262 réponses à ce sujet

[_Aine_]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

If i'm supposed to be an avatar. I expect that I will be included in the plot and shaping it. Not being left out of the events, while the story is shaped by an NPC. The Warden decided who slayed Urthemiel, The Warden decided whether there would be a baby with the soul of an Old God.

Hawke didn't shape squat. Warn high-ranking templar? NPC pulls you right out of story and reminds you just how insignificant you really are and how little your choices actually matter in the grand sceme of things. It felt like this was BioWare's least reactive game on a macro level. On a micro level(IE, "who is The Champion"), it was their most reactive game to date, definitely. However, Laidlaw also said "Hawke will shape the story over a decade". Hawke did not shape anything. Over 7 years.

They gave too much power to someone else and not enough influence to us (to change things). I think that is the bottom line.  For an RPG anyway.  

Modifié par shantisands, 07 juin 2011 - 09:44 .

[Aaleel]

Master Shiori wrote...

Sorry, but they did. Duel-wield tree was exactly the same for both warrior and rogue. If the only way to make them different is through specializations, then that's bad class design. A warrior shouldn't need to specialize as a champion or a beserker to be distinct from a rogue. Armor and weapons should reflect the strengths and weakness of each class. By letting a rogue use full sized weapons and wear the heaviest armor you've effectively gave him the same pros and cons a warrior has. A duel-wielding rogue in DA:O gains the abilities to hit multiple opponents at the same time and, thanks to heavy armor, can also withstand the same amount of punishment as a warrior. Stealth and backstab become pointless.

In DA2 there is a clear difference in how the 2 classes function.

Warriors are a class that can take them most damage, fight multiple opponents at the same time and wants to be in the centre of the battle. Warrior will wear haevy armor because he wats to be hit and surrounded by foes, so needs to be able to reduce the incoming damage.
Rogue is a specialist at killing individual targets quickly but cannot survive being focused upon. So you use skills like stealth and evade to control hate and relly on backstab and similar skills that require positioning. You cannot function as a tank, at least not against more than 1 opponent at the time. You cannot take out multiple opponents at the same time like a mage or warrior could.

The duel wield tree is the only thing that's the same.

Does a dual wielding Rogue do more damage standing face to face with an enemy or using backstab in Origins?  I fail to see how backstab becomes pointless.  Or stealth for that matter.  You can no longer stealth and take out an enemy mage, or set a trap because you're using full sized weapons?  I'm not seeing where these skills become pointless.  Like I said, when I played them I used them in totally different ways.

I'm still not seeing the reason to pigeonhole players. 

Modifié par Aaleel, 07 juin 2011 - 09:48 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Good post Shantisands.

Talking with Persepone about this refined my view on the game. I do think DA2 did improve somewhat over Origins vis-a-vis relations with companions (I just find them less interesting than those in Origins, but I digress). And they do somewhat react to what he says and does (though I still believe it's marginal and could have been more). But it's a combination of other things, including like you said, an unchanging and unresponsive world / setting, lack of any real influence which stands in contrast to the mass murders we keep perpetrating (and for me at least, just bad writing in general that lacks nuance and complexity), that seriously harm the game imo.

That said, DA2 did take a few steps in the right direction. Not enough for me to feel that my 60$ were justifiably wasted, but what can you do.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Good post Shantisands.

Talking with Persepone about this refined my view on the game. I do think DA2 did improve somewhat over Origins vis-a-vis relations with companions (I just find them less interesting than those in Origins, but I digress). And they do somewhat react to what he says and does (though I still believe it's marginal and could have been more). But it's a combination of other things, including like you said, an unchanging and unresponsive world / setting, lack of any real influence which stands in contrast to the mass murders we keep perpetrating (and for me at least, just bad writing in general that lacks nuance and complexity), that seriously harm the game imo.

That said, DA2 did take a few steps in the right direction. Not enough for me to feel that my 60$ were justifiably wasted, but what can you do.

*coughIsaiditcough*

Me agreeing with you is a given

[_Aine_]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Exactly. Perhaps if their advertising was a bit more truthful, and saying "You'll be able to shape how Hawke acts, her tone of voice, her philosophies, her religious beliefs etc, etc", I might've not expected the game to have multiple conclusions, and that we would be able to alter how the story plays out. I know i'm gonna get flamed for this, but... I feel The Witcher handles choice and consequence a lot better. Hell, letting someone keep a sword alters events in a major fashion.

Yes!  

Exactly!  They also did it in such a way that the game basically branches into two potential stories, which while time consuming to create probably is less so than many branching possibilities within a single narrative.  Perhaps I am wrong, and if so I do hope someone slaps me.  

Still, the devil is in the details.  I love it when that one picked door, stolen rag, helped elf, single sword, plays out in a powerful way later on.    

