1248 réponses à ce sujet

[FieryDove]

In Exile wrote...

ME2 was an excellent game under EA leadership. Certainly better than ME1. Say what you want about it as an RPG, but it was well designed.

I disagree if you are talking about the PC version. I think it would have been best with a controller all the way round. But I don't have one. sigh

Oh and adding even more mandatory mini-games didn't help the appeal for some. Planet scanning won't die either according to devs.

All imho, everyone likes/dislikes whatever they want. It's up to us to buy it...or not.

[erynnar]

In Exile wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
Yes; considering in the new system you don't even have to bribe the NPCs after you're done murdering babies.

The problem with the new system is that it doesn't allow you to reject the relationship entirely. But DA:O doesn't allow you to challenge beliefs. You don't have to interact with your party members in DA2, either.

I'm confused, you didn't have to interact with your party members in DAO that much either. If you ran out of conversations with them early one, then it was in your power to do so. You also didn't have to use bribes if you didn't ant to. Again, gift giving was your choice. No one held a gun to your head to make you bribe them.

Neither system was perfect, but DA2 (along with the rest of the game) was so restrictive. Seriously, I woo Fen, we do the deed, he leaves and my Hawke pines for three years? Because otherwise, well I woudn't have the opportunity to get back with him. Unless of course, I was willing to **** myself around in one night stands.

I honestly don't know if the rivalry/friendship was in the right direction. Something is definitely missing (from DAO's too, but it felt more like the right direction rather than me pissing someone off just to have hot angry wall sex). At least DAO if I bribed them, the choice was mine. If I pissed them off enough, they left or tried to kill me and leave. The only ones who leave are Fen and Isabela?

I don't envy BioWare on this one. It's a hard little nugget of a puzzle to work on. One thing? More control over where, when, and how often I speak to them would be a hell of a lot better than DA2's version of only if they want to use me and in their houses. Someplace like the Hanged Man could have substituted for camp.

[erynnar]

Aaleel wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Sidney wrote...


Except for me crafting, inventory, skills and grpahics are better - and better > more. The idea that having to click more stuff is better is where you go off the rails.

The skills both in the web format as opposed to ladders and the actual implementation of the skills were better. There seemed to be a lot less nerfed skills (mana clash, cone of cold) than in DAO. The addition of the CCC also added a nice element ot the game play.

The graphics were better. There were art design issues (darkspawn, weapons and armor being the top 3 for me) but the game did look better in most shots.

I liked more the oldest crafting system, but to me crafting is the more complicated the better, and if you need workbanks perfect.

I liked the skill system more here too, but again I needed to take skills I wasn´t interested in to get the ones I wanted. Not a big problem, but they´d said that would no longer be necessary.

At least in my PC DA2 doesn´t have better graphics, either that or the poor scenario design doesn´t allow the graphics to shine at all.

I liked the DA:O system just due to the fact that you could make items in the field.  But honestly DA2 has no crafting system.  All you're doing is buying items just like you would from a street merchant, it just allows you to shop at home.  But you aren't actually crafting anything yourself.  You're finding all the ingredients yourself and paying someone to get back the stuff you found.

I'm with you on this one. Crafting in DAO was just fine by me. I never even thought to complain about it, not even when I had to run back to the tower for glass flasks on occasion ( I usually needed to sell **** anyways). If I am already at a vendor selling crap (I was really annoyed on the Wounded Coast untl that one dude finally showed up, and even then, at the ass end of the coast from where you came in *sigh*) then buying flasks or distilling agent is not a big deal to me.

Buying it in my own house was just silly.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

But DA:O doesn't allow you to challenge beliefs.

That's true, but to be honest i don't actually like this aspect of the mechanics in the slightest. At least not the way DA2 did it -- it feels silly that you can make just about anyone do a 180 turn on their most heated subject if only you strongly voice your opinion enough times. It makes the NPCs feel less like their own entities and more like just a vehicle to stroke the player's ego. More blatantly than it's usually done, that is.

Additionally the game punishes you if you try the opposite i.e. make Hawke "change opinion" and switch from rivalry to friendship path (or the other way around) after some time... because that nets you getting back to the middle, and that is nowhere.

(granted, the latter affected DAO as well)

Modifié par tmp7704, 23 juin 2011 - 05:40 .

[erynnar]

tmp7704 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

But DA:O doesn't allow you to challenge beliefs.

