725 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

lv12medic wrote...

I thought the Politics in DA2 were realistic. Watching two opposing sides plop themselves on railroad tracks that go off a cliff in either direction, and me the player not being able to do anything to change or influence any of it in any meaningful manner.

See, but there aren't really "sides."  There is insane jerkoff #1 and over on the other side is insane jerkoff #2, and plot constraint means not only is there no way you can get rid of either one of them, there's also no way you can meaningfully interact with what they're doing.  There are no factions.  Well, we hear about them, but we never see them and can never join one so as to swing events in their favor, though occasionally we're given that illusion.

What really falls flat for me, though, is that the characters don't have the ring of reality that would otherwise make the story compelling- and I realize that's a subjective judgment.  Anders and Meredith, okay, there are supernatural workings so they're by definition not realistic figures.  I think that's an out that the writers should only have given themselves with one major player, rather than both, but even if I look at the other characters- Sebastian, Elthina, the viscount.  I don't see people that I recognize in some fashion as being realistic and therefore interesting.  Sometimes there are flashes- I thought some of Sebastian's banters were good- but in the end, he's going to do something extreme because of one man who's standing right in front him?!  lolwut?  Elthina- she is so braindead and yet for some unexplained reason she's still got a job?  And then there's the Qunari plot, which is based on a contrivance regarding the relic and some rather odd premises like a half-drowned crew being able to set up shop in a foreign city with no visible means of support but with enough wherewithal to do what they do seven years later, with no apparent goal except to burn the infidels.  Grace has no reason to do what she does, except for the plot constraint that stupid must prevail.  In the end I'm not rooting for anybody, nor am I gunning for anybody.  I'm not pondering why people did what they did.  They're all insane, and that's apparently the only reason.

For me, a good political plot is people who are moving in logical directions based on their own interests and values, who come into conflict with others doing the same, with some conniving manipulators and limited information or misunderstanding to stir the pot, and then you can add things like mob mentality to escalate it.  There are a few side quests where you find such stories, and those are good (Javaris, the saarebas).  But as far as the main plot,  I would have loved a story line that involved internal fracture in the White Chantry, or a Tevinter plot to undermine the Grand Cleric, or something a little more approachable than mass hysteria predicated on a hellmouth.

I'm still willing to give the writers the benefit of the doubt that they can fill in and explain things in a way that makes the game more of a story I can like.  I may or may not pay for DLC to do it, that will depend on what I hear that's not just marketing hype like these interviews.

Modifié par Addai67, 30 juin 2011 - 10:45 .

[Stanley Woo]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Also anything they say may be taken as a promise , fact or Word of God. Far better to remain silent.

It's kinda funny how some forumites have this double standard. On the one hand, anything said by developers and executives is "a promise, fact or Word of God." This is why people clamour for more information, more honesty, more transparency, and why they want us to make promises for next time.

On the other hand, everything we say is dishonest, lies, said only to make more money, and is a personal affront to many fans. This is why interviews are discredited, lambasted, made fun of, and attacked as being disingenuous. We are also never to be trusted.

Anyone else feel there's some kind of Catch-22 around this forum somewhere?

Maybe that is what Bioware and the good doctors should do. But then we would be accusing them of not listening to us.

Anyone else feel there's another Catch-22 around here somewhere? And you wonder why we say the things we do, the way we do.

[MorrigansLove]

I didn't know having no choice in an RPG was a good thing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
  Elthina- she is so braindead and yet for some unexplained reason she's still got a job? 

What boggles my mind equally is why Meredith still has a job. Throughout the game, she's constantly proved herself to be incompetent. The situation with mages is escallating to the worse, to the point where she has the audacity to use the chaos (blood mages running wild) as proof that mages are dangerous, when I saw it as also proof that she is doing a ****** poor job. For the first time in Thedas' modern history, the common people are spitting on Templar faces and supporting mages. She also pissed off at least parts of the nobility by her idiotic coupe d'Etat after Act 2 that was not required  and which the Chantry tolerated for 3 years. She ends up pissing off a big number of her own Templars. You even have her second in command hearing rumors of her madness, and that doesn't get reported and investigated?

Kirkwall is the Chantry's most important Circle. In a very unstable political setting. And they thought that Meredith, with the mentality of a fanatical grunt, is the best KC they could find? One that has personal reasons to hate mages, and lacks political sense to handle the very delicate situation?

Why? I can understand the Chantry tolerating her until Act 2. But why after, especially seeing what she did (stupidly taking over the government when it wasn't needed)?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juin 2011 - 10:59 .

