and we're getting translated material which accounts for some of the stranger sentence structures that were in the game (that I don't doubt were hard for the voice actors to pull off). Not faulting TW2 in the slightest, just saying DA2 is still getting slightly better voice actors, as it should be since that's obviously where a large part of their funding goes.

This needs a recant. Just tried playing DA2 again after a few runs of TW2. Have to say what I remember of DA2's voice acting and what I'm experiencing now are 2 totally different things. I can't speak to the quality of the voice actor themselves but the presentation is just better in TW2.

[Valus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Valus wrote...

I don't miss the shuffle game but I'm convinced that didn't have to be remedied at the expense of the ability to cancel animations.

I don't miss the shuffle game because IT'S STILL HERE.

Start a new game.  Put Carver in a crowd of enemies.  Tell him to use Mighty Blow against an enemy in that crowd who isn't adjacent to him.

Watch the shuffle.

That would involve me playing this game again which I'm afraid is not going to happen until some modders turn the combat into DA:O. That being said I know what you are talking about considering I usually play melee. There is this annoying "sweet spot" that is too far away to attack directly and too close to perform the closing animation for whatever they are casting. It's not quite as frustrating as trying to shield slam some hurlock and watch him just run right past me though.  Maybe 'remedied' is the wrong word. 'Subdued' might be better. And we had this exact same conversation like 3 months ago so I'll stop.

[Rawgrim]

They did Aveline, Isabela and Varric right.

[prettyflywhiteguy]

Flemeth's redesign, though nonsensical and random, was pretty cool.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
And here I absolutely adored programming all my characters so that I hardly had to touch anyone except the PC.

That's too annoying for me. It's much easier to play just adjusting on the fly than having to plan out contingencies.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I control all four characters, as
well, but that often involves putting them in situations where I want
them to auto-attack.  I use auto-attack a lot, with almost all of their
combat talents triggered manually by me.

Auto-attack breaks their formation. Tactical formations are very important for me, and it's why I never had a problem with the wave mechanic, except for the Harvester and Ancient Rock Wraith, who force you into a narrow space that negates formation. I rarely auto-attack. Instead, I focus on abilities.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I do us the tactics screen to add
abilities that are inconsequential (melee talents that do more damage,
for example, but never knockdowns or stuns), or to set stamina-level
triggers for sustained abilities, but for the most part my contribution
to combat is to place the characters and then I watch them fight
(usually from a mage's perspective).  I intervene only when I need to
stun someone or cast a spell.

The only ability I have ever set in tactics is the summond dog ability for Hawke.

This made the Harvester fight brutal on nightmare because it was balanced for the whole party to be present, but I had set their tactics to 'sit around and wait' and so I had to fight a much harder battle alone.

Xewaka wrote...
My playthrough as an archer, experienced the
problems with frontloading damage on long autoattack animations disagres
with this statement. Having your character inmobilized and unable to
respond for a second, making the game responsiveness nonexistant, was
quite annoying.

I really liked that part of the game. It made it much more responsive than DA:O's auto-reaction. If you start an attack, you shouldn't be able to react until you finish.

That's why I have my party on 'hold'. So they don't do anythign wrong without my prompt.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Auto-attack breaks their formation. Tactical formations are very important for me, and it's why I never had a problem with the wave mechanic, except for the Harvester and Ancient Rock Wraith, who force you into a narrow space that negates formation. I rarely auto-attack. Instead, I focus on abilities.

Because of the cooldowns, I hoard the abilities.  I only use them when I need them.  That way, if I suddenly need a  stun, there's a stun available.  If I suddenly need a knockdown, there's a knockdown available.

I like to react to combat.  Which is why I don't like:

Xewaka wrote...

My playthrough as an archer, experienced the problems with frontloading damage on long autoattack animations disagres with this statement. Having your character inmobilized and unable to respond for a second, making the game responsiveness nonexistant, was quite annoying.

I really liked that part of the game. It made it much more responsive than DA:O's auto-reaction. If you start an attack, you shouldn't be able to react until you finish.

