1248 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
That really doesn't change the fact that
contrary to what the person i was replying to claimed, the ability to
choose the species of your character could have significant impact on
the player's experience.

That wasn't the claim. The claim was about the amount of unique content you had per species.

And yes, designing a character who is
afraid of the colour purple also can have such impact. But it's possible
to give the DAO character this exact trait as well. While it's not
possible to make a Hawke that isn't a human. Meaning overall the number
of available permutations in DAO was greater.

Technically, we are in the realm of relatively bigger infinities, if we allow for mental states to play that role. We could quite literally imagine an infinite number of traits for DA2, and even if DA:O has that infinite list +1, the practical signifiance of the objection isn't anything more than the "+1" is fun and the other options aren't.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I personally don't really mind, because I loved the heck out of it on PC. More so than the TW1. So overall, I thought it was an improvement.

That said, I am not a fan of the new alchemy system. I miss making Tawny Owl with dominant Rubedo that makes it heal as well.

Don't get me wrong - TW2 is fun. I like the combat, ridiculous amounts rolling around aside.

My problem, though, is sometimes with the praise TW2 gets. Saying it's the RPG of the year so far, IMO, is totally deserved. Saying it's a testament to a PC-first design, outside of the engine scaling up on DX9 technology, isn't. Because the game was designed for a gamepad and to work on the consoles. Just like those ridiuclous TW2 is a labour of love comments.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
You're making mistake of treating the gear change of the characters as result of the PC "telling them to" as opposed to something that's handled by the player outside of the realm of the game. When there's nothing really that indicates it'd actually be a result of in-game interactions between the characters.

Not to mention it's pretty silly to disallow control over the gear "because they're their own characters" yet still allow it for the accessories, weapons and even combat skills/talents and attributes.

Here is the issue: I think that there is a tension between the player and game aspects of inventory (customizing stats, builds, use, and not having a completely static apperance) and the characterization of the NPC, which means personal expression outside of the control and whims of the player.

Having played DA2, I think the ideal system is something similar to the diversified follower's armour mod: each companion has multiple items to equip (in fact, I would argue it should just be the general loot you find as opposed to Restriction: Aveline type gear) that has a unique texture for every character.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

That wasn't the claim. The claim was about the amount of unique content you had per species.

No, the claim was that the ability to pick your race was "Meaningless. Race selection didn't matter in DAO."

it is possible to interpret it in the way you do, that it was only taking "unique content per species" into account... but that's a narrow interpretation imo, since it ignores how the choice of the race can influence player's own decisions and consequently also what branches of the game they get to see.

Even if we limited it just to unique content per species, there actually is some of it. Which again renders the original claim a simple opinion -- for someone that amount can be "meaningless" and "don't matter", for another person it will matter and will be meaningful enough.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Here is the issue: I think that there is a tension between the player and game aspects of inventory (customizing stats, builds, use, and not having a completely static apperance) and the characterization of the NPC, which means personal expression outside of the control and whims of the player.

Certainly; personally i'm in position that giving the player option to alter the characterization of the NPCs is a plus rather than drawback -- it doesn't alter the story for the player who chooses to keep the NPCs as they're originally made, but it allows to adjust things more to the player's liking if they see need for that. As such, i'm not very fond of artificial limits put on the player in this area when they aren't really necessary.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
No, the claim was that the ability to pick your race was "Meaningless. Race selection didn't matter in DAO."

it is possible to interpret it in the way you do, that it was only taking "unique content per species" into account... but that's a narrow interpretation imo, since it ignores how the choice of the race can influence player's own decisions and consequently also what branches of the game they get to see.

I'm familiar with Sidney's views, so that's what the way it was meant. Sidney and I are on the same page in terms of reactivity.

Even if we limited it just to unique content per species, there actually is some of it. Which again renders the original claim a simple opinion -- for someone that amount can be "meaningless" and "don't matter", for another person it will matter and will be meaningful enough.

Yes. It is an opinion. Both ways. Race selection being a + or - is entirely opinionated, just like open-world exploration. It's all about what you think is good design vs. bad design. And I think reactivity is the gold standard. Hence why I think TW2 executed reactivity far better than any Bioware game, even though Geralt is 2x the fixed character that even Shepard is.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Certainly; personally i'm in position that giving the player option to alter the characterization of the NPCs is a plus rather than drawback -- it doesn't alter the story for the player who chooses to keep the NPCs as they're originally made, but it allows to adjust things more to the player's liking if they see need for that. As such, i'm not very fond of artificial limits put on the player in this area when they aren't really necessary.