[Realmzmaster]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Also anything they say may be taken as a promise , fact or Word of God. Far better to remain silent.

It's kinda funny how some forumites have this double standard. On the one hand, anything said by developers and executives is "a promise, fact or Word of God." This is why people clamour for more information, more honesty, more transparency, and why they want us to make promises for next time.

On the other hand, everything we say is dishonest, lies, said only to make more money, and is a personal affront to many fans. This is why interviews are discredited, lambasted, made fun of, and attacked as being disingenuous. We are also never to be trusted.

Anyone else feel there's some kind of Catch-22 around this forum somewhere?

Maybe that is what Bioware and the good doctors should do. But then we would be accusing them of not listening to us.

Anyone else feel there's another Catch-22 around here somewhere? And you wonder why we say the things we do, the way we do.

Like I said Stanley Woo and other developers I appauld you for coming here and conversing with us. Yes there are Catch-22's. I fear you cannot win one way or the other. If you say to much you have not said enough. I know fully well having work in the software business certain points will remain unsaid. I am fully aware of the legal ramifications that constrain.

I find it interesting that forum mates want you to be more forthcoming, but if they did the same action on their jobs they might be gainfully umemployed or severely repriamanded. (Whistleblower laws only apply if there is a deterimemtal effect on the populace.)

I am glad the developers are on the forum interacting with us and listening to us. I do not envy the developers position given the spilit in the community over DA2 and how that bodes for DA3 and any DA2 DLC.

[DanaScu]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Also anything they say may be taken as a promise , fact or Word of God. Far better to remain silent.

It's kinda funny how some forumites have this double standard. On the one hand, anything said by developers and executives is "a promise, fact or Word of God." This is why people clamour for more information, more honesty, more transparency, and why they want us to make promises for next time.

On the other hand, everything we say is dishonest, lies, said only to make more money, and is a personal affront to many fans. This is why interviews are discredited, lambasted, made fun of, and attacked as being disingenuous. We are also never to be trusted.

Anyone else feel there's some kind of Catch-22 around this forum somewhere?

Maybe that is what Bioware and the good doctors should do. But then we would be accusing them of not listening to us.

Anyone else feel there's another Catch-22 around here somewhere? And you wonder why we say the things we do, the way we do.

When there are people who are posting constructive criticism, no ranting, no raving, but real, "I think this aspect of the game sucks, and here's why, and how I hope its fixed", and the interviews say its a vocal minority that can't handle change and want DA:Origins 2 carbon copy, then, sorry, it sounds as though the people who matter aren't listening. The interviews say there were problems, and they know about them and will do better, but never mention the problems they are referring to and how they might go about fixing them, the interviews feel like lip-service to calm critics down and get them to shut up. The people giving the interviews are the ones that "fixed" DA2 in the first place; sorry again if I don't quite believe they actually understand why and what the players feel the problems are.

Kind of like when you mentioned, in a different thread, that you didn't think anime fit the DA/Fereldan setting, when the pinned post at the top of the forum has the announcement of the DA anime movie.....

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Kidnapped? When did that happen?

Semiofftopic:

Human Noble origin.

Granted, that is only for one interpretation of those events, playing a Cousland who wanted nothing to do with the Grey Wardens. 

But given those parameters, Duncan basically leverages the imminent death of your parents, the demise of your house, and the fact your world has just come crashing down around you into blackmailing you into joining the Grey Wardens or he won't help you will leave you there to die.  Let's just say that particular Warden bitterly resented Duncan for that.

Dwarf Noble has the same problem.  Once you're free of the imminent danger (away from Howe, or out of the Deep Roads), there's no reason to abide by your promise except that Duncan can use his Right of Conscription to keep you.  But unlike the Elf Commoner or Mage origins, it's not like there's some legitimate authority to which he can turn you in.

Really, I suppose the whole point of the Right of Conscription is to answer these questions.  Once Duncan has you, he won't let you go, and he has the Right to keep you as long as he wants.

That said, that doesn't mean that your Warden needs to care about the Wardens or buy-in to being a Warden.  If your character is indifferent to being a Warden, the game still works.  My first Warden was a mage who didn't have any interest in the Wardens, but saw them as a way to get out of the Tower (the first responsibility of any prisoner is to excape).  He was not, however, at all thrilled about the death sentence aspect of the deal, however, so his primary focus throughout the game became to find a way around the imminent death.  And, lo and behold, he did (in a way).  The Dark Ritual was exactly the sort of thing he was looking for, and he found it.

