204 réponses à ce sujet

[Atakuma]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

You need to understand, Rin is exactly who Bioware was trying to reach with DA2. that portion of the fanbase that wants everything simple, easy, and not at all deep or engaging mechanics wise.

Because Origins was deep and challenging right? It's far more likely, that instead of being the lazy fools you think they are, they just find these mechanics boring.

[Chromie]

Atakuma wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

You need to understand, Rin is exactly who Bioware was trying to reach with DA2. that portion of the fanbase that wants everything simple, easy, and not at all deep or engaging mechanics wise.

Because Origins was deep and challenging right? It's far more likely, that instead of being the lazy fools you think they are, they just find these mechanics boring.

It's definietely more complex then Fable III ever is which is what Rin seems to want.

[Atakuma]

Ringo12 wrote...

It's definietely more complex then Fable III ever is which is what Rin seems to want.

Well if that's what he really wants, then he's on his own with that one

[Mr.House]

ME2 is more complex then Fable 3 Ringo

Wait, they are on par, my bad.

Modifié par Mr.House, 03 juin 2011 - 03:59 .

[Atakuma]

Mr.House wrote...

ME2 is more complex then Fable 3 Ringo

Wait, they are on par, my bad.

They wont be on par untill renegade dialogue choices have shepard farting in peoples faces, and romance involves chicken dances and tickle fights.

[Mr.House]

Atakuma wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

ME2 is more complex then Fable 3 Ringo

Wait, they are on par, my bad.

They wont be on par untill renegade dialogue choices have shepard farting in peoples faces, and romance involves chicken dances and tickle fights.

Please don't give Bioware ideas.

[Kilshrek]

In Exile wrote...

DA:O *codex* didn't have form or function.

Perhaps I'm misusing terms here.  The form was the "book" look the journal/codex had(including use of elaborate font). The function was providing extra information about the game (companions, locations, etc.) DA 2's "Journal" was a blank, black background with a very modern font. Like you said, setting breaking. So what I meant was that while DAO's journal looked good and provided information at the same time, DA 2's merely provided information.

And as I said earlier, different strokes for different folks, I quite liked the way DAO's Journal was presented, it was cluttered in the entries section, and notoriously difficult to pinpoint which entries were what, it still looked a whole lot better than DA 2's, which was organised and functional, but wholly uninspiring. If entries were actual names instead of numbers(as they are in DA 2) I think it would have been a much more user-friendly experience.

Modifié par Kilshrek, 03 juin 2011 - 04:54 .

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...
DA:O didn't have form or function. It was a pain to use in 1920x1280 because it didn't scale up.

I don't want the UI to scale with resolution.  I like to be able the adjust the size of the UI by changing the display settings.

Compare KotOR to KotOR2.  KotOR's UI didn't scale, so it got smaller at higher display resolutions.  I liked that.

KotOR2's UI did scale, so it was always huge no matter what you did.

I'd rather that they were both separately scaleable.  Of course, I'd also like the UI to be moddable...but the only RPG that leaps to mind that had a moddable UI was NWN2.

I have to admit, I don't understand how MMOs can handle UI so much better in terms of scaling and moddability than single player games do.  It's not as if the design necessities (in terms of UI) for the two types of games are so completely different.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 03 juin 2011 - 05:41 .

[Chromie]

Especially considering DA plays like an MMO with tanks, dps and healers.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Kilshrek wrote...

In Exile wrote...

DA:O *codex* didn't have form or function.

Perhaps I'm misusing terms here.  The form was the "book" look the journal/codex had(including use of elaborate font). The function was providing extra information about the game (companions, locations, etc.) DA 2's "Journal" was a blank, black background with a very modern font. Like you said, setting breaking. So what I meant was that while DAO's journal looked good and provided information at the same time, DA 2's merely provided information.

