738 réponses à ce sujet

[jlb524]

adneate wrote...

It's equally arbitrary in DA2, I treated Fenris like dirt the whole game and sided with the mages on everything. Yet he acts surprised and angry at the choice I make at the end of the game. Evidently he didn't understand that the years of not listening to him on anything would mean that I still wouldn't listen to him at the end of the game. At least Origins arbitrary system was honest and clearly a familiar video game mechanic, DA2's system just seemed like a way to keep the story and the gameplay as seperate as possible. Whereby you could treat a NPC like garbage in the story part but still use them for the video game portion.

Of course, there are issues with the system in DA2 as well.  The thing I don't like about Origins is that they kind of become mute if you don't keep moving up in approval and there's no real dialog for when they don't like you...I'd think they'd prefer to speak their minds in that case.  I don't feel that Origins was necessarily honest in this case.

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

What are you talking about??? The saying goes "THE STRAW that broke the camel's back" meaning it's a tiny
bit of weight that finally caused the break.  It's not the BRICK that broke the camels back.  You fail at comprehension of sayings and life.

Please go off the internet now. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/heart.png

I do get the saying..I just don't think it necessarily applies and is an over-simplification of thse types of situations because what breaks the camel's back could be a straw or a brick or a piano or a needle or a...whatever.  What ticks off a specific NPC should be pretty consistent I would think....

Modifié par jlb524, 14 juin 2011 - 08:09 .

[Mr.House]

alex90c wrote...

It's on diffrent then treating Alistair like crap and waiting for the
whole game to get rid of him. At least with Fenris you can get rid of
him during the game or simply don't recruit him.

How could anyone ever treat Alistair like crap

Easy, not everyone likes him.

[the_one_54321]

Filament wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
And I play on Nightmare, so yeah.

Then what is the problem? You weren't among those being referenced, obviously.

The implication that gamers want things handed to them because they're lazy could apply to someone if they agree with some of the streamlining, but that doesn't mean they're lazy or that it has anything to do with the difficulty level, maybe they just don't like the tedium of some aspects of older games.

Naturally context will always change perception. However, see my post above.

[alex90c]

Mr.House wrote...

alex90c wrote...

It's on diffrent then treating Alistair like crap and waiting for the
whole game to get rid of him. At least with Fenris you can get rid of
him during the game or simply don't recruit him.

How could anyone ever treat Alistair like crap

Easy, not everyone likes him.

LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU



So back to the topic at hand.

Dragon Age 2 sucks, ja?

[adneate]

Mr.House wrote...
It's on diffrent then treating Alistair like crap and waiting for the whole game to get rid of him. At least with Fenris you can get rid of him during the game or simply don't recruit him.

You keep Fenris around because the game says you have to, Alistair stays with a Warden he hates because he'll claim his duty as a Warden supercedes any personal feelings towards the player character and their actions. Other than that the actions you make in the story part of origins have an effect on the game portion, treating an NPC like dirt gives no bonuses and they'll eventually leave.

In DA2 the gameplay and story are segregated, the actions in one rarely effect the actions in the other. To the point that treating someone badly has the same gameplay result as being their friend, a combat bonus. Once a NPC is picked up you can't get rid of them, while in Origins you can get rid of most of them at any time or through actions.

[Aaleel]

My only problem with the interview is that they still act like they think they did nothing wrong and that none of the changes were bad ideas.

They say that people didn't like their "innovations" like they were all good things and the problem is with the the person that disliked it and not the design itself.

[Mr.House]

adneate wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
It's on diffrent then treating Alistair like crap and waiting for the whole game to get rid of him. At least with Fenris you can get rid of him during the game or simply don't recruit him.

You keep Fenris around because the game says you have to, Alistair stays with a Warden he hates because he'll claim his duty as a Warden supercedes any personal feelings towards the player character and their actions. Other than that the actions you make in the story part of origins have an effect on the game portion, treating an NPC like dirt gives no bonuses and they'll eventually leave.

