1373 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
Sorry for those who don't like player VO, but I can't help but be happy about this.

Try harder to be unhappy

I'll miss silent PCs tis true and I still prefer them for a variety of reasons, but as I recently discovered, a game with a voiced protagonist can still turn out to be an RPG masterpiece that overthrew Origins as my favorite. So it's more sadness I feel at loss, than fundamental concerns and opposition.

Especially since despite my very negative opinion of Hawke as a PC, I actually thought the VA was good.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 mai 2011 - 03:16 .

[Brockololly]

Zjarcal wrote...
Eh, I'll stop now. Sorry for those who don't like player VO, but I can't help but be happy about this.

I see how it is...*sigh*

*Cue Charlie Brown music*

 

[Dragoonlordz]

I could be wrong but from something I read while ago adding a VO reduced the overall content in the game by a vast amount I think around 50% was number I read while back. Now I do not know if thats true but if it is then that is a sacrifice gone too far. It's it's not true then fine.

[hoorayforicecream]

Ariella wrote...

Take control away? Where? I missed that memo? I can still control what my party members do, what they specialize in, weapons and trinkets. I'm actually glad I don't have to worry about the armor, because that was a pain and it gives each of the characters a more unique feel IMO to have their own personal armor.

I think he meant that he dislikes the fact you can't customize your companions' armor and appearance. I understand the feeling, but I actually prefer the iconic looks of the characters in DA2. Isabela's my favorite character from DA2, and I love that I can tell from a glance who she is amid a crowd of NPCs. I had a very hard time with this in DA:O, because the only real visual difference in characters was their face morphs, and a simple helmet made even that go away.

Unique, iconic looks for the companions gave us Varric and his glorious chest hair. Had we been able to change companion armor like in DA:O, we'd have lost it.

[Zanallen]

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

You are aware that Hawke can be a blood mage and a healer right? That even a Grey Warden mage can be a shapeshifter, and a healer, and many other things as well. So you see it does make sense, or can you show me where its written in any of the codex's if you specialize in one school of magic, you are prohbited from another. Remember,  this isn't D&D.

Yes, but Hawke and the Warden were your characters and defined by you. Merril is Merril and is defined by her own beliefs.

What does her belief have to do with magic she can use? Her belief made her commit a taboo which does not restrict the use of different schools of magic.

It "restricts" what she would likely know and be willing to learn. I believe that a characters background and beliefs should color what abilities they have access to in the game. For example, Isabela is supposed to be an incredibly skilled duelist who has no doubt spent many years perfecting her dualwielding technique. Making an archer Isabela and ignoring dualwield makes no damn sense to me.

[Sidney]

Derrick1011 wrote...


The game is already out, in the state that it is. All you can do now is dust yourself off and bring your A game next time. Look at The Witcher 2. That game shows what the medium is capable of, and indeed what you are capable of accomplishing. Your challenge is to exceed the standards set there.

I know that slobbering over The Witcher 2 was de riguer but wow, after listening to world of gripes about DA2 you'd think people would burn down the developers of TW2. Let's see, one character, only male at that. Combat that is more Assassin's Creed than Baldur's Gate - well a badly done AC but this is pure 100% action gaming.  Oh wait, it that a QTE is see playing out....oh joy!  There's an RPG staple.  Spam potions and that is all the strategy you need in this game - no tactics to be seen.

...but months ago it was decided TW2 was the "good guy" and DA2 the "bad guy" for all the snivelling luddites and so here we are excusing many of the same flaws because TW2 has more eye candy.

[John Epler]

Alright, folks. Let's try to bring this off Yet Another Thread About The Witcher 2. It's fine to mention it as a comparable, but I'd rather not have another thread hijacked by debating its merits.

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

It "restricts" what she would likely know and be willing to learn. I believe that a characters background and beliefs should color what abilities they have access to in the game. For example, Isabela is supposed to be an incredibly skilled duelist who has no doubt spent many years perfecting her dualwielding technique. Making an archer Isabela and ignoring dualwield makes no damn sense to me.