Only those characters who specifically want to avoid the thing the game forces on you have a problem, and that shouldn't surprise anyone.  Don't design characters like that, and the problem goes away.

[Nerevar-as]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
  Elthina- she is so braindead and yet for some unexplained reason she's still got a job? 

What boggles my mind equally is why Meredith still has a job. Throughout the game, she's constantly proved herself to be incompetent. The situation with mages is escallating to the worse, to the point where she has the audacity to use the chaos (blood mages running wild) as proof that mages are dangerous, when I saw it as also proof that she is doing a ****** poor job. For the first time in Thedas' modern history, the common people are spitting on Templar faces and supporting mages. She also pissed off at least parts of the nobility by her idiotic coupe d'Etat after Act 2 that was not required  and which the Chantry tolerated for 3 years. She ends up pissing off a big number of her own Templars. You even have her second in command hearing rumors of her madness, and that doesn't get reported and investigated?

Kirkwall is the Chantry's most important Circle. In a very unstable political setting. And they thought that Meredith, with the mentality of a fanatical grunt, is the best KC they could find? One that has personal reasons to hate mages, and lacks political sense to handle the very delicate situation?

Why? I can understand the Chantry tolerating her until Act 2. But why after, especially seeing what she did (stupidly taking over the government when it wasn't needed)?

Considering this and that the whole point of the game seemed to be starting the mage - templar conflict it would have been better to skip all that and just say it in the prologue of the next game. Is not that anything major happens otherwise. The Old Thaig is the only significant new thing introduced, and that could have been done in a DLC.

[Redcoat]

DanaScu wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Also anything they say may be taken as a promise , fact or Word of God. Far better to remain silent.

It's kinda funny how some forumites have this double standard. On the one hand, anything said by developers and executives is "a promise, fact or Word of God." This is why people clamour for more information, more honesty, more transparency, and why they want us to make promises for next time.

On the other hand, everything we say is dishonest, lies, said only to make more money, and is a personal affront to many fans. This is why interviews are discredited, lambasted, made fun of, and attacked as being disingenuous. We are also never to be trusted.

Anyone else feel there's some kind of Catch-22 around this forum somewhere?

Maybe that is what Bioware and the good doctors should do. But then we would be accusing them of not listening to us.

Anyone else feel there's another Catch-22 around here somewhere? And you wonder why we say the things we do, the way we do.

When there are people who are posting constructive criticism, no ranting, no raving, but real, "I think this aspect of the game sucks, and here's why, and how I hope its fixed", and the interviews say its a vocal minority that can't handle change and want DA:Origins 2 carbon copy, then, sorry, it sounds as though the people who matter aren't listening. The interviews say there were problems, and they know about them and will do better, but never mention the problems they are referring to and how they might go about fixing them, the interviews feel like lip-service to calm critics down and get them to shut up. The people giving the interviews are the ones that "fixed" DA2 in the first place; sorry again if I don't quite believe they actually understand why and what the players feel the problems are.

Kind of like when you mentioned, in a different thread, that you didn't think anime fit the DA/Fereldan setting, when the pinned post at the top of the forum has the announcement of the DA anime movie.....

Laidlaw specifically pointed out certain issues, such as wave combat and player agency, that must be improved in future installments. And I'd like to see the specific quote where someone from BioWare said that players who disliked DA2 "couldn't handle change." I believe the quote was more along the lines of "some players were unhappy with the changes in DA2," which I doubt anyone would disagree with.

[Yrkoon]

Mr.House wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Mages.     Don't get me started on the hackjob they did with them.    Remember the good old days of 2009, when you could be an arcane warrior?  Forget it.   Not an option anymore.  Instead,  DA2 adds more spells.... No wait, it doesn't.   it reduces the spell choices by about 30.

You where saying?

You lost me here.   this picture is proof of.... what?  that's there's arcane warriors in DA2?  that there's more spell choices in DA2?  What?

[billy the squid]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

So in DA2 I'm in a position to refuse?

Nope.  Neither game gives you any option at all really to simply not buy in to the premise of the game.  But that's true of most fiction and almost all games I've ever heard of.  I'm not sure how it would work either, perhaps alternative game overs.

The reason it's something valid to bring up though is that it's a perfectly fair thing to point out that it was possible to simply not be hooked by the story of Origins - especially if you aren't a fan of the Grey Wardens and/or don't care much about saving Ferelden specifically - just as its possible to not be hooked by the story of DA2 - especially if you can't relate to Hawke or view Kirkwall as a giant mess you'd rather just leave. 

