738 réponses à ce sujet

[adneate]

jlb524 wrote...
I still think the idea of having two different ways in which a PC can interact with an NPC throughout the story is a good thing.

If you consider strictly binary systems to be the be all end all of PC / NPC interaction, personally I think games can do more and should strive to have more options than just A or B.

[tmp7704]

Mr.House wrote...

Sorry but if I treat someone like dirt, they better speak up, not just say I hate you then leave.

If you treat the companions like dirt in DAO you get immediate responses in kind to your dialogue options, and their reaction to you when you initiate dialogue (along with some other dialogue bits) changes as well. They will also refuse to talk about things which you can ask them about if you're more friendly towards them.

If you choose to ignore all these cues... well, it's up to you of course, but the writing is on the wall there all the time for you to read, before they actually up and leave.

[csfteeeer]

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.

"Sorry but if I treat someone like dirt, they better speak up, not just say I hate you then leave."

Why would they?, they have no reason to stick with you, they have no connection to you, they have no reason to try to be speak to you and just ask for respect that they won't get, and just stand for it, In da2 they never leave.

in DAO at least you had the oportunity to change their minds and allow them to give you an oportunity, and if that didn't work, then that's it, they say goodbye, that's how things are, who would stand someone who is being a D**k with you after you give them an oportunity?.

let's say that you and i are friends, and i'm being a D**k with you, you speak, and that's fine, i agree that you need to speak up, but then i don't do it, what do you?(or what should you do), don't speak to me until i apologize, and if i apologize, and then i treat like S**t again, then you should leave and stop being friends with me, that's life.

that's why the system in DAO was better, if the warden is a dick with someone, they warn you that they will leave, but you can change their mind, and they give a chance, and if you don't complete your promise, THEN they leave.
action -------> reaction, makes sense

in DA2, you can be a dick everybody and they still stick with you, even though they have absolutely no reason to do so, and just speak their mind, but they never leave.

action =/= reaction in DA2.

"That's what DA2 did better"

read what i just said

"it's not a perfect system"

Hell no

" 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."

not FULLY true.
one person can react differently, if someone tries to apologize through gifts, if you give them just a random token, then they have no reason to accept, but if someone gives them a thoughtful, symbolistic gift to someone, the person who receives it will more than likely accept it gladly and forgive the person who gives the gift.

in DAO, you can give very important and symbolistic gifts to your companions ,Say, a Flower of Andraste, for Leliana, or the shield of Duncan, to Alistair, it is a reminder of someone who is very special to them, and they gladly accept it and you get approval (of course that's not like in real where you don't actually have a numeric view of how much they like you , but this is a game), in real life, people would mostly if not completely forgive for a gift like that.

And that's the thing, in DA2 you MOSTLY give very important, wished, and/or sysmbolistic gifts to your companions, but they still don't accept it, or are ingrates.

now, i WILL say that it is kinda silly that you can just give Sten a Random object like earings and still get approval, that IS kinda silly, but that is not the point im making here.

i think i have proven my point.

And don't you DARE to quote me and say "that is my opinion"!!!
cause i just used facts.

Modifié par csfteeeer, 14 juin 2011 - 09:32 .

[jlb524]

adneate wrote...

jlb524 wrote...
I still think the idea of having two different ways in which a PC can interact with an NPC throughout the story is a good thing.

If you consider strictly binary systems to be the be all end all of PC / NPC interaction, personally I think games can do more and should strive to have more options than just A or B.

I think so too...but two is better than one and a step in the right direction for me. 

I would like for there to be a whole slew of different paths your PC could go on with each companion, though there would be a resource limit.  Instead of having the F/R bar, go for a grid with a second axis involving some other aspect or your interaction with that character (perhaps that could be more story focused somehow). 

[Wolfborn Son]

While I think Origins is a better game than Dragon Age II, I have to admit that I think most of the changes are for the best - even if they were poorly implemented.

DA:O disappointed me, albeit on on an emotional level rather than a mechanical. Marketing hype hailed it as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate II and frankly, it isn't. Yes, it had a good story and enjoyable characters - but I expect those things out of Bioware in general and while they were an important part of what made the Baldur's Gate series the magical experience it was, it wasn't the only thing.

The gameplay, at least for me, was one of the reasons I found myself playing the game again and again. Each playthrough felt different, combat required at least some preparation, and even with a good tactic sometimes things went wrong and a party member fell - or worse, exploded into meaty chunks. While I killed dragons every playthrough, the games' system allowed me to take a different approach each time. Sometimes, these approaches didn't always work so great but nevertheless, I had the option.

Dragon Age: Origins doesn't give me that feeling. Combat in general doesn't require any major preparation - you can go into combat without a plan in mind and come up on top. And at the end of combat, even if you're the last man standing, your allies get up without any major penalty. For all the talk of DAII being dumbed when compared to its older brother, I don't see it.