That's true, but to be honest i don't actually like this aspect of the mechanics in the slightest. At least not the way DA2 did it -- it feels silly that you can make just about anyone do a 180 turn on their most heated subject if only you strongly voice your opinion enough times. It makes the NPCs feel less like their own entities and more like just a vehicle to stroke the player's ego. More blatantly than it's usually done, that is.

Additionally the game punishes you if you try the opposite i.e. make Hawke "change opinion" and switch from rivalry to friendship path (or the other way around) after some time... because that nets you getting back to the middle, and that is nowhere.

(granted, the latter affected DAO as well)

I think part of the problem with DA2's system, was that the companions never evolved. I challenged Fenris on his most cherished hatred of mages. I made him a rivalmance for my...mage!, Yes, mage. Not only does he hate mages with a passion, but I deliberately pissed him off and he still loved my mage. And if I had friendmanced him, the result would still be the same. 

He just says that all mages aren't like Hawke. No matter how many templar abuses of mages or them being slaves. It doesn't matter if he is wearing my Hawke's red panties..erm bandana, on his arm and her family shield on his belt. He still whines about mages being all evil.

I don't know if it's possible to show that kind of evolution due to cost (more lines for the VA? More writing for the writers--don't hate me*cringes*. More deve time?).

LIke I said, this is a difficult nut to crack. But if anyone can do it, BioWare's talented people can. It will never be perfect (we sentient beings are just to complex to translate all that to a game). But they do companions so well, if anyone can, they can.

[In Exile]

erynnar wrote...
I'm confused, you didn't have to interact with your party members in DAO that much either. If you ran out of conversations with them early one, then it was in your power to do so. You also didn't have to use bribes if you didn't ant to. Again, gift giving was your choice. No one held a gun to your head to make you bribe them.

That's what I'm saying. If you don't want to change anyone's beliefs, and you don't want to befriend them, you can refuse to interact with them.

Them not liking you now is measured by being in the centre of the bar as opposed to the sides.

Neither system was perfect, but DA2 (along with the rest of the game) was so restrictive. Seriously, I woo Fen, we do the deed, he leaves and my Hawke pines for three years? Because otherwise, well I woudn't have the opportunity to get back with him. Unless of course, I was willing to **** myself around in one night stands.

That's not a problem with friendship & rivalry - that's just Bioware's failure to handle the 3-year gap.

I honestly don't know if the rivalry/friendship was in the right direction. Something is definitely missing (from DAO's too, but it felt more like the right direction rather than me pissing someone off just to have hot angry wall sex). At least DAO if I bribed them, the choice was mine. If I pissed them off enough, they left or tried to kill me and leave. The only ones who leave are Fen and Isabela?

Anders can leave if you do his Act II quest, and obviously there's the permanent solution in Act III. If you don't max out friendship or rivalry, then you have NPCs betray you at the Act III endgame.

I don't envy BioWare on this one. It's a hard little nugget of a puzzle to work on. One thing? More control over where, when, and how often I speak to them would be a hell of a lot better than DA2's version of only if they want to use me and in their houses. Someplace like the Hanged Man could have substituted for camp.

Sure. But that's not an issue with the friendship & rivalry system.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

That's what I'm saying. If you don't want to change anyone's beliefs, and you don't want to befriend them, you can refuse to interact with them.

But what if i don't want to change their beliefs, but i still want to be friends with them? Having friends with views different from one's own is a good thing, it provides different perspectives and something we can debate about over the beer, like deep issues which don't have an obvious answer.

(or what if i want to just ****** them off to the point they never want to have anything to do with me again...)

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
That's true, but to be honest i don't actually like this aspect of the mechanics in the slightest. At least not the way DA2 did it -- it feels silly that you can make just about anyone do a 180 turn on their most heated subject if only you strongly voice your opinion enough times. It makes the NPCs feel less like their own entities and more like just a vehicle to stroke the player's ego. More blatantly than it's usually done, that is.

Bioware NPCs only exist to stroke the ego of the player. There has never been any Bioware game where increasing your approval score (or getting more content, whatever) resulted in anything other than hero worship.

And I'm not sure how you think changing someone's mind works other than having a debate with them over it.

Additionally the game punishes you if you try the opposite i.e. make Hawke "change opinion" and switch from rivalry to friendship path (or the other way around) after some time... because that nets you getting back to the middle, and that is nowhere.