That doesn't work with Merrill she was taught to be the new keeper, she would have learned all types of magic in order to pass it on to the rest of the clan. Isabella would also have learned to use more than just dual welding in her life, while she is more proficient in one style that does not exclude her ability to use more than one style.

I will also point out with Merrill she did not view it as pick one style aka blood and not another, she viewed all magic as the same blood included. Willing to use all kinds.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mai 2011 - 03:31 .

[Sidney]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I think he meant that he dislikes the fact you can't customize your companions' armor and appearance. I understand the feeling, but I actually prefer the iconic looks of the characters in DA2. Isabela's my favorite character from DA2, and I love that I can tell from a glance who she is amid a crowd of NPCs. I had a very hard time with this in DA:O, because the only real visual difference in characters was their face morphs, and a simple helmet made even that go away.

I dislike the "I wanna play dress up" argument just from a "it isn't fun" standpoint but beyond that given the limited number of good armors (espoecially w/o DLC) in DAO most of your party had the same look as everyone else's anyways and it wasn't like each set of armor made a massive difference in terms of who you put it on. The end result of "choice" in DAO and companion armor in DA2 is really not all that different.

[devSin]

JohnEpler wrote...

Alright, folks. Let's try to bring this off Yet Another Thread About The Witcher 2. It's fine to mention it as a comparable, but I'd rather not have another thread hijacked by debating its merits.

I hope there's like a whole mess of posts you deleted or something. ;-)

Modifié par devSin, 27 mai 2011 - 03:28 .

[Dave of Canada]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

(so, no, we won't be going back to a silent protagonist, for instance). 

How did I miss this? As somebody who absolutely loved the voiced protagonist in DA2, ME1/2 and doesn't care much for the silent protagonists... I am pleased.

I am more than pleased.

[Brockololly]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I could be wrong but from something I read while ago adding a VO reduced the overall content in the game by a vast amount I think around 50% was number I read while back. Now I do not know if thats true but if it is then that is a sacrifice gone too far. It's it's not true then fine.

Georg Zoeller said way back that Origins would have been 50% shorter had they used player VO.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Zanallen wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

You are aware that Hawke can be a blood mage and a healer right? That even a Grey Warden mage can be a shapeshifter, and a healer, and many other things as well. So you see it does make sense, or can you show me where its written in any of the codex's if you specialize in one school of magic, you are prohbited from another. Remember,  this isn't D&D.

Yes, but Hawke and the Warden were your characters and defined by you. Merril is Merril and is defined by her own beliefs.

What does her belief have to do with magic she can use? Her belief made her commit a taboo which does not restrict the use of different schools of magic.

It "restricts" what she would likely know and be willing to learn. I believe that a characters background and beliefs should color what abilities they have access to in the game. For example, Isabela is supposed to be an incredibly skilled duelist who has no doubt spent many years perfecting her dualwielding technique. Making an archer Isabela and ignoring dualwield makes no damn sense to me.

Likewise, it would be inconceiveable to have fenris become a sword and boarder, or Dumat's blood, a mage. It would totally clash with his background. I think a nice balance would be to have the siblings be customizable to our dark heart's content, or at least allow us to dictate the upgrade slots' bonus to stats.

[AlphaMaeko]

While I agree with allot of the criticism, it didn't stop my Dragon Age II experience from being a good one.

I look forward to what happens next.

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I could be wrong but from something I read while ago adding a VO reduced the overall content in the game by a vast amount I think around 50% was number I read while back. Now I do not know if thats true but if it is then that is a sacrifice gone too far. It's it's not true then fine.

If I recall correctly, I believe that quote was in reference to Origins. Whether that means adding two VOs, one for male and one for female, or six, one for male and female of each race, is unknown. I highly doubt adding two more voice actors would cut a game in half, no matter how many lines they have.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

(so, no, we won't be going back to a silent protagonist, for instance). 

How did I miss this? As somebody who absolutely loved the voiced protagonist in DA2, ME1/2 and doesn't care much for the silent protagonists... I am pleased.