"Give my my sword"  one simple thing, changed the way the game plays out.   Like either game, both or none, that is cool.  Statements that mean something, decisions that change your destiny.   These are the games that make me want more.

Even more so, appealing to the personality of some characters can also change the way the game plays out.  For example Iorveth, even if you side with Roche, if you never betray Iorveths trust, things may play out *slightly* differently than if you do.   I like those little (huge!) differences.  That make replaying fun. =)  

So, I won't flame you for the comparison ( heck, the thread title does! ) but this isn't a ) This game is EPIC and this one sucks! thread and it is a legitimate comparison of the game features that made a difference to our experience and perceived enjoyment of the games.   

Details.  Details are the difference.    

 

Modifié par shantisands, 07 juin 2011 - 10:03 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

shantisands wrote...
Details.  Details are the difference.    

Indeed, and not only do they flesh out the story more, it also fleshes out characters (like for example Iorveth and how he percieved Geralt when siding with Roche, depending on the sword scene). Another example. In the prison scene with Roche, pushing him and then calling him a ****son has him be visibly angry and taking it personal. Him hating being called a ****son for personal reasons is something we otherwise find out in Act 1.

Tiny details like that make character, and God knows how much Orsino and Meredith needed them. The simple "No! Sovereign needs me!" from Saren when his free will is put in question, has probably more character development in it than Meredith in her entirety (If they think that a 5 minutes display of character at the very end during the fight after she became a lunatic is enough to make me care, it's laughable). 

@ Alistairlover. Your comparision, while it will probably ****** off some, is in place and well within the boundaries of the thread. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 juin 2011 - 10:09 .

[_Aine_]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

If there is one thing I want BioWare to pick up from CDP Red, it is definitely ^that. Their attention to detail. Now THAT'S how you give the player agency. Not having an NPC decide for you. It just breaks my immersion as "the most important person in Thedas", is powerless. Well put, shanti. And thanks for not flaming me.

Nevar!!! 

Discussion is good.  =)  And I agree. I would like them to pick up THAT tidbit too.  (and stay far far away from their facial animation. lol)  

[neppakyo]

@Ali and KoP

Oh I do so agree with the points you've made. Another point to add, BW should invest in some motion capture tech, in TW2 the animations were a lot better. (I Agree with Shanti about CD needing to work on the lip sync, but the rest of the animations were good, to display emotion)

[Aaleel]

neppakyo wrote...

@Ali and KoP

Oh I do so agree with the points you've made. Another point to add, BW should invest in some motion capture tech, in TW2 the animations were a lot better. (I Agree with Shanti about CD needing to work on the lip sync, but the rest of the animations were good, to display emotion)

They could still stand to work on the facial animations more.  That's one thing I will say that Bioward does very well.

[Chromie]

Aaleel wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

@Ali and KoP

Oh I do so agree with the points you've made. Another point to add, BW should invest in some motion capture tech, in TW2 the animations were a lot better. (I Agree with Shanti about CD needing to work on the lip sync, but the rest of the animations were good, to display emotion)

They could still stand to work on the facial animations more.  That's one thing I will say that Bioward does very well.

Nope not even. Bioware's game look very bland. Maybe it's L.A Noire after playing that all facial tech just seems flat and lifeless compared to it.

[Aaleel]

Ringo12 wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

@Ali and KoP

Oh I do so agree with the points you've made. Another point to add, BW should invest in some motion capture tech, in TW2 the animations were a lot better. (I Agree with Shanti about CD needing to work on the lip sync, but the rest of the animations were good, to display emotion)

They could still stand to work on the facial animations more.  That's one thing I will say that Bioward does very well.

Nope not even. Bioware's game look very bland. Maybe it's L.A Noire after playing that all facial tech just seems flat and lifeless compared to it.

My Hawke is going to have to respectfully disagree with this.

[neppakyo]

No offense.. thats one ugly hawke. Hit her with the ugly frying pan?

and LA Noir did facial animations 10x better than bioware. Better than CDPR.

[Aaleel]

neppakyo wrote...

No offense.. thats one ugly hawke. Hit her with the ugly frying pan?

and LA Noir did facial animations 10x better than bioware. Better than CDPR.

I didn't say it was the best, but it definitely is not flat and lifeless.  And my Hawke's not so bad when she's not mad.

[neppakyo]

That was angry hawke? I thought she was trying to get peanut butter from the roof of her mouth off with her tongue.

And the 2nd pic looks a lot better. DA2 is still to sterile to effect proper emotional responses. (artwork and graphics)

[Morroian]

Ringo12 wrote...

Nope not even. Bioware's game look very bland. Maybe it's L.A Noire after playing that all facial tech just seems flat and lifeless compared to it.