I'm incredibly hostile to the player characterizing NPCs, because it is essentially impossible for the writers to actually give any depth to NPCs if you allow a ''fill in the blanks'' approach. I think they're absolutely neccesary, to allow NPCs to be fully fleshed out as characters.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

I'm incredibly hostile to the player characterizing NPCs, because it is essentially impossible for the writers to actually give any depth to NPCs if you allow a ''fill in the blanks'' approach. I think they're absolutely neccesary, to allow NPCs to be fully fleshed out as characters.

Since the idea of "filling the blanks" relies on there being blanks to fill to begin with, i'm not sure i see the issue here. Realistically, it is not possible for NPC to be ever characterized fully which yes, leaves the blanks that can be filled. This is pretty much unavoidable, but it doesn't mean characters can't have "any depth".

To use your own example from earlier, how do you think Isabela feels about colour purple? This is never addressed by the game, like million other preferences and choices, both large and small. Did you ever felt when playing the game this made Isabela a character that lacked any depth?

There's also another aspect here -- that some elements of characterization can be replaced and it can result in character becoming slightly different, but without creating conflict with the larger picture. For example, Anders wearing something other than his DA2 robe is still going to be Anders haunted by his spirit friend. He won't be the exact same Anders anymore but that's pretty much the point of customization.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Since the idea of "filling the blanks" relies on there being blanks to fill to begin with, i'm not sure i see the issue here. Realistically, it is not possible for NPC to be ever characterized fully which yes, leaves the blanks that can be filled. This is pretty much unavoidable, but it doesn't mean characters can't have "any depth".

It's an issue of consistency. It's certainly true that you can't exhaust a character. But what these blanks get into is whether or not something actually is character consistent.

To use your own example from earlier, how do you think Isabela feels about colour purple? This is never addressed by the game, like million other preferences and choices, both large and small. Did you ever felt when playing the game this made Isabela a character that lacked any depth?

Let's use another example: how do you think Isabella feels about covering up? If you could swap out her armour for a Chantry robe, do you think that would be character consistent?

This where we get into an issue. Isabella is not a modest character. Her outfit emphasizes this about her. The number of ways in which a video-game writer can actually get across traits about a character is limited. Relatively fixed outfits are another arrow in the quiver.

There's also another aspect here -- that some elements of characterization can be replaced and it can result in character becoming slightly different, but without creating conflict with the larger picture. For example, Anders wearing something other than his DA2 robe is still going to be Anders haunted by his spirit friend. He won't be the exact same Anders anymore but that's pretty much the point of customization.

Visually, he'd be a different Anders. But not neccesarily character-wise. But if Anders learned blood magic, then that would break his character. Just like it would break Wynne's. You could certainly customize Wynne more by letting her be a bloodmage - but it's antithetical to who Wynne is.

[FieryDove]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It isn't in the game now.  That tells us nothing at all about whether it was in the game then.

They conspicuously stopped talking about the camera as soon as the game went gold.  I noticed.  I pointed it out at the time.  I asked pointed questions when the feature was missing from the demo.

There were many questions post demo and many answers that all amounted to the same thing. (Demo was an old build). I would imagine the people that like auto attack on consoles were a bit upset over its lack as well.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Let's use another example: how do you think Isabella feels about covering up? If you could swap out her armour for a Chantry robe, do you think that would be character consistent?

This where we get into an issue. Isabella is not a modest character. Her outfit emphasizes this about her. The number of ways in which a video-game writer can actually get across traits about a character is limited. Relatively fixed outfits are another arrow in the quiver.

This example highlights something actually -- in the short story released when Isabela's character was first revealed, there's explicit passage about her outfit, and how it's a result of an accident rather than conscious choice. As such this interpretation of it (putting emphasis on lack of modesty) can be seen as actually skewing her character, compared to how she's being portrayed in that story and perhaps intended. Potentially making it a far bigger factor of her personality than it actually is.