I am more than pleased.

[Blasphemy removed]

As am I.

[tishyw]

Zanallen wrote...

tishyw wrote...

Mike, it's not just an armor thing but a set weapon type and magic school thing as well.  Having rogues who couldn't duel wield and use bows, and mages that couldn't use blood magic and heal spells caused a lot of compaints.  Please, let us decide the direct that our companions skills go in.

But yes I do give you guys huge points for being able to determine the sex of the PC.  As a female gamer this rare boon is MUCH appreciated!

Quick question: Would it be fine to allow the characters to equip the different weapons, but have them "specialize" with a set weapon. For example, Isabela would be able to use a bow, but her specialization tree is based around improving her dualwielding abilities? 'Cause I, for one, enjoy a level of consistency within a character. I feel that someone who is touted as a skilled duelist should have her strengths geared toward that. While she should be able to  use a bow, I think she should be far less proficient with a weapon or style that is not her preferred one.

That would be fine as long as we have the ability to improve her bow use if that's what we want. 
DA2 was set over 7 years, so it seems reasonable to me that she could have learned and become proficient in bow use in that time if that's what the player wanted, but still be geared towards duel wield if that's what others preferred.  It's all about allowing player choice not removing it for me.

[Ariella]

MassFrost wrote...

Ariella wrote...

KennethAFTopp wrote...

Ariella wrote...

[As for the accusations of half truths and out right lies... I saw neither when I played DA2. With the exception of the recycled enviroments, most of what I saw in the complaints was subjective in that this game wasn't DAO2 or that they didn't like the framed narrative etc.

That's a bit of a limited view of the criticisms of DAII.

I think it's a rather fair summary. In all the pages of I've read since this game came out, what stands out is the fact that this game isn't Origins, have the exact same options (like varied races as Origins) and generally is not a direct sequel. That's not to say there haven't been other legitmate complaints  (bug issues for example). But the fact that DA2 isn't  a direct Warden filled sequel to DAO frustrated a lot of people who should have known better.

That's interesting, because I haven't seen that complaint on anywhere near the scale that I have criticism over the new combat system, recycled environments, lack of companion customization, etc. Complaining that DA2 isn't a direct sequel to DA:O isn't a valid complaint and shouldn't be taken as one, and to sum up all criticism of the game as "people were just expecting DA:O2" only serves to diminish the real issues people have had with the game.

Actually all of the things you point out, expect for the recycled enviroments which everyone seems to think is a bad idea (myself included) it's almost always made in comparison to what they could do in DAO. I haven't really seen much complain about the new combat system. The companion customization I've seen mainly revolves around the armor issue. The major complains I've seen have been more to the line of "why can't I play an elf/dwarf", "why does my PC have to be voiced", "I can't RP a VO protaginst" "DAO was so much better that DA2 for (fill in the blank)"

Do I think there are places that DA2 could have done better, yes. The story needs a little tightening up, as I've mentioned before. I would have liked what (I think it was DG) suggested in frontloading character conversation a bit more. The option to kill Sebastian when he makes certain demands would have been nice, but that's just me. And more Deep Roads. I adore the DR, they were the first set of dungeons I actually enjoyed..

But there was (feel free to go look back around release date) a great deal of "This wasn't a direct sequel" commentary. And it does obscure the more important things, but it's the people who scream about it in the first place who drown out legit commentary.

[Boiny Bunny]

Serpieri Nei wrote...

highcastle wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Why would you get points for controllable party members when you have done quite a lot to take that control away from the player?

Is this an armor thing? It sounds like an armor thing. If so, I hear ya!

More then an armor thing, I should't be forced to bring Anders because I need a healer and would rather bring Merill or have Fenris be more of a guardian or party protector then Aveline, or leave Isabelle behind in favour for ranged dps.

Merrill's a blood mage. It makes no sense that she'd be a healer too. I'm fine for choices like these being taken away from the player when it makes no sense with the character. It's the same reason I'm fine with Anders not being a blood mage. If choices are going to matter, they need to be logical. And if you wanted to kill Anders at the end, then you should have done it without worrying about "needing" a healer.

