738 réponses à ce sujet

[_Aine_]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Would there perhaps be an option for such players to have a 'Pre-generated Character' option, which automatically assigns stats based on class? Auto progression is nothing new, but I don't know about the programming involved.

DAO had that.  I used the "simplified" version first before I learned enough to make my own decisions. 

[Fortlowe]

I would love to have the Dragon Age franchise split into two titles. An adventure title for Hawke's storyline and a RPG title for the Warden(s) storyline. It seems to me a fine way to resolve some of the issues facing the franchise in it's current state.

Mass Effect is wrapping up, and that is an opportunity, I think to pour more resources into Dragon Age, which has lots of room to grow.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Corto81 wrote...
More like Rift or WoW - weak story

Ehh? Whatnow?

Maybe not like WoW or rift, but I too think it had a weak story. Compared to other Bioware titles at least (other than ME2, though I felt the writing was slightly better than DA2).

Well, I liked DAII's story (Mainly its potential, Act III dashed a lot) much more than DAO's or NWN's. And both ME's. *Hides quickly before the rotten eggs start flying*

I do not judge a story by its potential. If anything, I am harsher on the writing if the potential was there but the execution was not.

[ozenglish]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

So why, at the same time, do you guys think it has elements that are a barrier to people?
Honest question.

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. It doesn't mean either side is wrong, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should cut stats, it just means that, perhaps, opening the game with a big wall of them is not ideal.

Actually, this reminded me of a conversation my ex-gf and I were having the otherday about gaming. I was getting all excited for Skyrim, because finally, they were only going to be using three stats and everything else was classed as a skill set.. and in her awesome pearl of wisdom she said this.

"If you are not creating a character with a 20 sided dice and a piece of paper, then why do they still continue that in computer games?" 

I was totally floored by her logic. And I agree with it. It just seems like you are spending more time to level up each and every little stat, which doesn't give you the feel of becoming really good at something.

For example. If I was a good swordsman, I spend my time continously fighting training etc. My strength automatically gets better, as does my stamina, perception, and even my intelligence and agility. Yet, when you play traditional d20, or most RPGs, you can only use strength and stamina. I am definitely looking forward to seeing how the 3 core stat system works for skyrim, and then how many companies will follow suit.

[neppakyo]

Fortlowe wrote...
Mass Effect is wrapping up, and that is an opportunity, I think to pour more resources into Dragon Age, which has lots of room to grow.

Nah, they need all the money to go into TOR

*ducks and Zoiberg suffles out*

[Ottemis]

Persephone wrote...
How would you go on about not having the stats picking at the beginning? Have them evolve over time, choosing them based on game progress, in game decisions etc?

I reckon, even though the intro could have seriously used some more work.. the way they've done it with DA2 would achieve the goal enough. People would get a taste of the game(play) before being confronted with character-generation, upping the chance of them being interested enough to just "use preset character X" and play on.

Modifié par Ottemis, 29 mai 2011 - 04:54 .

[Redcoat]

shantisands wrote...

Redcoat wrote...

If you love something, it's totally understandable that you want to share it with the world. I love heavy metal, and nothing would please me more than seeing everyone in the world headbanging to Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. But that's never going to happen because some people just don't like the genre of heavy metal. And you won't reach that audience by forcing bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest to water down and soften their sound into bland, radio-friendly pablum. All that will accomplish is angering existing fans who hate the new direction they've taken, and making new listeners wonder what was so great about these bands in the first place, as they now sound like every other band on the radio.

//is presently listening to Judas Priest's Painkiller
//this album is made of 100% distilled awesome.

But, but you could layer Judas Priest over some heavy electronica and then overlay some gothic choir!  THREE markets, all in one.  No really you could! 

You may get new fans too.  Of course, the Heavy metal people, the electronica people and the choir people may all think you have lost your marbles. OR they will all think you are a genius.  

Ah, the price of innovation.  THAT kind of mix rarely works unless society is ready for it. The question is, is it? 

:innocent:

I suppose you could mix two completely different genres, say classical music and gangsta rap, and be successful in that endeavour, but it would take a musical genius on the level of Mozart to pull it off.

I guess I'm probably biased since a lot of genres I love, such as heavy metal or hardcore flight sims like Falcon 4.0. One of my favourite albums is Moonsorrow's Viides Luku - Hävitetty. Now, this album has only two songs: one that is 30 minutes long, the other 26 minutes. And the lyrics are entirely in Finnish. A lot of people might be turned off by those characteristics, but for me it makes the album great. It makes it feel authentic - that the band had a singlular artistic vision of what they wanted to do, and didn't compromise that vision for the sake of selling more albums.