I mention it because it shows how easy it is for the player to get an idea about characterization of the NPC based on nothing but their own interpretation of very limited facts, and how quick they can be to believe that their interpretation is the one that's right, and 100% intended by the writer. When it doesn't have to be the case. (this isn't to say my interpretation is any closer to what's intended. It's just to point out how much of it is created entirely in player's own head)

Now, regarding the question if she'd swap her armour for the chantry robe. This will depend on how the player chooses to interpret her character, and also how they choose to fill these blanks which are bound to exist.  Someone may choose to stick with the default outfit, deciding it's expression of her character and so the robe would be out of the question (ironically questionable as it is, as mentioned earlier)  Someone else may decide that yes, Isabela could put on the chantry outfit because she's a prankster and she'd enjoy making people uncomfortable with combination of that outfit and her usual behaviour. Yet someone else may decide that maybe she'd put it on as part of attempt to throw off her pursuers. Etc, and so on. The point is, while we learn from the game that Isabela isn't modest and doesn't mind wearing what she's wearing, that by no means excludes numerous possibilities why she could wear something else, none of them breaking her characterization as we know it (and according to how we individually choose to interpret it)

And even if some such possibilities may break the characterization and make the character someone else, then the question is, so what? If it happens, it happens in another person's game, and they're apparently fine with the idea of breaking the characterization in such manner. Perhaps they even have their reasons for that, which to them make perfect sense. As such, i really don't see any benefit in taking that option away from them.

Modifié par tmp7704, 20 juin 2011 - 12:38 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...

This example highlights something actually -- in the short story released when Isabela's character was first revealed, there's explicit passage about her outfit, and how it's a result of an accident rather than conscious choice. As such this interpretation of it (putting emphasis on lack of modesty) can be seen as actually skewing her character, compared to how she's being portrayed in that story and perhaps intended. Potentially making it a far bigger factor of her personality than it actually is.

I mention it because it shows how easy it is for the player to get an idea about characterization of the NPC based on nothing but their own interpretation of very limited facts, and how quick they can be to believe that their interpretation is the one that's right, and 100% intended by the writer. When it doesn't have to be the case. (this isn't to say my interpretation is any closer to what's intended. It's just to point out how much of it is created entirely in player's own head)

Actually, this is illustrates the problem with creating your own character content - in this case, I'm wrong about her character. But I'm wrong about her character because there was a secret tidbit about her that was entirely not part of the game.

Well, what if I think Isabella only wears the most revealing possible outfits now? I'd be wrong. But what you're suggesting is that I should be right - I should get to decide that Isabella really is entirely like that.

My objection is precisely that such things ought to be carefully controlled & addressed by the writers, to create a coherent character where such mistakes are avoidable.

Now, regarding the question if she'd swap her armour for the chantry robe. This will depend on how the player chooses to interpret her character, and also how they choose to fill these blanks which are bound to exist.  Someone may choose to stick with the default outfit, deciding it's expression of her character (questionable as it is, as mentioned earlier)

Or it may depend on the player willfully overwriting the character, like blood magic on Wynne.

Someone else may decide that yes, Isabela could put on the chantry outfit because she's a prankster and she'd enjoy making people uncomfortable with combination of that outfit and her usual behaviour. Yet someone else may decide that maybe she'd put it on as part of attempt to throw off her pursuers. Etc, and so on. The point is, while we learn from the game that Isabela isn't modest and doesn't mind wearing what she's wearing, that by no means excludes numerous possibilities why she could wear something else, and none of them breaking her characterization as we know it.

Actually, in this case, my intepretation would break her character as you described it. I would say explicitly that Isabella wants to dress that way. But the reality was that it was accidental. So I've overwriten her character because of a blank.

And even if some such possibilities may break the characterization and make the character someone else, then the question is, so what? If it happens, it happens in another person's game, and they're apparently fine with the idea of breaking the characterization in such manner. Perhaps they even have their reasons for that, which to them make perfect sense. As such, i really don't see any benefit in taking that option away from them.

You objected to PC VO once. If my reply was 'so what', would you think that was a good answer? Why would you think it's a good answer here?

Consistency, for me, is an end in itself. Not having consistent characters dramatically wrecks my enjoyment of the game. Why should I have to support a system that makes me enjoy the game less? I'm not advocating anything for the sake of other gamers - they can do that for themselves. I'm advocating features I like.

[Redcoat]

tmp7704 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Let's use another example: how do you think Isabella feels about covering up? If you could swap out her armour for a Chantry robe, do you think that would be character consistent?

This where we get into an issue. Isabella is not a modest character. Her outfit emphasizes this about her. The number of ways in which a video-game writer can actually get across traits about a character is limited. Relatively fixed outfits are another arrow in the quiver.

This example highlights something actually -- in the short story released when Isabela's character was first revealed, there's explicit passage about her outfit, and how it's a result of an accident rather than conscious choice. As such this interpretation of it (putting emphasis on lack of modesty) can be seen as actually skewing her character, compared to how she's being portrayed in that story and perhaps intended. Potentially making it a far bigger factor of her personality than it actually is.