And as I said earlier, different strokes for different folks, I quite liked the way DAO's Journal was presented, it was cluttered in the entries section, and notoriously difficult to pinpoint which entries were what, it still looked a whole lot better than DA 2's, which was organised and functional, but wholly uninspiring. If entries were actual names instead of numbers(as they are in DA 2) I think it would have been a much more user-friendly experience.

I agree. The DA2 team didn't improve anything. Instead of a window-like interface that breaths the atmosphere of the game they opted for a full screen interface that pull you out of the game and has a graphics design which would fit an SF title like ME2. And even that one looked less cheap.

I wasn't happy with other parts of the user interface and I blame it to cutting the cost for porting the game to a PC. Some may see the following as minor problems but to me they were annoying: Simple things like the functionality of the Esc-key were inconsistent. Sometimes it was implemented and sometimes not. Double clicking items on the list didn't work either. The scroll bars need a microscope to control with the mouse. Very annoying. If the game supports a mouse and a keyboard then it should fully support the user interface conventions that come along with it.

[In Exile]

Kilshrek wrote...
Perhaps I'm misusing terms here.  The form was the "book" look the journal/codex had(including use of elaborate font). The function was providing extra information about the game (companions, locations, etc.) DA 2's "Journal" was a blank, black background with a very modern font. Like you said, setting breaking. So what I meant was that while DAO's journal looked good and provided information at the same time, DA 2's merely provided information.

I see what you mean. It comes down to a sense of aesthetic. I didn't like the journal. It didn't provide the same sense of value it provides for you.

And as I said earlier, different strokes for different folks, I quite liked the way DAO's Journal was presented, it was cluttered in the entries section, and notoriously difficult to pinpoint which entries were what, it still looked a whole lot better than DA 2's, which was organised and functional, but wholly uninspiring. If entries were actual names instead of numbers(as they are in DA 2) I think it would have been a much more user-friendly experience.

I agree with you there. I just didn't find it aesthetic.

Vaeliorin wrote...
I'd rather that they were
both separately scaleable.  Of course, I'd also like the UI to be
moddable...but the only RPG that leaps to mind that had a moddable
UI was NWN2.

That's a good point. Regarding the scalability, I mean.

I have to admit, I don't understand how MMOs can
handle UI so much better in terms of scaling and moddability than single
player games do.  It's not as if the design necessities (in terms of
UI) for the two types of games are so completely different.

Aren't MMOs PC only? I only played WoW for a little while (and SW Galaxies for a free trial) so I don't know how they play or handle.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
Aren't MMOs PC only? I only played WoW for a little while (and SW Galaxies for a free trial) so I don't know how they play or handle.

The only console MMO I can think of is DC Universe Online. Unless you count Battlefield series as MMO. Yes, usually MMOs will have a fully configurable and/or moddable UI. Because PC lends itself to flexibility.
If I were to have it my way, for DA 3 they'd go back to make it PC first, then scale down to consoles. The overall quality would improve.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I'd rather that they were both separately scaleable.

Yes, obviously that would be ideal.  But if I have to choose one or the other, I'd rather be able to adjust the size of the UI on the screen.

In Exile wrote...

I have to admit, I don't understand how MMOs can handle UI so much better in terms of scaling and moddability than single player games do.  It's not as if the design necessities (in terms of UI) for the two types of games are so completely different.

Aren't MMOs PC only?

That was my thinking, as well.  Since MMOGs are designed exclusively for PC, they can have interfaces designed specfically for use with a keyboard and mouse.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 juin 2011 - 07:52 .

[Dubya75]

OP, honestly, you want a UI with half the screen covered with text and stuff? Thankfully, those days are over.
UI's these days are a lot more.... intelligent.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dubya75 wrote...

OP, honestly, you want a UI with half the screen covered with text and stuff? Thankfully, those days are over.
UI's these days are a lot more.... intelligent.

Not providing the information we need to play the game is not "intelligent".  It's recalcitrant.  It's obfuscatory.

It is not intelligent.