But back on topic. Did DA:O have problems handling newcomers to the RPG genre? You could say that; the game's difficulty ramped up very quickly and combat was rather poorly introduced. But DA2 took the wrong approach, I think. Take the way backstabbing using a rogue works. In Baldur's Gate or DA:O, if you wanted to backstab someone, you had to have one of your party members get the attention of enemies, so their backs would be facing you, and then maneouvre your rogue into position for the backstab. In DA2, to do a backstab all you do is...push a button. Sure it's easier and simpler, but now you've removed an element of tactical play.

For another example, take the ability of enemies to inflict status effects on party members and the tactical considerations the player had to make in reaction to those effects. In Baldur's Gate, if you were facing Mind Flayers, you had to use a particular strategy for dealing with them. Likewise if you were facing Beholders. Or trolls. Or demons. DA:O wasn't much different. Some enemies could pin a party member to the ground, requiring another party member to free them. Revenants could yank your ranged attackers off their feet and into its melee range, and you had to think of a strategy to deal with it. Some enemies were immune to certain types of damage. And so on. In DA2, that was mostly taken away. Now most enemies have nothing beyond basic melee or projectile attacks. Sure, it might make things easier for newcomers, since now ogres can't snatch up your character and punch him to death (something I'm sure caused a lot of controllers to be thrown against the wall in frustration), but at the same time it made combat feel mindless and repetitive.

But I see I'm ranting, and I should stop now.

Modifié par Redcoat, 29 mai 2011 - 04:54 .

[Aaleel]

And for the record Mr. Laidlaw if you're still reading this thread. Aside from the combat, I had no problems with the changes, just the execution.

If you give me a family develop that aspect, start me in Lothering letting get to know them so it actually matters when I lose one. It seemed they were there more to add artificial sadness and darkness to the game rather than be a family.

If my mother is living with me, let me talk to her, have her talk to me. If my sister is in the circle let me visit her, see how she's living, let that factor into me final decision.

If I made a name for myself in Kirkwall, let me play that, get small quests at first, then bigger ones, that a huge one that makes my name. Let word come across that the Blight is over and have the people in Kirkwall celebrate. Let me have a discussion with my family about rather it's better to stay in Kirkwall or return to build our home. Why did we say.

I guess what I'm saying is that we were simply told too much, and made to assume too much, rather than being allowed to play our story. Since it was supposed to be a personal story.

[Shirosaki17]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...
That said, I think this area needs to be built upon even further. Increasing the amount of player initiated dialogue with companions would make many of the old school RPGers happy. Without driving away the more action orientated sorts since it would be optional.

Agreed.

[Fortlowe]

neppakyo wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...
Mass Effect is wrapping up, and that is an opportunity, I think to pour more resources into Dragon Age, which has lots of room to grow.

Nah, they need all the money to go into TOR

*ducks and Zoiberg suffles out*

True, to an extent, but we lowly console players will be left wanting for something to fill the void Mass Effect 3 will leave.

[lobi]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

So why, at the same time, do you guys think it has elements that are a barrier to people?
Honest question.

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

Would there perhaps be an option for such players to have a 'Pre-generated Character' option, which automatically assigns stats based on class? Auto progression is nothing new, but I don't know about the programming involved.

Yes by all means also choose personality, then you need not bother with all that tedious decide what to say stuff, heck lets just have one button for everything.

[neppakyo]

Fortlowe wrote...

True, to an extent, but we lowly console players will be left wanting for something to fill the void Mass Effect 3 will leave.

There's always demon souls, or the batman games 

[Persephone]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...
That said, I think this area needs to be built upon even further. Increasing the amount of player initiated dialogue with companions would make many of the old school RPGers happy. Without driving away the more action orientated sorts since it would be optional.

Agreed.

How is he wrong there? You think more player initiated dialogue is a BAD idea?

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Esbatty wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

What's the barrier? I mean, honest question, what do you guys (devs) see as a barrier in a game like Origins?
(NOTE: in this thread alone, there's a person stating they've never played RPGs before Origins, and they loved it)

Speaking for a couple of my friends, they didn't make it past their Origins to reach Ostagar because they found there was too much talking and not enough action.

And on the other side you'll have people who loved the talking, and think there wasn't nearly enough of it in the intro of DA2...but too much action.

So how can you please both crowds? :/

You can put in the option to skip dialogue and an option to skip combat and suddenly you end up with a save game generator that spits out achievements.

"Achievement Unlocked: Skip the Game to the End!"

*shudder*

[Lumikki]

Aaleel wrote...

I play both, but I don't want a game that's a mix of the two, I like to play one or the other.  It's the whole Jack of all trades master of none thing.  Unless it's done perfectly, you lose too much of both when you try to make it appeal to different crowds.

You assume it's different crowds, because your own situation.
I'm not different crowd and still I play mix and not mixed just fine.

[LobselVith8]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
There is a middle ground between Origins and II.