I mention it because it shows how easy it is for the player to get an idea about characterization of the NPC based on nothing but their own interpretation of very limited facts, and how quick they can be to believe that their interpretation is the one that's right, and 100% intended by the writer. When it doesn't have to be the case. (this isn't to say my interpretation is any closer to what's intended. It's just to point out how much of it is created entirely in player's own head)

Now, regarding the question if she'd swap her armour for the chantry robe. This will depend on how the player chooses to interpret her character, and also how they choose to fill these blanks which are bound to exist.  Someone may choose to stick with the default outfit, deciding it's expression of her character and so the robe would be out of the question (ironically questionable as it is, as mentioned earlier)  Someone else may decide that yes, Isabela could put on the chantry outfit because she's a prankster and she'd enjoy making people uncomfortable with combination of that outfit and her usual behaviour. Yet someone else may decide that maybe she'd put it on as part of attempt to throw off her pursuers. Etc, and so on. The point is, while we learn from the game that Isabela isn't modest and doesn't mind wearing what she's wearing, that by no means excludes numerous possibilities why she could wear something else, and none of them breaking her characterization as we know it (and how we individually choose to interpret it)

And even if some such possibilities may break the characterization and make the character someone else, then the question is, so what? If it happens, it happens in another person's game, and they're apparently fine with the idea of breaking the characterization in such manner. Perhaps they even have their reasons for that, which to them make perfect sense. As such, i really don't see any benefit in taking that option away from them.

I agree wholeheartedly.  When I give, say, Alistair a new piece of armour, I don't imagine it as the Warden saying, "Here, wear this," but rather Alistair deciding to wear a different kind of armour, with whatever justification I can imagine for him. The same is true of Wynne becomign a blood mage; you might believe it inconsistent with her character, and so you have the ability not to give her that specialisation. But you still have the choice of giving it to her, and you are free to role-play a justification for her picking that specialisation. The thing is not taking choices away from the player.

As for the characters' appearances, I don't believe their appearances are such an integral part of their character that it justifies them wearing something thoroughly inapporpriate into battle (just look at Jack in ME2, for example). But I think there's a compromise: let the characters wear their "signature outfits" in their home bases, such as the Hanged Man, but let us choose what they wear outside of that, where what they wear actually matters.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Actually, this is illustrates the problem with creating your own character content - in this case, I'm wrong about her character. But I'm wrong about her character because there was a secret tidbit about her that was entirely not part of the game.

But the real question is -- did being wrong about her character make you think her characterization was lacking, or broken? Did it detract from enjoying her character and the game overall?

Because if not, then there's no actual "problem" with creating your own character content, here. And it isn't something that has to be carefully controlled and addressed.

You objected to PC VO once. If my reply was 'so what', would you think that was a good answer? Why would you think it's a good answer here?

Because it's apples and oranges. The PC VO isn't something which you can use optionally in your game if you feel like it, while i play my game without the VO and with dialogue choices presented as full text. On the other hand, the ability to put the chantry robe on Isabela or to make Anders the blood mage are fully optional.

And believe me, if the PC VO was as optional as these things, i'd never object to it. Because what reason i'd have for such objection?

Consistency, for me, is an end in itself. Not having consistent characters dramatically wrecks my enjoyment of the game. Why should I have to support a system that makes me enjoy the game less? I'm not advocating anything for the sake of other gamers - they can do that for themselves. I'm advocating features I like.

But you can have your 100% consistent game as i see it -- keep your characters in their default outfits, stick to the default level up choices. You'll get the experience exactly as the designers intended, so what about it is going to make you enjoy your game less?

[Jerrybnsn]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

-Semper- wrote...

it's true that the ranting voices in the interweb are a tiny percentage of the whole base, but these are the opinions they recognize and the majority of them feel cheated. how can bioware ever be in a state to claim how the silent user at home feels about their game? how do they know that 90% of the buyers love their game?

Their games gather statistics.  They can compare the number of people who bought DAO to the number of people who finished DAO.  If the percentage of people who bought DA2 and finished DA2 is higher than the DAO completion percentage, then they know they're doing something right with DA2.