[mesmerizedish]

Dubya75 wrote...

OP, honestly, you want a UI with half the screen covered with text and stuff? Thankfully, those days are over.
UI's these days are a lot more.... intelligent.

As an addendum to Sylviu's reply, an intelligent UI would provide the needed information without covering half the screen. Reducing screen clutter by giving the player less information is not intelligent.

[marshalleck]

Bioware hates combat logs and have already said they'll never do them again.

[Dubya75]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

OP, honestly, you want a UI with half the screen covered with text and stuff? Thankfully, those days are over.
UI's these days are a lot more.... intelligent.

Not providing the information we need to play the game is not "intelligent".  It's recalcitrant.  It's obfuscatory.

It is not intelligent.

Well I've played through the game multiple times wihout ever thinking I don't have enough information to move forward.
(And I really admire your use of big words)

[Dubya75]

marshalleck wrote...

Bioware hates combat logs and have already said they'll never do them again.

Because they're an unnecessary waste of time.

[LilyasAvalon]

...I'm lost, what is the OP asking? ._.

[Xewaka]

Dubya75 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...
Bioware hates combat logs and have already said they'll never do them again.

Because they're an unnecessary waste of time.

Only if you don't bother to find out wether the "ineffective weapon" is caused due to damage reduction or inmunity to certain types of attack, if you don't want to know if the average damage indicated in your weapon is the actual combat value, of you don't care about how much damage each party member sustains per encounter.
Combat logs are valuable things, that give insights into the working of the game mechanics, and help the player build a better party. And due to the fact that they are a written register, there's no need for them to actually clutter the gameplay field, as they can be visited after the encounter is over to learn from it.

LilyasAvalon wrote...
...I'm lost, what is the OP asking? ._.

He's asking for a more detailed UI, that actually carries information, and that helps keeping the mood of the game, rather than the haphazard thing thrown out for DA 2.

Modifié par Xewaka, 03 juin 2011 - 11:56 .

[Dubya75]

Xewaka wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...
Bioware hates combat logs and have already said they'll never do them again.

Because they're an unnecessary waste of time.

Only if you don't bother to find out wether the "ineffective weapon" is caused due to damage reduction or inmunity to certain types of attack, if you don't want to know if the average damage indicated in your weapon is the actual combat value, of you don't care about how much damage each party member sustains per encounter.
Combat logs are valuable things, that give insights into the working of the game mechanics, and help the player build a better party. And due to the fact that they are a written register, there's no need for them to actually clutter the gameplay field, as they can be visited after the encounter is over to learn from it.

LilyasAvalon wrote...
...I'm lost, what is the OP asking? ._.

He's
asking for a more detailed UI, that actually carries information, and that helps keeping the mood of the game, rather than the haphazard thing thrown out for DA 2.

God help us all if gaming ever returns to being such a tedious affair!
Swing sword frantically, enemy dies. Good enough for me.
Why should battle be a science? What the hell does it matter what my average damage per enemy is between 9pm and 11pm on a Sunday? 
Don't get me wrong, I love RPG elements such as making choices and stuff but setting up flow charts of each weapon's damage relative to the direction the wind blows, to me seems like a load of  hogwash.
It is unnecessary clutter.

Modifié par Dubya75, 03 juin 2011 - 11:08 .

[Rheia]

I, for one, would like a return to a more Origins styled UI for the third game. Sure DA II minimalist ui looks functional, but I much prefer artistic designs of Origins' pc version. It felt more immensive and visually pleasing.

Also wouldn't mind to be able to toggle more info/numbers on it, as others have voiced.

[Dubya75]

I would like to see a UI in which everything but the mini map fades out completely and only fades back in when battle starts.
This to be would provide a much more immersive experience. Who needs all the stuff like quickbar and companion avatars on screen when it's not needed?
I'd much rather they make more use of hotkeys to display menus and stuff.

Modifié par Dubya75, 03 juin 2011 - 11:16 .