Does this mean DLC and future games will acknowledge a mage protagonist being a mage like Origins did? One of the issues with DA2 was that no one seemed to recognize that Hawke was a mage for most of the storyline, even when he performed magic in front of them. Also, not one of the companions ever realized or acknowledged that he was a blood mage, which is odd since Anders and Fenris berate Merrill often because she's one.

[Aaleel]

Lumikki wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I play both, but I don't want a game that's a mix of the two, I like to play one or the other.  It's the whole Jack of all trades master of none thing.  Unless it's done perfectly, you lose too much of both when you try to make it appeal to different crowds.

You assume it's different crowds, because your own situation.
I'm not different crowd and still I play mix and not mixed just fine.

What game have you played that's a cross between COD and DA?  What game have you played that's a mix between DA and AC or GTA even.

[devSin]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

If anything, I think the people most likely to want to play an RPG, but who may not know it yet, are the folks who love the Rockstar games. They're clearly not turned off by character-driven narrative.

But are they turned on by the narrative, or by the gameplay? If the game is fun, having to listen to (what you can reasonably assume to be) one of the worst stories ever written between all the fun parts probably isn't that big a trade-off (especially when you can skip it). There's also no real purpose to it (the end result of whatever passes for a plot moment is going to be getting back to the shooting). You buy the game to kill, and everything is structured around killing.

Even with super-fast action and responsive combat, a huge portion of Dragon Age II is still more than semi- or non-interactive plot cutscenes. In fact, I think combat has almost nothing to do with the best parts of the game. So why do you think that the character or combat mechanics are the thing that they're most turned off by (or is it because that's the only thing you can think to change, since you're still making a BioWare story RPG at the end of the day)?

Modifié par devSin, 29 mai 2011 - 05:06 .

[Ottemis]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
There is a middle ground between Origins and II.

Does this mean DLC and future games will acknowledge a mage protagonist being a mage like Origins did? One of the issues with DA2 was that no one seemed to recognize that Hawke was a mage for most of the storyline, even when he performed magic in front of them. Also, not one of the companions ever realized or acknowledged that he was a blood mage, which is odd since Anders and Fenris berate Merrill often because she's one.

I don't think they'd do that for DLC:
"You're a MAGE! Now.. even though I should logicly toss you in the Gallows.. continue on your merry way; I'm the templar that still believes in purple unicorns."

For future games, yeah agreed, that'd be grand.

Modifié par Ottemis, 29 mai 2011 - 05:05 .

[Lord_Valandil]

The key word here is: time.
Enough time to polish and improve everything. To make something excellent.

[lobi]

*Horrible gurgling sound*

[Shirosaki17]

Persephone wrote...

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...
That said, I think this area needs to be built upon even further. Increasing the amount of player initiated dialogue with companions would make many of the old school RPGers happy. Without driving away the more action orientated sorts since it would be optional.

Agreed.

How is he wrong there? You think more player initiated dialogue is a BAD idea?

He's wrong because he thinks that would make old school RPGers happy. Laidlaw agreed with it, so I assume he thinks the same thing. If you took DA2 and just added player initiated dialogue with companions, it wouldn't fix it, nor would it appease most of the people upset and disappointed by it.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

shantisands wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Would there perhaps be an option for such players to have a 'Pre-generated Character' option, which automatically assigns stats based on class? Auto progression is nothing new, but I don't know about the programming involved.

DAO had that.  I used the "simplified" version first before I learned enough to make my own decisions. 

So It seems like it's the mere *presence* of stats that makes some people scream and hit Alt-F4.

Maybe we need a "Are you new to RPGs?" a la "Are you new to Shooters?", so they can be presented with a number free character creation screen XD

[Merced652]

Lumikki wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I play both, but I don't want a game that's a mix of the two, I like to play one or the other.  It's the whole Jack of all trades master of none thing.  Unless it's done perfectly, you lose too much of both when you try to make it appeal to different crowds.

You assume it's different crowds, because your own situation.
I'm not different crowd and still I play mix and not mixed just fine.

The point you make actually doesn't help your argument at all. I too play fps, rts, and straight up action games. Why do i do that? Not because some benevolent FPS developer said lets make this game accessible to little timmy. Nor was that the case for my entry in to RTS, and certainly not the case for my entry in to RPGs. It appears to me that only mike laidlaw, bless his soul, is the only charitable lead game designer in the world looking to spread cheer and good fortune to those who actively do not want it. So be it. 

Modifié par Merced652, 29 mai 2011 - 05:07 .

[Ottemis]

Shirosaki17 wrote...
He's wrong because he thinks that would make old school RPGers happy. Laidlaw agreed with it, so I assume he thinks the same thing. If you took DA2 and just added player initiated dialogue with companions, it wouldn't fix it, nor would it appease most of the people upset and disappointed by it.

How is he wrong, are you on speaking therms with all of them? You have them all over for sunday tea or something?
Sure, it's an assumption, it's not an illogical one is it?

Modifié par Ottemis, 29 mai 2011 - 05:08 .