{spews coffee all over the screen}  The only way to get that information is if they go online to this site where it automatically updates your characters level.  And remember this is a very small minority of a small minority that will post here. And it's been said over and over and over and over and over and over and over....that those playthroughs are just the games experiencing the different storylines male/female, dwarf, city-elf, dalish elf, noble, commoner.  Myself I only had eight straight play throughs while I had started about sixteen different games.

[In Exile]

Redcoat wrote...
I agree wholeheartedly.  When I give, say, Alistair a new piece of armour, I don't imagine it as the Warden saying, "Here, wear this," but rather Alistair deciding to wear a different kind of armour, with whatever justification I can imagine for him. The same is true of Wynne becomign a blood mage; you might believe it inconsistent with her character, and so you have the ability not to give her that specialisation. But you still have the choice of giving it to her, and you are free to role-play a justification for her picking that specialisation. The thing is not taking choices away from the player.

Wynne had cut content where she chooses to die rather than work with a blood mage PC. If generating your own content is that dear to you, I'd say that what you're really interested in is fan-fiction. I don't mean this in a derrogatory way; rather, it seems that you're more interesting in imagination than tangible content.

As for DA:O and equipment, I don't buy it. Morrigain, when she gives you her gift, outright says you give her equipment. She has a line about it. You may want to hand-wave that away, but insofar as the game is concerned (explicitly) you're dressing the other characters by giving them the equipment.

As for the characters' appearances, I don't believe their appearances are such an integral part of their character that it justifies them wearing something thoroughly inapporpriate into battle (just look at Jack in ME2, for example). But I think there's a compromise: let the characters wear their "signature outfits" in their home bases, such as the Hanged Man, but let us choose what they wear outside of that, where what they wear actually matters.

I don't think outfits are integral. Rather, I think they are one of the few tools that the writers have to characterize in-game, where you have limited opportunities to actually characterize NPCs.

tmp7704 wrote...
But the real question is -- did being wrong
about her character make you think her characterization was lacking, or
broken? Did it detract from enjoying her character and the game overall??

Yes.

Because
if not, then there's no actual "problem" with creating your own
character content, here. And it isn't something that has to be carefully
controlled and addressed.?

It did. This is why I bring up the issue.

Because it's apples
and oranges. The PC VO isn't something which you can use optionally in
your game if you feel like it, while i play my game without the VO and
with dialogue choices presented as full text. On the other hand, the
ability to put the chantry robe on Isabela or to make Anders the blood
mage are fully optional.

If we have the DA:O structure, then I can't use equipment optionally. I can either choose to gimp my party or use equipment that seems to break character. Or otherwise have suboptimally designed party members, because they don't have unique builds that are actually useful.

And believe me, if the PC VO was
as optional as these things, i'd never object to it. Because what reason
i'd have for such objection??

That it's investment in a feature you don't use, which costs you content you like. Let's say that Bioware could make PC VO optional, but you'd have a game with 40% less content than the PC-VO only game. Would you want that over a silent PC only game?

But you can have your 100% consistent game as i
see it -- keep your characters in their default outfits, stick to the
default level up choices. You'll get the experience exactly as the
designers intended, so what about it is going to make you enjoy your
game less?

No, I won't. Because I'll have a gimped character on nightmare and I won't be able to enjoy min-maxing, being stuck with a single build.

You happen to think that visual costumization and statistical customization are the same thing. But they're not.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
But the real question is -- did being wrong about her character make you think her characterization was lacking, or broken? Did it detract from enjoying her character and the game overall??

Yes.

How so? Until five minutes ago you didn't even know your interpretation of her character was possibly wrong. You seemed to have your idea of Isabela's characterization that's consistent to the point where you felt it was okay to declare what wouldn't be consistent for her character. This doesn't really strike me as sign of doubt in strength of her characterization, as you experienced it.

If we have the DA:O structure, then I can't use equipment optionally. I can either choose to gimp my party or use equipment that seems to break character. Or otherwise have suboptimally designed party members, because they don't have unique builds that are actually useful.

I think it's debatable because i've kept my Morrigan in her unique robe and she performed fine in it all way to the game's end. In any case this is probably moot point since the DA2 launch, as it brings the auto-levelling equipment to the game.

The unique builds being potentially not useful could be a problem if these builds are actually configured in wrong manner, but this is something which shouldn't be present if the game is made by competent people, no? Again using DAO as example here, i've actually allowed all my companions to auto-level (because while i enjoy the options to customize, i also like having the companions 'as the writers intended' where applicable)  and they were competent/useful enough to allow me finish the game without issues. BioWare games can be many things, but they certainly don't require the player to min-max everything for all the possible 1% gains just so you can finish the playthrough. The munchkin idea of "optimal" is in them entirely optional.