As for folks who say, 'it's sad you need a voice to relate to your character - where's the imagination!?; I felt more emotionally invested in my Hawke than my Warden because of the presentation. While I can imagine my Warden talking, its sort of immersion killing when they show a close up of his face; all flat and emotionless, when someone is confessing love to him. Had they simply showed a back shot, I would have been a lot better.

[Bejos_]

"I've said it before, but the person who I really feel bad for is Felicia Day. She has to sell people on a Web series based on this misfire. (Not really, but I do laugh every time I see her tweet about the series.)"

http://www.neogaf.co...ad.php?t=433894

The NeoGaf thread for this, if anyone's interested. Hilarious, and interesting. Points out where DA2 went wrong and where DA:O went wrong, and what Bioware are going to have to do to have any chance of saving the franchise.
Finding it hard to disagree with anything.

Also contains: The actual reason for EA/Bioware's backpeddaling on the issue of DA2's quality.

Modifié par Bejos_, 14 juin 2011 - 09:23 .

[Brockololly]

Wolfborn Son wrote...

As for folks who say, 'it's sad you need a voice to relate to your character - where's the imagination!?; I felt more emotionally invested in my Hawke than my Warden because of the presentation. While I can imagine my Warden talking, its sort of immersion killing when they show a close up of his face; all flat and emotionless, when someone is confessing love to him. Had they simply showed a back shot, I would have been a lot better.

Again, its a matter of presentation really and not necessarily VO/No VO. Complaining the Warden's face wasn't full of emotion isn't a problem with VO its a problem of trying to apply cinematic principles of movies or a voiced PC to a non voiced PC. And there is nothing stopping them from having more facial animations to the PC, voice or not.

[Persephone]

csfteeeer wrote...

Why would they?, they have no reason to stick with you, they have no connection to you, they have no reason to try to be speak to you and just ask for respect that they won't get, and just stand for it, In da2 they never leave.

in DAO at least you had the oportunity to change their minds and allow them to give you an oportunity, and if that didn't work, then that's it, they say goodbye, that's how things are, who would stand someone who is being a D**k with you after you give them an oportunity?.

let's say that you and i are friends, and i'm being a D**k with you, you speak, and that's fine, i agree that you need to speak up, but then i don't do it, what do you?(or what should you do), don't speak to me until i apologize, and if i apologize, and then i treat like S**t again, then you should leave and stop being friends with me, that's life.

in DA2, you can be a dick everybody and they still stick with you, even though they have absolutely no reason to do so, and just speak their mind, but they never leave.

And that's the thing, in DA2 you supposedly give very important, wished, and/or sysmbolistic gifts to your companions, but they still don't accept it, or are ingrates.

now, i WILL say that it is kinda silly that you can just give Sten a Random object like earings and still get approval, that IS kinda silly, but that is not the point im making here.

i think i have proven my point.

And don't you DARE to quote me and say "that is my opinion"!!!
cause i just used facts.

Um, in DAII they DO leave. My final team for for my latest Warrior playthrough was MUCH smaller than the one I had as a Mage.

You need not be a d*ck to earn rivalry points. Sometimes it's IMO for the character's own good to be on a rivalry. (Esp. Anders, Merrill and Isabela) 

Not all the cutscene gifts in DAII are wished for gifts and no friend/companion will receive every gift gladly. I loved that their reactions to gifts changed based on my standing with them. Much better than the DAO gift spamming.

You haven't proven your point and most of your facts aren't backed up by the game itself, I am sorry.

Modifié par Persephone, 14 juin 2011 - 09:22 .

[Sanguinerin]

mrcrusty wrote...

[...] Granted, not everyone feels this way, but a lot of people who are RPG fans and who were turned off by the game, usually come up with 3 reasons - lack of choice, map recycling and combat. Combat is a more subjective area, so I won't touch that.

[...] As it stands for me, Dragon Age 2 has too many flaws from either an Action or an RPG perspective to be anything more than "average".

More development time for the next game would definitely be appreciated, so I'd agree with the OP.

I think that you expressed my feelings perfectly here, mrcrusty. I agreed with everything you wrote, although I snipped your post for the sake of being a little tidy with my own post.

Indeed, the "innovations" weren't the problem. I didn't have a problem with the ideas that the developers put forth to change the game/series. In fact, I found that some of the ideas were actually quite good. For a couple of examples, The ability to make a substantial choice? That's what I've come to expect from BioWare. Added depth due to family involvement? Wonderful! I'd have loved to have my family around in Origins, too, to see how it changes my decisions.

However, the implementation of said innovations was poorly rendered (in my opinion). It's clear that there needed to be more development time. I have no problem with the developers wanting to make changes, even drastic changes, to something I love. Who knows? I might love the changes more! However, if the changes are going to be so dramatic, then they need the proper amount of time to be done well.