But "buying in" is kind of a big part of getting any enjoyment out of fiction, sometimes you can't though.

I agree
I really enjoyed Origins, it did not, at least in my experience, deal with extremes of certain character very well.

Yet, DA2 I simply couldn't engage with DA2 and the whole playthrough became rather a bore.

Both DA2 and Origins don't really present the player with a motivation as to why they should stay after the battle at Ostagar etc. I understand that there is a certain amount of necessity in limiting some choices due to development as it is unfeasable to catter for too many divergent options, but then motivation as to why I should do something is even more important as my character is actually against it, thus it has to be more persuasive.

[Realmzmaster]

DanaScu wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Also anything they say may be taken as a promise , fact or Word of God. Far better to remain silent.

It's kinda funny how some forumites have this double standard. On the one hand, anything said by developers and executives is "a promise, fact or Word of God." This is why people clamour for more information, more honesty, more transparency, and why they want us to make promises for next time.

On the other hand, everything we say is dishonest, lies, said only to make more money, and is a personal affront to many fans. This is why interviews are discredited, lambasted, made fun of, and attacked as being disingenuous. We are also never to be trusted.

Anyone else feel there's some kind of Catch-22 around this forum somewhere?

Maybe that is what Bioware and the good doctors should do. But then we would be accusing them of not listening to us.

Anyone else feel there's another Catch-22 around here somewhere? And you wonder why we say the things we do, the way we do.

When there are people who are posting constructive criticism, no ranting, no raving, but real, "I think this aspect of the game sucks, and here's why, and how I hope its fixed", and the interviews say its a vocal minority that can't handle change and want DA:Origins 2 carbon copy, then, sorry, it sounds as though the people who matter aren't listening. The interviews say there were problems, and they know about them and will do better, but never mention the problems they are referring to and how they might go about fixing them, the interviews feel like lip-service to calm critics down and get them to shut up. The people giving the interviews are the ones that "fixed" DA2 in the first place; sorry again if I don't quite believe they actually understand why and what the players feel the problems are.

Kind of like when you mentioned, in a different thread, that you didn't think anime fit the DA/Fereldan setting, when the pinned post at the top of the forum has the announcement of the DA anime movie.....

They cannot mention the problems. People will then say they are fixing that problem but not the problem I had with the game. Why is that problem more important than this problem? Some problems can be easily fixed and some cannot.
The problems have be prioritized in importance and fixability. Some of the problems are basically opinion. Such as the story was not epic. Well that will not be fixed in DLC or in a ptach. You may see changes in the next game down the road. They do listen otherwise there would still be exploding bodies.

Some points will not be listen to because they are not feasible. Also the person given the interview may only be allowed to speak on certain topics and not have clearance with others.

There is a reason why it is best to say only so much than to hang yourself saying to much.

[Firky]

Haha @Mr.House. That build is hilarious. (I was thinking I was clever for mucking around with a plate wearing blood mage, with an anti-knockback item and thinking he was a pretty good Arcane Warrior. Also, much as I loved them in Origins, I much prefer the build balance/flexibility in DAII.)

@Stanley Woo (and all designers) Keep up the good work. It's nice to get the occasional insight into what you guys are up to. Now, tell me if there is a Sten cameo coming or I'm going to chuck a wobbly.

Modifié par Firky, 30 juin 2011 - 11:23 .

[csfteeeer]

Yrkoon wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Mages.     Don't get me started on the hackjob they did with them.    Remember the good old days of 2009, when you could be an arcane warrior?  Forget it.   Not an option anymore.  Instead,  DA2 adds more spells.... No wait, it doesn't.   it reduces the spell choices by about 30.

You where saying?

You lost me here.   this picture is proof of.... what?  that's there's arcane warriors in DA2?  that there's more spell choices in DA2?  What?

the funny thing is, that isn't even a Mage, this is a Warrior, and this doesn't even proff anything, cause not all the abilities are here.

Modifié par csfteeeer, 30 juin 2011 - 11:23 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Realmzmaster wrote...
They cannot mention the problems. People will then say they are fixing that problem but not the problem I had with the game. Why is that problem more important than this problem? Some problems can be easily fixed and some cannot.
The problems have be prioritized in importance and fixability. Some of the problems are basically opinion. Such as the story was not epic. Well that will not be fixed in DLC or in a ptach. You may see changes in the next game down the road. They do listen otherwise there would still be exploding bodies.