(granted, the latter affected DAO as well)

So? DA:O punishes you if you don't spam gifts or if you don't suck up to the NPCs. If you have your own opinion and see things your way, then no one likes or respects you.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
But what if i don't want to change their beliefs, but i still want to be friends with them?

Then you have the friendship path.

Having friends with views different from one's own is a good thing, it provides different perspectives and something we can debate about over the beer, like deep issues which don't have an obvious answer.

As the player, you know they will always change. But in game you don't know that. You're just voicing your views.

(or what if i want to just ****** them off to the point they never want to have anything to do with me again...

You don't. That doesn't make the DA:O system less bad.

It's not that the system isn't without problems - it's just an improvement over DA:O,  where you could do something for the sake of the greater good (bloodmagic with Connor instead of letting the child die) and then not even have the chance to defend yourself.

[Silverfox4]

I read this interview when this topic first posted. I found it very insulting to me for some reason. I love my DA universe, hopefully these [shoehats] wont destroy it.

[no swearing, please.]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 23 juin 2011 - 04:20 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

And I'm not sure how you think changing someone's mind works other than having a debate with them over it.

The thing is you don't actually debate. You only choose what tone you use to say "you're wrong and i'm right"... and in the end, it always works.

Having the companion potentially change their mind or not depending on actual arguments you pick, and not having it guaranteed for every person... i'd like that much better.

getting back to the middle, [is getting] nowhere.

So?

So there's no improvement in this area over DAO. If i can remind, i'm disputing the claim the DA2 system is better. Being the same isn't really better, is it?

As the player, you know they will always change. But in game you don't know that. You're just voicing your views.

Yes. But there's the matter of enjoyment the player derives out of the game system. And this is affected directly by the out-of-game knowledge. While it can be in character for the PC to argue without intention to change the companion's mind, i, the player, know how this is going to affect the companion which sours the experience.

You don't. That doesn't make the DA:O system less bad

Indeed. Again, it simply doesn't make DA2 system relatively better.

it's just an improvement over DA:O, where you could do something for the sake of the greater good (bloodmagic with Connor instead of letting the child die) and then not even have the chance to defend yourself.

Hmm? You certainly can defend yourself in the talk with Alistair afterwards in this particular case. It actually reduces the disapproval hit if you use the right approach (and can make him apologize for snapping at you)

Modifié par tmp7704, 23 juin 2011 - 05:02 .

[Travie]

Sidney wrote...

Travie wrote...

I agree with this strongly. I took a hard look at the game in comparison to DA:O and I could not find one feature (crafting, inventory, skill system, ability system, environment, graphics, etc.) where it had MORE to it, not less.

Except for me crafting, inventory, skills and grpahics are better - and better > more. The idea that having to click more stuff is better is where you go off the rails.

Crafting in DAO was tedium defined. Lousy. DA2 shaves ther tedium out and leaves you with the ability to "build" potions but without having to run back to the one guy who sells elfroot and then buy beakers and flasks from some other guy. All that, not good, not challenging, not deep or any of the other stuff people will claim.

Inventory was moderately better. The promise of less vendor trash wasn't realized because of the tidal wave of marginal magic items but at least the core trash (Darkspawn Dagger, Duster Leather Armor) was gone. It is still not good but all inventory systems are just degrees of bad anyways.

The skills both in the web format as opposed to ladders and the actual implementation of the skills were better. There seemed to be a lot less nerfed skills (mana clash, cone of cold) than in DAO. The addition of the CCC also added a nice element ot the game play.

The graphics were better. There were art design issues (darkspawn, weapons and armor being the top 3 for me) but the game did look better in most shots.

There was no crafting. You just bought from 'special' vendors. 

You may think that collecting ingredients and tools then putting them together with skills you learned over the course of the game is, "not good, not challenging, not deep or any of the other stuff people will claim", but it is the crafting system that most games have, because it is immersive, fun, and gives a sense of accomplishment. I understand you disagree.

The inventory/ability trees are more style issues (the skill system was removed remember, thats why it is worse). Not good or bad to me really, I honestly don't notice them much except for the laughable 'junk' category... hard to claim that was an improvement.

As for the graphics being better... 

The cities were empty, even though many other console games have quite populated cities with more detailed NPCs. They said that it was a technology issue, but then why could others do it?

The environments were less detailed, and suffered often from bad textures. 

Finally, the face/body textures for many NPCs were quite bad...

For me graphics is more then it being pretty once and awhile, it is the entire visual representation of the world. In my opinion it wasn't good.    