That it's investment in a feature you don't use, which costs you content you like. Let's say that Bioware could make PC VO optional, but you'd have a game with 40% less content than the PC-VO only game. Would you want that over a silent PC only game?

That really depends on what content we're talking about. 40% less of the generic NPC attack waves? Yes, please.

Snark aside, i think we can agree that the sort of options we're talking about here isn't something that's going to cost anywhere near that in term of alternative content. You could actually argue that locking down the options which are allowed by default (generic talent trees, ability to equip gear exactly like every other NPC and your own character) cost the extra development time, not the other way around.

No, I won't. Because I'll have a gimped character on nightmare and I won't be able to enjoy min-maxing, being stuck with a single build.

... last i checked, min-maxing was configuring the built of your character without regard for how little sense (if any at all) it means when it comes to consistency of the "character" of said NPC. So how do you do that --and demand the game should allow it-- while at the same time insisting that the characterization of the NPC should be 100% consistent?

Or to put it in another way, how do you rationalize that the game should leave no room for the "player content" when it comes to NPC characterization, yet at the same time want to have choices when it comes to selecting attributes, skills etc which goes absolutely against it and is very much 'creating the player content'? After all, when you choose a skill over another you decide this skill (and not the other) is "consistent with the character".

Modifié par tmp7704, 20 juin 2011 - 01:32 .

[Firky]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Their games gather statistics.  They can compare the number of people who bought DAO to the number of people who finished DAO.  If the percentage of people who bought DA2 and finished DA2 is higher than the DAO completion percentage, then they know they're doing something right with DA2.

The only way to get that information is if they go online to this site where it automatically updates your characters level.  And remember this is a very small minority of a small minority that will post here.

Sorry. I just snipped out the relevant bits.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you click yes to say that you consent to the game collecting info while you play? I'm pretty sure I did. One of the designers in the strategy forum pulled out a really specific statistic on difficulty a month or so ago. Personally, I'd love to see the stats that the game gathers. (But, I can't picture that info being released.)

[Atakuma]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Their games gather statistics.  They can compare the number of people who bought DAO to the number of people who finished DAO.  If the percentage of people who bought DA2 and finished DA2 is higher than the DAO completion percentage, then they know they're doing something right with DA2.

{spews coffee all over the screen}  The only way to get that information is if they go online to this site where it automatically updates your characters level. 

That is not true at all. They can gather data from anyone who has the box checked on the options menu.

Modifié par Atakuma, 20 juin 2011 - 01:37 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
How so? Until five minutes ago you didn't even know your interpretation of her character was possibly wrong.

That was based on the evidence I had at the time, i.e. the content in DA2. I didn't know there was extra content about the character. I'm actually a little miffed about that.

You seemed to have your idea of Isabela's characterization that's consistent to the point where you felt it was okay to declare what wouldn't be consistent for her character. This doesn't really strike me as sign of doubt in strength of her characterization, as you experienced it.

I felt that it was consistent with what we see in DA2. But it is not apparently consistent with a short-story about her. It's no different than believing that there are no black swans, up until I see a black swan.

I think it's debatable because i've kept my Morrigan in her unique robe and she performed fine in it all way to the game's end. In any case this is probably moot point since the DA2 launch, as it brings the auto-levelling equipment to the game.

Morrigain is a unique case, because she's a mage, and mage gear in DA:O doesn't really scale with level. But let's say Alistair had unique level 5 gear, with +6 armour. The difference between that an +26 or 30+ with +50 stamina, +3 STR, 3+ CON armour is significant.

Mages get to avoid bonuses from equipment through magic in DA:O (with + armour + spellpower and +dodge bonuses).

The unique builds being potentially not useful could be a problem if these builds are actually configured in wrong manner, but this is something which shouldn't be present if the game is made by competent people, no? Again using DAO as example here, i've actually allowed all my companions to auto-level (because while i enjoy the options to customize, i also like having the companions 'as the writers intended' where applicable)  and they were competent/useful enough to allow me finish the game without issues. BioWare games can be many things, but they certainly don't require the player to min-max everything for all the possible 1% gains just so you can finish the playthrough. The munchkin idea of "optimal" is in them entirely optional.

While DA:O is very easy on nightmare with the right build, it can become a horrid, horrid grind with (for example) builds that eschew direct damage.