In DA2 the gameplay and story are segregated, the actions in one rarely effect the actions in the other. To the point that treating someone badly has the same gameplay result as being their friend, a combat bonus. Once a NPC is picked up you can't get rid of them, while in Origins you can get rid of most of them at any time or through actions.

Sorry but if I treat someone like dirt, they better speak up, not just say I hate you then leave. That's what DA2 did better, it's not a perfect system but the fact that people like Fenris have diffrent dialog if oyu keep treating them like dirt, they don't say one thing, they keep speaking there mind. There's alot of tweaks to be made but it's a better system then what was in DAO.

For example, give a gift to Fenris on the rival path, he refuses to keep it and get's pissed at you, give a gift to say Sten when he has very low approval, you get approval and he says thanks. There's the issue.

[Mr.House]

alex90c wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

alex90c wrote...

It's on diffrent then treating Alistair like crap and waiting for the
whole game to get rid of him. At least with Fenris you can get rid of
him during the game or simply don't recruit him.

How could anyone ever treat Alistair like crap

Easy, not everyone likes him.

LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU



So back to the topic at hand.

Dragon Age 2 sucks, ja?

In your opinion.

[Atakuma]

Aaleel wrote...

My only problem with the interview is that they still act like they think they did nothing wrong and that none of the changes were bad ideas.

They say that people didn't like their "innovations" like they were all good things and the problem is with the the person that disliked it and not the design itself.

This is just coming from one of EA's corperate stooges, if it came from someone on the dev team then I would be worried.

[Feanor_II]

Mr.House wrote...
Why fans like you who hate everything asbout DA2 and cling to DAO like it's your babay are still on this site is beyond me.

Because I payed a bunch of euros for this game so I think that I'm in my right to express my opinion (that's the only thing I pretend).
Because I want my opinion to be heard so that Bioware can correct a direction that I undestand  it's mistaken.

Really I really HATE this "If yo don't like go away" mentallity, I'm just in my "right to disagree" (with all due respect and from a constructive approach, that's at least what I'm trying to do). A forum like this (or any other) must not be a closed community just to express how wonderfull the matter of subject is completly blinded to other opinions.

Modifié par Feanor_II, 14 juin 2011 - 08:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr.House wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Everything is math.

The sad cold truth.

That's not sad at all.  Math is awesome.

Though the way schools teach math these days bores children and makes them hate it.

[adneate]

jlb524 wrote...
I don't feel that Origins was necessarily honest in this case.

It was an honest mechanic, the DA2 rival / friend system is all over the place until you reach a certain arbitrary threshold and then it just locks in place and you can't change it no matter what you do. It feels a lot like ME2's horrible reduction of the Renegade/Intimidate and Paragon/Charm system where playing how you want isn't the point, the point is to do the same thing over and over again everytime it comes up or be punished for it.

Origin's system was FAR from perfect but the fix for those problems was not the Rival/Friend-o-dometer, all that system did was exchange the pre-existing flaws for different flaws.

Flaws that I personally found much, much more game breaking and unenjoyable.

[the_one_54321]

Filament wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You can when all they ask is that it be "easier" or "less complicated."
Marketing calls any simplification "streamlining" because nothing you feed the public is ever supposed to sound bad. but if you understand that they will paint absolutely everything in a positive light, you should see that sometimes simplification is really just simplification. And the people that are asking for this just want the game to be easier and less complicated to play. And one valid interpretation of this desire is just plain laziness.

Still, maybe someone doesn't find it inherently fun to spend 30 minutes at a time adjusting their gear, the implication in the word 'lazy' makes it sound like this is supposed to be some kind of job that we're failing to adequately perform in as opposed to entertainment that's we're supposed to derive enjoyment out of.

Well, I think it's lazy to not want to utilize the mechanics to overcome the challenges of the game. And I iew it as inherently wrong to ask that these games remove those features so as to be "less tedious" when there are easily a hundred other games that lack this "tedium."

[Ciryx]

Aaleel wrote...

My only problem with the interview is that they still act like they think they did nothing wrong and that none of the changes were bad ideas.

They say that people didn't like their "innovations" like they were all good things and the problem is with the the person that disliked it and not the design itself.