Modifié par Travie, 23 juin 2011 - 08:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

It's not that the system isn't without problems - it's just an improvement over DA:O,  where you could do something for the sake of the greater good (bloodmagic with Connor instead of letting the child die) and then not even have the chance to defend yourself.

Some people won't listen to reason.  This can't surprise you.

[Morroian]

Travie wrote...

You may think that collecting ingredients and tools then putting them together with skills you learned over the course of the game is, "not good, not challenging, not deep or any of the other stuff people will claim", but it is the crafting system that most games have, because it is immersive, fun, and gives a sense of accomplishment. I understand you disagree.

I agree with SIdney I don't see how its fun to simply have to run around to different vendors. In the end I got the Bodahn mod so he had everything. Crafting can be fun but it wasn't in DAO.

Travie wrote...

As for the graphics being better... 

The cities were empty, even though many other console games have quite populated cities with more detailed NPCs. They said that it was a technology issue, but then why could others do it?

The environments were less detailed, and suffered often from bad textures. 

Finally, the face/body textures for many NPCs were quite bad...

While Kirkwall could use more people and more sounds of the city etc. its hardly empty.  And I can understand not personally liking the art style but the graphics of DA2 are indisputably better IMHO. Heck since finishing DA2 I've gone back and played Assassins Creed 2 and New Vegas and while they do environments better, in terms of graphical detail, facial movements.... DA2 is better.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Some people won't listen to reason.  This can't surprise you.

No. I like it in games when they don't. In DA:O you can't even offer reasons. It's either brownnose the NPCs or dismiss them. But never justify and try to change.

tmp7704 wrote...
The thing is you don't actually debate. You
only choose what tone you use to say "you're wrong and i'm right"... and
in the end, it always works.

I disagree. Unless you pick the aggressive option. Hawke challenges Merril and Anders provides an explanation or counter-arguments, and does the same with Isabella. Don't know how rivalry with Varric or Aveline works.

The dialogue is very detailed. Sure, it always works... but that's just a Bioware RPG. You can only fail if you choose to fail.

tmp7704 wrote...
So there's no improvement in this area over
DAO. If i can remind, i'm disputing the claim the DA2 system is better.
Being the same isn't really better, is it?

What are you talking about? I'm pointing out that DA:O can do x and DA2 does x+y. Showing that on top of new features, you retain all the old features is proving something is better.

tmp7704 wrote...
Yes. But there's the matter of enjoyment the
player derives out of the game system. And this is affected directly by
the out-of-game knowledge. While it can be in character for the PC to
argue without intention to change the companion's mind, i, the player,
know how this is going to affect the companion which sours the
experience.

I don't see how on the one hand you can make this argument, and on the other hand go on to say that the origin merely providing a different race enriches the game. It's the same idea.

Hmm? You certainly can defend yourself in the talk with Alistair
afterwards in this particular case. It actually reduces the disapproval
hit if you use the right approach (and can make him apologize for
snapping at you)

No, you can't. You can just get aggresive with him. Unfortunately, the DA wiki is missing the dialogue.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 juin 2011 - 10:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Some people won't listen to reason.  This can't surprise you.

No. I like it in games when they don't. In DA:O you can't even offer reasons. It's either brownnose the NPCs or dismiss them. But never justify and try to change.

Even if it would always fail?  That would be okay with you?

If so, then I support your position.

BioWare does have a habit (I'm noticing it even more in DA2 than in previous games) of assuming that you've chosen a given action for some specific reason, and then they lock you into that motivation even if you never held it.  I was blaming the paraphrase system for this, but really all that has done is move the moment of me realising that BioWare has made a bad assumption to a point farther removed from the relevant choice.

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare does have a habit (I'm noticing it even more in DA2 than in previous games) of assuming that you've chosen a given action for some specific reason, and then they lock you into that motivation even if you never held it.  I was blaming the paraphrase system for this, but really all that has done is move the moment of me realising that BioWare has made a bad assumption to a point farther removed from the relevant choice.

Any for examples? I feel like I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm curious to hear what about specific instances in DAII (or older games if you have the examples at the tip of your tongue).

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Even if it would always fail?  That would be okay with you?

If so, then I support your position.

Absolutely. It's not up to me - in the role of the PC - to determine whether things fail or succeed. I will do things in character - the world then reacts to that. 

Remember, you and I don't disagree on, broadly speaking, how an RPG works. We just really disagree on the mechanics to bring that experience to life.