You are aware that Hawke can be a blood mage and a healer right? That even a Grey Warden mage can be a shapeshifter, and a healer, and many other things as well. So you see it does make sense, or can you show me where its written in any of the codex's if you specialize in one school of magic, you are prohbited from another. Remember,  this isn't D&D. And I'm sure some warriors never used a sword or shield, and somehow were unable to wield them so they choose a 2-handed sword or how a rogue couldn't use a dagger to because working a crossbow as complex as Bianca takes up all their grey matter.

Perhaps issues such as this could be resolved in a similar manner to what I have written below:

1) Bring back party member specialisations. 

2) However, rather than simply 'allocating' them at level up, once they have met the pre-reqs (/unlocked the specialisation), if you want them to take that specialisation, you must make them do so through some kind of conversation.

3) e.g. Merrill is a Blood mage.  If you wanted her to become a Spirit healer as well, you would have to talk to her about it and convince her that it was necessary.  For certain character/specialisation combinations (e.g. Merrill and Spirit Healer), the specialisation would not be possible (the character would outright refuse) - or, one could introduce a speech challenge (assuming DA3 has speech challenges).

This might allow a level of flexibility with the characters whilst not compromising so much on what defines that character.

[John Epler]

devSin wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Alright, folks. Let's try to bring this off Yet Another Thread About The Witcher 2. It's fine to mention it as a comparable, but I'd rather not have another thread hijacked by debating its merits.

I hope there's like a whole mess of posts you deleted or something. ;-)

I caught the post just before mine and realized where this was inevitably heading.

Moderate the forums enough and you'll be able to recognize a derail before it's even really starting I don't have any problem with discussing TW2 (as it does some things quite well and I think it's a worthy game to discuss), but I don't think we have to enter into another 'no, YOU'RE wrong' debate about the merits of the two games as so many of these debates tend to turn into.

[Serpieri Nei]

highcastle wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

highcastle wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

More then an armor thing, I should't be forced to bring Anders because I need a healer and would rather bring Merill or have Fenris be more of a guardian or party protector then Aveline, or leave Isabelle behind in favour for ranged dps.

Merrill's a blood mage. It makes no sense that she'd be a healer too. I'm fine for choices like these being taken away from the player when it makes no sense with the character. It's the same reason I'm fine with Anders not being a blood mage. If choices are going to matter, they need to be logical. And if you wanted to kill Anders at the end, then you should have done it without worrying about "needing" a healer.

You are aware that Hawke can be a blood mage and a healer right? That even a Grey Warden mage can be a shapeshifter, and a healer, and many other things as well. So you see it does make sense, or can you show me where its written in any of the codex's if you specialize in one school of magic, you are prohbited from another. Remember,  this isn't D&D. And I'm sure some warriors never used a sword or shield, and somehow were unable to wield them so they choose a 2-handed sword or how a rogue couldn't use a dagger/sword because working a crossbow as complex as Bianca takes up all their grey matter.

I'm aware Hawke can be a BM and a SH, and it makes no sense. I'd be all for them making certain specs mutually exclusive to jibe with the lore. BM is about working with demons, being a SH is about working with spirits. Those two entities don't normally get along well. Case in point: Justice. Try to do anything with a demon around that guy, and see how he takes it.

As for weapons styles, it gets trickier. I can buy that Aveline, for instance, as a soldier recieved training in a certain style. The same for Fenris and his position as a bodyguard. And Varric and Bianca...why would you even want to separate them? The fact that he named his crossbow says a lot about the guy. It makes no sense that he'd swap her out for something else.

This isn't DnD, you're right. But that doesn't mean people can do whatever they want. People have certain sets of skills (like Liam Neeson). They may not be trained for every circumstance. And when they have established backstories or personalities, that may not fit with the people you want them to be. Should they change to suit you? No. You can't change people that way in real life. 