It MAY also the case that people dont like the game and now steamroll their opinion over everything that changed. Since it is different its bad, yes? 
Most people dont stay objective towards the changes, some even think that there was no thought behind the decisions made. 

I for example liked the approach towards the story a lot, I am totally fed up with fighting a big evil and being the hero of the phrophecy that has to beat all odds and beat aforementioned evil. (and possibly die in the process for more pathos)

The story wasnt very well told in DA2, but that doesnt make the general Idea of it bad. 

The combat was a lot better than in Dragon Age: Origins in terms of talent trees, abilitys, speccs and possible Characterbuilds. (there were TONs of redundant abilitys in Origins. especially for mages) That the encounters of the battle were stupid (attackwaves etc) is on a differnt paper. But the general idea of the revamped Combat and Charactersystem holds very much promise. 

[Smilehigh]

jlb524 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
Realistically people break relationships when it reaches a point they can no longer bear it, usually because something happens that deteriorates relationship even further it already was. It's our equivalent of crossing the threshold and triggering the event.

So you have a character at 99 -- they think the relationship overall stinks, but there's some redeeming qualities and maybe it'll get better. Then things get worse and they come to realization things are just too bad to hope or bother anymore. It's that equivalent of proverbial straw breaking the camel's back.

What's the difference between 98 and 99?  99 and 100?

100 and 101?  110 and 111? 

These go to 111 in my game. 

And what actually happens to cross the line from 99 to 100?  In game, it could be a simple little thing or a huge thing that grants you that extra point and 'breaks the camel's back'.  It's kind of arbitrary.

What's the difference between 1 hit point and 0 hit points? RPGs are stat driven. What you're looking for is probably a dating sim. Well, good for you BIO seems ready to deliver. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

Still, maybe someone doesn't find it inherently fun to spend 30 minutes at a time adjusting their gear, the implication in the word 'lazy' makes it sound like this is supposed to be some kind of job that we're failing to adequately perform in as opposed to entertainment that's we're supposed to derive enjoyment out of.

Sure, but not everyone enjoys the same leisure activites.

It is in trying to make the game palatable for everyone that the designers end up removing those features which some of us particularly enjoy.  Or even the entire reason we play the game at all.

[syllogi]

Mr.House wrote...

adneate wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
It's on diffrent then treating Alistair like crap and waiting for the whole game to get rid of him. At least with Fenris you can get rid of him during the game or simply don't recruit him.

You keep Fenris around because the game says you have to, Alistair stays with a Warden he hates because he'll claim his duty as a Warden supercedes any personal feelings towards the player character and their actions. Other than that the actions you make in the story part of origins have an effect on the game portion, treating an NPC like dirt gives no bonuses and they'll eventually leave.

In DA2 the gameplay and story are segregated, the actions in one rarely effect the actions in the other. To the point that treating someone badly has the same gameplay result as being their friend, a combat bonus. Once a NPC is picked up you can't get rid of them, while in Origins you can get rid of most of them at any time or through actions.

Sorry but if I treat someone like dirt, they better speak up, not just say I hate you then leave. That's what DA2 did better, it's not a perfect system but the fact that people like Fenris have diffrent dialog if oyu keep treating them like dirt, they don't say one thing, they keep speaking there mind. There's alot of tweaks to be made but it's a better system then what was in DAO.

For example, give a gift to Fenris on the rival path, he refuses to keep it and get's pissed at you, give a gift to say Sten when he has very low approval, you get approval and he says thanks. There's the issue.

The friendship/rivalry system is one of the things I think DA2 did right, but it would be even better if companions (who were not vital to the main plot) had a "crisis point" at which they would not travel with the player character anymore, or even attack.  Rivalry can be cool, if you're working your way to a grudging respect with a character whose beliefs are different from the hero, but if you do something outrageous that a party member ought not stand for, it would be nice to know that you'll pay the price (by losing that character permanently.)

[jlb524]

adneate wrote...

jlb524 wrote...
I don't feel that Origins was necessarily honest in this case.