Bioware games aren't well designed, and difficulty in a Bioware game is just + resistances, - PC dmg+heal and + enemy health (to a rather significant extent).

That really depends on what content we're talking about. 40% less of the generic NPC attack waves? Yes, please.

2 less NPCs, and 1 less act.

Snark aside, i think we can agree that the sort of options we're talking about here isn't something that's going to cost anywhere near that in term of alternative content. You could actually argue that locking down the options which are allowed by default (generic talent trees, ability to equip gear exactly like every other NPC and your own character) cost the extra development time, not the other way around.

It doesn't matter. I don't see why any user should ever settle for advocating for anything less than their ideal game.

... last i checked, min-maxing was configuring the built of your character without regard for how little sense (if any at all) it means when it comes to consistency of the "character" of said NPC. So how do you do that while at the same time insisting that the characterization of the NPC should be 100% consistent?

I do it within the scope of their character, e.g. Sten is a 2H warrior, but you can easily optimize 2H warriors in either DA:O or DA2. There's nothing in-game about Sten being a 2H warrior that only uses +aggro and avoids any direct dmg talents. The same with Fenris in DA2.

The problem comes from either arbitrary restrictions (why can't Anders learn the primal tree?) or gimped abilities (shapeshifting sucks) or a 1-true build (e.g. BM/SH in DA:O).

Or to put it in another way, how do you rationalize that the game should leave no room for the "player content" when it comes to NPC characterization, yet at the same time want to have choices when it comes to selecting attributes, skills etc which goes absolutely against it? After all, when you choose a skill over another you decide this skill (and not the other) is "consistent with the character".

It's just a bounded system. I wouldn't (for example) make Morrigain an arcane warrior or Wynne a bloodmage or direct dmg mage, but I can build an ideal buffing platform or direct dmg elemental mage.

Modifié par In Exile, 20 juin 2011 - 01:39 .

[Redcoat]

This sounds like a question of gameplay and story segregation.

Isabela or Varric's outfits are totally in character for the sort of thing they might wear at the Hanged Man, but in battle? Would either of them be so stupid as to wear something that exposes their hearts to every stray blade and arrow? It's as absurd as in Mass Effect 2 where Jack wears her barely-there outfit in a vacuum or where Miranda wears high-heels into combat. Which is why that, in combat, where what a party member wears has an actual impact on gameplay, such things should always remain in the hands of the player.

[astrallite]

Xewaka wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...
"Critically it's been successful". No it hasn't. Its metacritic score is by far lower than any other Bioware RPG ever.

"Critically" means "by critics". Trolls bombing metacritic with 1s are not critics.

Yes, I meant by critics. By critics, Dragon Age II has by an absolute mile the lowest critical reception of any bioware rpg.

DA 2, for the critics, places about as high as Jade Empire and higher than Sonic Chronicles. So it's not lowest, but second or thrid lowest. Considering main game only, and not expansions or DLC (which rank very, very low for Bioware regardless of its parent game).

Jade Empire got an 89, DA2 is hovering around 79-80. Unless you are counting the PC port done by a 3rd party...

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

That was based on the evidence I had at the time, i.e. the content in DA2. I didn't know there was extra content about the character. I'm actually a little miffed about that.

I felt that it was consistent with what we see in DA2. But it is not apparently consistent with a short-story about her. It's no different than believing that there are no black swans, up until I see a black swan.

Yes, it's pretty similar. Or maybe rather (since it's about learning something that makes you change view about a character) it's like believing the swans are 100% heterosexual until one day you see one male mounting another. But my question/doubt remains -- while you're unaware of this extra fact, your experience isn't really different from the experience you have afterwards. In both cases you are convinced that you have proper and full idea of the character's personality.

Morrigain is a unique case, because she's a mage, and mage gear in DA:O doesn't really scale with level. But let's say Alistair had unique level 5 gear, with +6 armour. The difference between that an +26 or 30+ with +50 stamina, +3 STR, 3+ CON armour is significant.

Morrigan gets upgraded robe at some point actually  (after/if you pay Flemmeth a visit you get one which looks the same but has updated stats) I can quite easily see similar equipment swap mechanics used for the other characters. In any case, with the auto-levelling items this is really moot.

Snark aside, i think we can agree that the sort of options we're talking about here isn't something that's going to cost anywhere near that in term of alternative content. You could actually argue that locking down the options which are allowed by default (generic talent trees, ability to equip gear exactly like every other NPC and your own character) cost the extra development time, not the other way around.