BioWare does have a habit (I'm noticing it even more in DA2 than in previous games) of assuming that you've chosen a given action for some specific reason, and then they lock you into that motivation even if you never held it. 

Bioware's always done this. I like VO because, when they do it, at the very least it forces them to tell you (the player, not the PC) they're doing it.

I was blaming the paraphrase system for this, but really all that has done is move the moment of me realising that BioWare has made a bad assumption to a point farther removed from the relevant choice.

No, it's a Bioware design staple. Try reading and listening to some of the dialogue in DA:O in the origins and interpreting it OOC. You can actually figure out how Bioware "thought" when they were writing the dialogue and NPC reactions. For example, the City Elf is a really extroverted trouble maker and the Human Noble is a glory hunter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Any for examples? I feel like I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm curious to hear what about specific instances in DAII (or older games if you have the examples at the tip of your tongue).

Off the top of my head?  "Magistrate's Orders".  You're hired to retrieve Kelder, who turns out to be a rapist.  The game then assumes that you'll either be so outraged that you'll kill him (or allow him to be killed), or you'll decide that he's redeemable and you want to save him because it's the right thing to do.

It's not possible to choose to save him because you were hired to save him.  It's not possible to choose to save him because you fear the consequences of breaking your deal with the magistrate.  You can only save him because you think it's right and just.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Bioware's always done this. I like VO because, when they do it, at the very least it forces them to tell you (the player, not the PC) they're doing it.

And I dislike VO, because without the voice I'm more likely to be able to ignore it.

No, it's a Bioware design staple. Try reading and listening to some of the dialogue in DA:O in the origins and interpreting it OOC. You can actually figure out how Bioware "thought" when they were writing the dialogue and NPC reactions. For example, the City Elf is a really extroverted trouble maker and the Human Noble is a glory hunter.

I've always agreed that was possible.  I've just never understood why anyone would actually do it.

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Any for examples? I feel like I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm curious to hear what about specific instances in DAII (or older games if you have the examples at the tip of your tongue).

Off the top of my head?  "Magistrate's Orders".  You're hired to retrieve Kelder, who turns out to be a rapist.  The game then assumes that you'll either be so outraged that you'll kill him (or allow him to be killed), or you'll decide that he's redeemable and you want to save him because it's the right thing to do.

It's not possible to choose to save him because you were hired to save him.  It's not possible to choose to save him because you fear the consequences of breaking your deal with the magistrate.  You can only save him because you think it's right and just.

Oh. Yes, I see what you mean. I totally agree, and have noticed it every time it's happened.

[Sidney]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare does have a habit (I'm noticing it even more in DA2 than in previous games) of assuming that you've chosen a given action for some specific reason, and then they lock you into that motivation even if you never held it.  I was blaming the paraphrase system for this, but really all that has done is move the moment of me realising that BioWare has made a bad assumption to a point farther removed from the relevant choice.

Any for examples? I feel like I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm curious to hear what about specific instances in DAII (or older games if you have the examples at the tip of your tongue).

Oh well heck in DAO I always hated the rationale for defending Redcliffe. I want to defend it not because I care abnout the puny wimps living there (seriously build a decent barricade at least) but I do care about getting on the good side of a powerful ally. Because the game assumes I want to help the defenseless I lose points with Morrigan and it doesn't fit with who I am. Evil/Renegade/Way of the Fist call it what you will usually gets jobbed on rationales because they assume that "bad" is a dumb.

[In Exile]

Sidney wrote...
Oh well heck in DAO I always hated the rationale for defending Redcliffe. I want to defend it not because I care abnout the puny wimps living there (seriously build a decent barricade at least) but I do care about getting on the good side of a powerful ally. Because the game assumes I want to help the defenseless I lose points with Morrigan and it doesn't fit with who I am. Evil/Renegade/Way of the Fist call it what you will usually gets jobbed on rationales because they assume that "bad" is a dumb.

The irony being that evil is clever. The best villains look even more heroic than the heroes, all as a cover for whatever they're actually doing. Sucking up to the next potential Arl of Redcliffle is a great way to garner support for the Landsmeet to take down Loghain.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And I dislike VO, because without the voice I'm more likely to be able to ignore it.

I don't think ignoring it is possible. Ah, life.

I've always agreed that was possible.  I've just never understood why anyone would actually do it.

In this case I was only using it as an example of how Bioware always designed it narrowly. What they done recently is removed the way you justified ignoring their design.