I'm going to make an assumption (I know, I shouldn't) and say that, if the changes had been done well, then the backlash wouldn't nearly have been as terrible as it has been.

I just don't understand why the developers chose to make so many changes when they didn't have the development time to properly carry them all out. I feel like in this particular instance, they failed in making a "priorities" list. It feels like the story fell behind the massive overhaul of the appearance and the system, rather than coming  first. Which, in my opinion, the story should be the primary focus of an RPG.

I'm not one of the "lost fans" but I've certainly become a "skeptical fan," at least with the Dragon Age team. I'm still quite interested in Mass Effect 3, but I'm going to have to wait and see if Dragon Age is going to continue to be absolutely amazing--like I found Origins to be--or if it's going to continue to get shafted with improper development cycles and poor decision-making processes when it comes to priorities.

[Brockololly]

Filament wrote...

Please don't add facial animations to non-voiced PCs. Please. I am not a mime.

Jade Empire did it.

But  I think a first person POV would be ideal for silent PCs when interacting in dialogue, but I doubt BioWare would ever do that, on the all but non existant chance they ever even did a non voiced PC again.

[Bryy_Miller]

Is this actually a thread bashing EA for saying they made a game not everyone liked?

Honestly?

[Herr Uhl]

Filament wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Again, its a matter of presentation really and not necessarily VO/No VO. Complaining the Warden's face wasn't full of emotion isn't a problem with VO its a problem of trying to apply cinematic principles of movies or a voiced PC to a non voiced PC. And there is nothing stopping them from having more facial animations to the PC, voice or not.

Please don't add facial animations to non-voiced PCs. Please. I am not a mime.

It worked pretty well in jade empire.

[csfteeeer]

Persephone wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Why would they?, they have no reason to stick with you, they have no connection to you, they have no reason to try to be speak to you and just ask for respect that they won't get, and just stand for it, In da2 they never leave.

in DAO at least you had the oportunity to change their minds and allow them to give you an oportunity, and if that didn't work, then that's it, they say goodbye, that's how things are, who would stand someone who is being a D**k with you after you give them an oportunity?.

let's say that you and i are friends, and i'm being a D**k with you, you speak, and that's fine, i agree that you need to speak up, but then i don't do it, what do you?(or what should you do), don't speak to me until i apologize, and if i apologize, and then i treat like S**t again, then you should leave and stop being friends with me, that's life.

in DA2, you can be a dick everybody and they still stick with you, even though they have absolutely no reason to do so, and just speak their mind, but they never leave.

And that's the thing, in DA2 you supposedly give very important, wished, and/or sysmbolistic gifts to your companions, but they still don't accept it, or are ingrates.

now, i WILL say that it is kinda silly that you can just give Sten a Random object like earings and still get approval, that IS kinda silly, but that is not the point im making here.

i think i have proven my point.

And don't you DARE to quote me and say "that is my opinion"!!!
cause i just used facts.

Um, in DAII they DO leave. My final team for for my latest Warrior playthrough was MUCH smaller than the one I had as a Mage.

You need not be a d*ck to earn rivalry points. Sometimes it's IMO for the character's own good to be on a rivalry. (Esp. Anders, Merrill and Isabela) 

Not all the cutscene gifts in DAII are wished for gifts and no friend/companion will receive every gift gladly. I loved that their reactions to gifts changed based on my standing with them. Much better than the DAO gift spamming.

You haven't proven your point and most of your facts aren't backed up by the game itself, I am sorry.

You mean with the Final Decision about the Mages, and all that Bulls**t? or selling them out? or convincing them through rivalry and all that?
i know that, i wasn't talking about that, i was talking about the way you treat them.

I KNOW that you don't need to be a d**k to earn rivalry, again that wasn't my point, my point is that why do they still stick if you treat them like Crap? or they simply Hate you for the things you've done?

MOST of the gifts are, i just didn't explain it well, fix'd

i think that's enough.

Modifié par csfteeeer, 14 juin 2011 - 09:37 .

[Guns]

 How to get your customers back.

• Return to Origins' combat. Leave the anime combat in anime and get back to real combat.
• Return to Origin's graphics. Just because people can now instantly recognize the game and say "Hey that's Dragon Age..." doesn't mean anything if it's followed by "that one crappy game with the graphics of a Dragon Ball Z game." Of course they both have Dragon in their title so if that's what you're going for. Better to be grouped with Elder Scrolls, The Witcher,  and D&D; you know good games than with cartoon crap.
  