...this.  I much preferred how DAO did it, because there was never a moment where I couldn't start some new abilitiy right now.  Because the damage was back-loaded, the cost of changing my command was all the time I lost, but that time was all in the past so I never had to wait for it.

And it was made even worse in DA2 by the irregulat timing of the auto-attacks.  They didn't all take the same amount of time, so how long I had to wait wasn't consistent.

There are many reasons why I think DAO's combat was better, and this was one of them.

[Arttis]

xkg wrote...

Deja vu ?
What DA2 did right... - http://social.biowar...index/7374192/1

I like how the lists are so short.
Just how I imagined it would be.

[grimmcreeper]

Cataca wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
4) Dialogue wheel with icons. Pure win. Clarified how Hawk would respond.

You mean compared to DA:O where it was written out what exactly the protagonist was going to reply? Yes, you might want to think over that argument again.

This is a really delayed reply....but just because it says word for word what the character says doesn't mean it really gives a feel to the tone. Because some lines I was like "Oh ****...they took this seriously, whereas if I had said this in real life, it would have had a sarcastic tone"...if that makes any sense.

So I agree that I like the icons that tell what tone the reply was. I don't however like that there aren't as many dialogue options. That wasn't as fun :|

[snfonseka]

Great conversation, specially sarcastic ones.

[Bejos_]

Valus wrote...

Valus wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Valus wrote...

Um...um...damn.

Oh oh. English voice acting was still top notch (like the absolute ONLY thing I think Dragon age has over the Witcher). Corinne Kempa and, to a lesser degree, Claudia Black are literally carrying this franchise for me.

I dunno TW2 VA was pretty good. Play Scoi'atel path in Act 1 where you lead Ioverth into Flotsam, really epic VA stuff. Or the Vergen invasion (defense or assault).

Yeah, on my third play through I just got to act 2 last night siding with Scoi'atel and decided to lead him in instead of the all out assault option i took the first time.

But no doubt. I think Vernon Roche, Saskia, and a bunch of others were just phenominal and obviously Geralt got himself an acting coach since TW1. TW2 voice acting was very deep, especially considering this is a Polish company and we're getting translated material which accounts for some of the stranger sentence structures that were in the game (that I don't doubt were hard for the voice actors to pull off). Not faulting TW2 in the slightest, just saying DA2 is still getting slightly better voice actors, as it should be since that's obviously where a large part of their funding goes.

This needs a recant. Just tried playing DA2 again after a few runs of TW2. Have to say what I remember of DA2's voice acting and what I'm experiencing now are 2 totally different things. I can't speak to the quality of the voice actor themselves but the presentation is just better in TW2.

The voice actors of DA2 are good, but they have horrible material to work with. Utterly trite dialogue in the banter ... utterly insignificant or completely overblown reactions to situations ...

DA2 had the glitter of a good story backbone: terrorism and culture clashes. But you can't have a serious story with unrealistic characters and a cartoon aesthetic. It just doesn't work. There's very little focus to the game.

What DA2 did right:
The game's premise is interesting.
Combat is enjoyable. (Not the combat encounters, mind you. How your character interacts with enemies is fun. The enemies themselves are not fun.)
Skill trees are well done, mostly.
Isabella's sex scene was realistic and appropriate to her character, as was Fenris'.
Fenris is a believable, if rehashed, character. He's a more likable Zefran.

[Edited to add more positives]

Modifié par Bejos_, 03 juin 2011 - 04:45 .

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

Daradain wrote...

 I have noticed that negative topic forums are a dime a dozen for DA2, so I would like to get a discussion going on what Dragon Age 2 did right, and what concepts we the fans would like to see return in another Dragon Age game. Any ideas on how to improve a good idea would also be cool to see. Anyway, here's what I thought.


First off, Dragon Age 2 did a great job of making the characters feel like more than just random NPCs. I nearly had a cry when that thing happened with Hawke's mom. I thought Merrill was totally lovable, and in all honesty, I have never been so POed at a video game character than when Anders showed up and pulled his "stunt". I think all this points toward a triumph of characterization. 