You would have to say that about every other game apart from LA Noire though. DA2 does facial animation the best of any game I've played (obviously I haven't played LA Noire).

[_Aine_]

Aaleel wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

No offense.. thats one ugly hawke. Hit her with the ugly frying pan?

and LA Noir did facial animations 10x better than bioware. Better than CDPR.

I didn't say it was the best, but it definitely is not flat and lifeless.  And my Hawke's not so bad when she's not mad.

I think she is pretty. The first pic wasn't entirely flattering though.  

Haven't yet played LA Noire to comment... but you are correct, Bioware did it better than TW2.  Some of their animations in general were great!  And there were not such noticeable dead-hand moments that drew attention to lifeless hands.  But there were some strange...what I can only consider place-holder-like-facial animations that brought to mind Howdy Doody but stuck in a fabulous CGI trailer quality scene.  You are left staring at this flapping jaw and in the end say " WTF did he just say? I was distracted by the jaw!"  And it wasn't ALL the facial animation. It was actually the lip syncing.  And only some of it.  It really is like it was placeholders that someone just went " Oh it isn't bad, next scene" or just forgot to go back or something. Because I compared it to other lip syncing and there was a quality gap.  

Minor thing in the enjoyment of the game mind you, but of note anyway.  ( I say that dispassionately as a simple observation, because I adored the game enough I havent even been able to start my second playthrough yet lol)  

Modifié par shantisands, 07 juin 2011 - 10:53 .

[Realmzmaster]

Aaleel wrote...

Master Shiori wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Master Shiori wrote...

I don't mind Hawke & Co. being more confined. There should be a clear distinction between classes when it comes to weapons and abilities. If my rogue Warden can wear full plate and duel-wield swords why would I ever bother making a duel-wielding warrior? In DA2, playing a warrior and playing a rogue is an entirely different experience, as it should be.

Stealing was removed entirely, so no point in bringing it up. Hawke, regardless of class, can use potions, poisons and grenades.

Because you should be able to build a character as you want, not according to some artificially imposed notions of class.

If 2 classes can be built so they play the same way, what is the point in having different classes?

Picking a class should be a question of "How do I want to play?" and "What role do I want to fulfill in a group?". A player should have the ability to customize a class by picking it's abilities, but each class needs to remain distinct from others. Otherwise you end up with rogues who are basicaly warrior with lockpicking skills or mages who are better tanks then warriors themselves. Which is apsurd when you consider that mages are suppoosed to be glass cannons and not frontline fighters.

I have played rpgs that don't have the imposed notion of class and let you mix in different abilities and spells, like the original Fable. But Dragon Age has a clear distinction when it comes to classes so those should fulfill different roles and offer a unique playing experience.

A duel wielding rogue and a duel wielding Warrior never played the same for me in Origins.  Since one still relied on back stabbing, stealth, and was a duelist, assassin, or ranger, and the other was more face to face berserker, champion, party buffer.  Just because they could both wear heavy armor and use two full sized weapons doesn't make playing them exactly the same, or make them fill the exact same role.

In DA2 a rogue can transfer damage, control hate.  How would allowing the Rogue to use full sized weapons, or wear heavy armor change this?  How would allowing a warrior to use two weapons allow the warrior to fill this role, it wouldn't.  There's no reason to limit the weapons and armor a job can use.  I don't get the whole you have to restrict these things to keep the jobs separate.

 If the rogue is allowed wear any armor there should be a penalty to the ability to go into stealth. Full plate armor is not as slient as leather or studded leather. Also if wearing metal gauntlets the lockpicing or pickpocketing skill is affected unless the rogue removes the guantlets. If a game is going to use classes then penalties should  apply when a character wants to use skills of another class.

You could have a system where use determines the class like the Dungeon Siege I & II or the TES games. In Dungeon Siege if you use melee weapons the most your rank changed from squire to grand champion. If you use ranged weapons more you went from bowyer to Grandmaster sharpshooter. If you used nature magic more you rank changed from apprentice to archmage. If combat magic rank was from savant to Grand High Sorcerer. Depending on what combat mode you use the most your rank changed. So you could dabble in all the modes and specialize in one. But your had to meet the attribute requirements to wear certain armor

[neppakyo]

Realmzmaster wrote...

 If the rogue is allowed wear any armor there should be a penalty to the ability to go into stealth. Full plate armor is not as slient as leather or studded leather. Also if wearing metal gauntlets the lockpicing or pickpocketing skill is affected unless the rogue removes the guantlets. If a game is going to use classes then penalties should  apply when a character wants to use skills of another class.

Sounds suspiciously like nwn 

Wear heavier armour, and your Move Silent and Hide skills drop. 

Something similar in skills would be cool.