It was an honest mechanic, the DA2 rival / friend system is all over the place until you reach a certain arbitrary threshold and then it just locks in place and you can't change it no matter what you do. It feels a lot like ME2's horrible reduction of the Renegade/Intimidate and Paragon/Charm system where playing how you want isn't the point, the point is to do the same thing over and over again everytime it comes up or be punished for it.

Origin's system was FAR from perfect but the fix for those problems was not the Rival/Friend-o-dometer, all that system did was exchange the pre-existing flaws for different flaws.

Flaws that I personally found much, much more game breaking and unenjoyable.

I didn't find them game breaking and unenjoyable.

I also know that there is the 'lock in' with the DA2 system, but you can also 'lock in' 100% approval with Origins via gifts.  If you go from 100 to 98..get a gift for them.

I honestly don't have that much of a problem with the Origins system and use it as an example of how anything could be nit-picked into 'not making sense' and 'sucking' as was being done with the F/R system.  I still think the F/R is a better step and gives variety, even if it's not perfectly worked out yet.

TeenZombie wrote...

The friendship/rivalry system is one of the things I think DA2 did right, but it would be even better if
companions (who were not vital to the main plot) had a "crisis point" at which they would not travel with the player character anymore, or even attack.  Rivalry can be cool, if you're working your way to a grudging respect with a character whose beliefs are different from the hero, but if you do something outrageous that a party member ought not stand for, it would be nice to know that you'll pay the price (by losing that character permanently.)

Yeah, that's probably one way that the system could be improved on.

Smilehigh wrote...

What's the difference between 1 hit
point and 0 hit points? RPGs are stat driven. What you're looking for is probably a dating sim. Well, good for you BIO seems ready to deliver. 

Oh yes, I iz too dumb to understand math...that's not really the point I was trying to make...plus, companion interactions in RPGs are hardly stat driven...

Modifié par jlb524, 14 juin 2011 - 08:27 .

[adneate]

Mr.House wrote...
There's alot of tweaks to be made but it's a better system then what was in DAO.

I don't see how anything based on that Rival / Friend system can ever solve the problem of gameplay / story segregation. It seems to enforce at every opprotunity the idea that what you do in the story has little to no effect or correlation to what you do in the game. In that I would consider it a worse system and one that has to go back to the drawing board for a fundamental and substantial redesign from the ground up.

[Mr.House]

TeenZombie wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

adneate wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
It's on diffrent then treating Alistair like crap and waiting for the whole game to get rid of him. At least with Fenris you can get rid of him during the game or simply don't recruit him.

You keep Fenris around because the game says you have to, Alistair stays with a Warden he hates because he'll claim his duty as a Warden supercedes any personal feelings towards the player character and their actions. Other than that the actions you make in the story part of origins have an effect on the game portion, treating an NPC like dirt gives no bonuses and they'll eventually leave.

In DA2 the gameplay and story are segregated, the actions in one rarely effect the actions in the other. To the point that treating someone badly has the same gameplay result as being their friend, a combat bonus. Once a NPC is picked up you can't get rid of them, while in Origins you can get rid of most of them at any time or through actions.

Sorry but if I treat someone like dirt, they better speak up, not just say I hate you then leave. That's what DA2 did better, it's not a perfect system but the fact that people like Fenris have diffrent dialog if oyu keep treating them like dirt, they don't say one thing, they keep speaking there mind. There's alot of tweaks to be made but it's a better system then what was in DAO.

For example, give a gift to Fenris on the rival path, he refuses to keep it and get's pissed at you, give a gift to say Sten when he has very low approval, you get approval and he says thanks. There's the issue.

The friendship/rivalry system is one of the things I think DA2 did right, but it would be even better if companions (who were not vital to the main plot) had a "crisis point" at which they would not travel with the player character anymore, or even attack.  Rivalry can be cool, if you're working your way to a grudging respect with a character whose beliefs are different from the hero, but if you do something outrageous that a party member ought not stand for, it would be nice to know that you'll pay the price (by losing that character permanently.)

Pretty much this. This is one of the tweaks that need to be made.