•  Don't rush it out. If the game is not ready don't release it. Plain and simple.  Bugs, no auto attack, I don't really care just fix it first. Don't fill it up with reused enviroments and waves of enemies.
• Day one DLCs. What  is this? 60 dollars and you can't even give us the whole game? Unacceptable.
• No retconning. Changing lore just because you're in a creative slump pisses a lot of people off. Once you start its a slippery slope. Just look at Blizzard.
• Now I know Mike Laidlaw worked on this game previously so I'll make this clear, THIS IS NOT MASS EFFECT

• [/i]
• No predetermined and voiced character. Dragon Age doesn't need a Shepard. Give us race and origin choices[i]
• No Dialogue wheel. Just because it works better for voiced characters doesn't make it any less limiting. This isn't Mass Effect.
• No action game with rpg elements. Dragon Age is a tactical RPG. Which brings the point of duel wielding warriors. Bring them back. There is plenty to differentiate warriors and rogues and when you cut out duel wielding warriors you ruin 2h style by trying to flashy it up and make it fast. 

Modifié par Guns, 14 juin 2011 - 09:33 .

[the_one_54321]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Is this actually a thread bashing EA for saying they made a game not everyone liked?

Honestly?

No, this is a thread bashing EA for continuing to frame absolutely everything in an "we're AWESOME but..." terminology.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'll admit, I never even noticed it in Jade Empire. I didnt know JE did this until after I'd played it.

[Persephone]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Is this actually a thread bashing EA for saying they made a game not everyone liked?

Honestly?

Never mind that if they went down the Mea Culpa road any further, those who loved & supported the game (Like yours truly) would feel completely tossed aside. I actually already do. It's not pretty that we hardly matter anyway, be it here or in the bloody article itself.

[Xayoz]

Morroian wrote...

Xayoz wrote...

EA wrote...
We tried to innovate and do some different things with the combat system and some of the way we told story.

Awesome way to innovate rpg's storytelling by removing players' ability to make choices.

Except they didn't.

Oh? Then, I must have been unfortunate enough to receive the elusive 'no choice' edition of the game.
I will ask them to send me another one.

[Persephone]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Is this actually a thread bashing EA for saying they made a game not everyone liked?

Honestly?

No, this is a thread bashing EA for continuing to frame absolutely everything in an "we're AWESOME but..." terminology.

So they aren't allowed to disagree with a loud part of their fanbase and actually stand behind their own work? The mind boggles. Because, hey, that would mean that every heavily criticized/maligned artist/writer etc. would have to pander to those who hate/mock/trash/lie about their work. That's self destructive right there. Balance is the key.

[Persephone]

Xayoz wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Xayoz wrote...

EA wrote...
We tried to innovate and do some different things with the combat system and some of the way we told story.

Awesome way to innovate rpg's storytelling by removing players' ability to make choices.

Except they didn't.

Oh? Then, I must have been unfortunate enough to receive the elusive 'no choice' edition of the game.
I will ask them to send me another one.

Probably. I noticed several choices on a personal scope as well as several quest choices that may lead to very interesting consequences in the next game. (Rather than MS Dos epilogue boxes I don't care for) I liked that. Would I have liked more ala TW2? Sure. But the "no choice" thing is just untrue.

[the_one_54321]

Persephone wrote...
So they aren't allowed to disagree with a loud part of their fanbase and actually stand behind their own work? The mind boggles. Because, hey, that would mean that every heavily criticized/maligned artist/writer etc. would have to pander to those who hate/mock/trash/lie about their work. That's self destructive right there. Balance is the key.

DAII has some objectively recognizable serious porblems. Problems with development quality, not just fan preference.
On top of this, DAII has the problem of going a route that a significant fraction of the original DA:O fan group told them over and over that they did not want. What this article amounts to is them saying "well, it's true that a group of our fans didn't want this game and have told us that they diddn't want the game. But we're still awesome."

[Bryy_Miller]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Is this actually a thread bashing EA for saying they made a game not everyone liked?

Honestly?

No, this is a thread bashing EA for continuing to frame absolutely everything in an "we're AWESOME but..." terminology.

Semantics. That's simply just something to latch on to so you can continue to bash them, and quite frankly, I think you know that.

[Guns]

Persephone wrote...

Xayoz wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Xayoz wrote...

EA wrote...
We tried to innovate and do some different things with the combat system and some of the way we told story.

Awesome way to innovate rpg's storytelling by removing players' ability to make choices.

Except they didn't.

Oh? Then, I must have been unfortunate enough to receive the elusive 'no choice' edition of the game.
I will ask them to send me another one.

Probably. I noticed several choices on a personal scope as well as several quest choices that may lead to very interesting consequences in the next game. (Rather than MS Dos epilogue boxes I don't care for) I liked that. Would I have liked more ala TW2? Sure. But the "no choice" thing is just untrue.

Exactly. All of them affect the next game. None of the choices affected the current game which was rediculous. Especially since the game takes place over a decade.