I also thought the combat engine was rather well put together. The visceral feeling of Hawke's movements as he fights make for a great spectacle, and is rather high on the coolness factor. I think a few things could be changed to make this system the best combat mechanic ever. For example, enemies should be tougher in general, and a return of the finishing move engine would lend more gravity to the combat, making it seem more real and dire, instead of fighting armies of jelly-filled lego men. 


Anyway, that’s my two cents. What do you think? What did Dragon Age 2 do right? 

The writing of Anders had the opposite effect on me; I hated his guts in DA2.  I thought what he did was out of character; as a Warden, a healer, a soldier; I don't think he would have done what he did; especially since his goal could have been accomplished more easily a number of other ways.  Bad writing; character assassination from who he was in Awakenings.  The other characters; Merrill...crazy.  Fenris; ok; interesting backstory.  Isabella; predictable and untrustworthy but otherwise ok.  Varric was the only one that really shined for me..and it wasn't enough.

[Daradain]

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

The writing of Anders had the opposite effect on me; I hated his guts in DA2.  I thought what he did was out of character; as a Warden, a healer, a soldier; I don't think he would have done what he did; especially since his goal could have been accomplished more easily a number of other ways.  Bad writing; character assassination from who he was in Awakenings.  The other characters; Merrill...crazy.  Fenris; ok; interesting backstory.  Isabella; predictable and untrustworthy but otherwise ok.  Varric was the only one that really shined for me..and it wasn't enough.

Is there a constructive criticism in there? Granted, I thought Anders' character was totally wrong, but they pretty much established that at the very beginning. I mean, when did the skirt chasing, sarcastic, fun-loving healer mage turn into a gloomy "I-hate-people" kinda guy? However, all that aside, I still think the characters were very "realistic" in feel. They felt more like digital people instead of nuke-bots with faces (something other non-Bioware RPGs have in abundance)

Modifié par Daradain, 03 juin 2011 - 06:41 .

[ARCHETYPE.02]

prettyflywhiteguy wrote...

Flemeth's redesign, though nonsensical and random, was pretty cool.

Yes, this was good because on origins she just looked like a crazy cat person.

[Bejos_]

ARCHETYPE.02 wrote...

prettyflywhiteguy wrote...

Flemeth's redesign, though nonsensical and random, was pretty cool.

Yes, this was good because on origins she just looked like a crazy cat person.

Flemeth in DA:O had more character, enigma and gravitas than Flemeth 2.0 has. A lot of it stemmed from her character being everyday. She didn't impress as crazy-- she impressed as someone who didn't give a ****. This is what most old people are like. The fact that she was also obviously a very powerful figure was what made her pedestrian character so effective.

Flemeth 2.0 was one of DA2's biggest disappointments. She was the most disappointing aspect of the entire prologue.

An example of a cameo that was done well is ... I'm trying to drum one up ... I really am ...

I suppose Leliana was okay, and Zevran (even though I dislike the character). Alistaire's cameo was almost as bad as Flemeth's.

Modifié par Bejos_, 03 juin 2011 - 07:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

grimmcreeper wrote...

This is a really delayed reply....but just because it says word for word what the character says doesn't mean it really gives a feel to the tone.

But it completely fails to tell us what the meaning of the line will be.

Some people seem to think that tone is important.  I can accept that.  But surely the literal meaning of the line is at least as important.  Regardless of how you say something, you're not typically surprised by what it is you've said.

[Persephone]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Filament wrote...

I thought the whole point of paraphrasing was to take a large statement, interpret its meaning, and then make a simpler statement with essentially the same meaning.

I do sometimes have an idea in mind but then don't put my words together in a particularly coherent manner. But then, I'm not known for my eloquence. I still think hover-over full text is the way to go. Or a *devs groan* full-text toggle. Beyond that whether it's a wheel or a list is merely cosmetic, and I'd rather keep the wheel.

I agree.

This. Completely at utterly.