Are you going to point out why it makes no sense and provide some kind of backing from the lore? The mage doesn't have to sign an agreement with a demon or a spirit to gain access to those spells. Are we also forgetting, how limited the blood magic is when a player or a companion has access to it? I can't summon demons, I can't control people's mind in cut scenes?

As for weapon styles, soldiers are trained in various weapons/fighting styles, as were gladiators, as were Spartans, as were Samurai's, and even in today's military. 

So all the other companions should have had weapons they named as well? Since they didn't what's stopping them from picking up something special that was given to them or they found. I would throw away my 2hander if I had located a magical long sword without hesitation or are we applying some game mechanics that don't exist? I'm pretty sure; Fenris doesn't get +5 when using two handed swords due to specialty.

Protagonist/Companions can do whatever they want if they are not restricted but it comes down to one very simple fact. They are one and the same. 

Modifié par Serpieri Nei, 27 mai 2011 - 03:38 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Ariella wrote...

Actually all of the things you point out, expect for the recycled enviroments which everyone seems to think is a bad idea (myself included) it's almost always made in comparison to what they could do in DAO. I haven't really seen much complain about the new combat system. The companion customization I've seen mainly revolves around the armor issue. The major complains I've seen have been more to the line of "why can't I play an elf/dwarf", "why does my PC have to be voiced", "I can't RP a VO protaginst" "DAO was so much better that DA2 for (fill in the blank)"

Do I think there are places that DA2 could have done better, yes. The story needs a little tightening up, as I've mentioned before. I would have liked what (I think it was DG) suggested in frontloading character conversation a bit more. The option to kill Sebastian when he makes certain demands would have been nice, but that's just me. And more Deep Roads. I adore the DR, they were the first set of dungeons I actually enjoyed..

But there was (feel free to go look back around release date) a great deal of "This wasn't a direct sequel" commentary. And it does obscure the more important things, but it's the people who scream about it in the first place who drown out legit commentary.

Your projecting, imposing your views onto what others have said in order to try and belittle one side of the argument aka those who dislike aspects of DA2. Where they never once compared it to the prequel you impose the comparrison on them so please stop doing that. There was some who relate the sequel to the prequel but they also base criticism seporate from it aswell.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mai 2011 - 03:37 .

[tishyw]

devSin wrote...

One of Andreas' priorities for DA3 has got to be putting some life into Flemeth's cloak/train. The current butt slide that she sports is criminally awful. You're lucky they chose concept art and not a screenshot for the exhibit.

tishyw wrote...

Mike, it's not just an armor thing but a set weapon type and magic school thing as well.  Having rogues who couldn't duel wield and use bows, and mages that couldn't use blood magic and heal spells caused a lot of compaints.  Please, let us decide the direct that our companions skills go in.

Maybe if they had a wider variety of companions? (Or maybe multiple progression tracks, like in the NWN expansions, perish the thought.)

I personally end up on the side of not wanting too much control. It shouldn't be just another PC, except with a pre-set class and unique model. I also like the custom specializations they each got.

I do wish you could swap their boots and stuff, though. I can see people complaining if you swap the armor and the model doesn't change (even though I'd be fine with it), but their shoes?

tishyw wrote...

and mages that couldn't use blood magic

Hawke shouldn't even have blood magic.

Not more companions, we saw how more compaions led to much less conversation in ME2.  For me the number of companions in DA2 was fine, but the ability to change them that was removed from DAO was the problem. 

Like Morrigans armor you don't have to change their skills if you don't want to, but please don't remove the option to do so because other do want to.

And yes, I agree that blood magic should not have been a Hawke option, one of the many plot holes when playing as a mage!

[thebatmanreborn]

 Thank you Bioware.  Can't wait for whatever adventure you come up with next.  Seriously, don't sacrifice quality for a cheap buck and continue listening to your fans and focusing on story.  Can't wait for ME3, DLC for DA2, DA3, and whatever else you have cooking in your crockpot.  

[Dragoonlordz]

By the way John, why have you only got two registered Bioware title's under your profile, as a Bioware developer shouldn't you have them all?