It doesn't matter. I don't see why any user should ever settle for advocating for anything less than their ideal game.

The way i see it, since my ideal game isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, it's better in the long run if they can make games which also appeal to other people. It may be at my expense, but this way the devs get enough money to develop more games that i can enjoy, rather than go bankrupt leaving me with single ideal game but nothing after that.

There's also the fact that while i prefer the game to be made in certain way it doesn't mean i can't enjoy the content i'm not 100% enthusiastic about. As such, these alternatives which eat part of resources aren't necessarily always a total loss for me.

And finally --maybe because i can enjoy these different things-- the "ideal game" is quite nebulous for me. It'd be hard for me to describe it aside from some possible features. So i'm not going to resent it if part of the resources is spent on things which i don't necessarily prefer... because who knows, maybe it turns out for that particular game they'll really make sense and i'll have fun with them.

I do it within the scope of their character, e.g. Sten is a 2H warrior, but you can easily optimize 2H warriors in either DA:O or DA2. There's nothing in-game about Sten being a 2H warrior that only uses +aggro and avoids any direct dmg talents. The same with Fenris in DA2.

But that's the thing -- there's nothing in game about Sten being certain type of 2H warrior... except isn't it the exact sort of a "blank" that you advocate the game should address and lock down, to avoid any sort of "player content" filling it? Shouldn't Sten be certain and precisely defined kind of the 2H warrior, if his characterization is supposed to be as complete as possible?
 
And of course, "there's nothing about him being certain kind of warrior in-game" ignores the fact that his auto-level scheme follows certain, fixed path. I.e. something that's apparently the developers' vision how his character should progress...

Modifié par tmp7704, 20 juin 2011 - 02:11 .

[Iehoa0083]

DSerpa wrote...

I love how PR spins re-used maps as "innovative".

Right on, brother, right on.

[kjdhgfiliuhwe]

The only review that matters is the player reviews, and by that metric, DA 2 is by far the worst game Bioware has ever made. And don't give me some waah waaah about people intentionally downrating the game. Well, duh. That's the whole point of player reviews.

That said, as Mr. Gaider himself pointed out, from a financial stand point, if the game has a very short development cycle (has an RPG ever had a shorter one than DA2 at what...15 months?), then it doesn't need to sell as much as DA:O did to be financially successful.

So, while there's plenty of marketspeak in the interviews they've done since DA2 was released, I'm sure they're absolutely right in that DA 2 was a financial success. How could it not be when it only had a 15 month development cycle?

The question Bioware has to ask is: is financial success all that matters to them now that they are owned by EA? Obviously they're out to make money, but the old Bioware used to make an attempt at making good games, and the profits would follow.

I, for one, actually enjoyed the over-arching story, if not the fact that you needed the DLC to understand what a smokescreen most of the story is, nor the fact that it was completely unresolved , when it shouldn't have been as the game was so incredibly short on par with the length of a typical action rpg, which in all fairness, is basically what Dragon Age is seemingly turning into. I didn't even really have issues with combat, as it really is just sped up DA:O combat for the most part. What I had huge issues with was how incredibly rushed and shallow the game was. Bioware didn't used to rush games out like this. Considering what a success DA:O was, it's a complete /boggle as to why someone thought the series essentially needed a reboot in this stripped down five map rush job.

I, for one, have been loathe to admit that being bought out by EA may have essentially killed off Bioware as we knew it, since many of the old names were still around (and I have been a Gaider fan since Throne of Bhaal), but I think it is time to face the music. It'd probably be more honest for them to just call themselves EA RPG (in the vein of EA Sports), and retire the Bioware name to the pasture, but of course they won't. Bioware, as a name/symbol, still holds weight, and they'll milk that as long as they can.

What a shame.

Edit: Also, Laidlaw should go make another Sonic the Hedgehog game, as he clearly was not the producer amongst the several at the helm of DA:O that actually knew what he was doing. How he became the sole producer, out of the many from DA:O, choosen to helm DA 2...well, I can only imagine the internal politics behind that. 

Modifié par kjdhgfiliuhwe, 20 juin 2011 - 02:41 .

[Morroian]

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

The only review that matters is the player reviews, and by that metric, DA 2 is by far the worst game Bioware has ever made. And don't give me some waah waaah about people intentionally downrating the game. Well, duh. That's the whole point of player reviews.

So you think scores of 0 are warranted and are not indicative of an irrational, emotional reaction.

Modifié par Morroian, 20 juin 2011 - 02:44 .