Ideally, I'd want them to tell us in details and specifics what they have in mind for the series (which honestly, I don't think they really know). Especially the writing.

I want to know if they thought the story in DA2 was good (which they most likely did) and more importantly whether they will be basing further stories in DA on the same philosophy / design that they've always used. I want to know that, so I can know for sure that DA is no longer the type of game for me.  

But I know this won't happen. They'll probably pull the same marketing stunt of a concept (like determining a rise to power) that never happens in the game itself. Hence of course my decision to never pre-order or buy their games at launch. But ideally, I'd appreciate the knowledge beforehand.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juin 2011 - 11:28 .

[Wulfram]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Why? I can understand the Chantry tolerating her until Act 2. But why after, especially seeing what she did (stupidly taking over the government when it wasn't needed)?

Because the Chantry probably has no interest in causing the Templars to revolt against their control and sparking a continent wide war.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Why? I can understand the Chantry tolerating her until Act 2. But why after, especially seeing what she did (stupidly taking over the government when it wasn't needed)?

Because the Chantry probably has no interest in causing the Templars to revolt against their control and sparking a continent wide war.

And why would the removal of Meredith cause a continent wide war? If even her second in command, a fanatic, has doubts about her in Act 2?

The Chantry has Seekers to specifically deal with this problem. And no one is saying they should just execute Meredith. They can retire her to another Circle that is unimportant, and replace her with a charismatic, stern but actually competent KC. I never saw anything in the game that points to Templars being fanatically loyal to Meredith to the point where they would revolt against the Chantry, simply for relieving her of command.

And if the Templars are that loyal to her, then this should have been shown. It would still have been a meh premise, because I see nothing that would incite such loyalty to Meredith, especially not when she is doing a poor job.  But it would have at least been an explanation that they tried to show in the game.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juin 2011 - 11:38 .

[The Elder King]

I don't know how many copies DA2 sells. I don't hate it (though I preferred a lot more DAO) and I don't have problems with people that really like it or prefer it to DAO. But to say that you have increased your fanbase with it, you have to give some proof. From what I know, in a lot of site that I go to see VG new, both english/americans and italian, DA2 is considered from a lot of people not a good game.

[billy the squid]

The Templars in Kirkwall do not constitute the entire Templar order in Thedas. There are other knight commanders, so Meredith's influence does not extend to other Templar deployments outside the city, there are existing divisions along ideological lines within the Templar's in Kirkwall (talk to Cullen) even if they didn't expand on it.

[billy the squid]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Why? I can understand the Chantry tolerating her until Act 2. But why after, especially seeing what she did (stupidly taking over the government when it wasn't needed)?

Because the Chantry probably has no interest in causing the Templars to revolt against their control and sparking a continent wide war.

And why would the removal of Meredith cause a continent wide war? If even her second in command, a fanatic, has doubts about her in Act 2?

The Chantry has Seekers to specifically deal with this problem. And no one is saying they should just execute Meredith. They can retire her to another Circle that is unimportant, and replace her with a charismatic, stern but actually competent KC. I never saw anything in the game that points to Templars being fanatically loyal to Meredith to the point where they would revolt against the Chantry, simply for relieving her of command.

And if the Templars are that loyal to her, then this should have been shown. It would still have been a meh premise, because I see nothing that would incite such loyalty to Meredith, especially not when she is doing a poor job.  But it would have at least been an explanation that they tried to show in the game.

I think it would have been nice to be involved within the internal politiking of the Templar order in Kirkwall, which was a bit of a missed opportunity. Machavelian politics in this senario would have been fun, undermine Meredith, by positioning yourself in alliance with certain elements of the Templars etc. Look at internal politics and structure within other political factions far from unified despite being a supposedly, single political faction and replete with internal divisions and fluid political alliance and betreyals.

Modifié par billy the squid, 30 juin 2011 - 11:53 .

[Morroian]

hhh89 wrote...

I don't know how many copies DA2 sells. I don't hate it (though I preferred a lot more DAO) and I don't have problems with people that really like it or prefer it to DAO. But to say that you have increased your fanbase with it, you have to give some proof. 

They haven't said that, they have said new fans came to the series with it, and thats undoubtedly correct.

[Bryy_Miller]

Monica83 wrote...

Weell someone likes:

Mediocre plot
Ennemy from nowhere
Reused Areas
Lack of ennemy creature variety
Lack of details on areas
Mangatard animations
Imbarassing gigglesquee of merryl (that try to be a Tali but don't have a chance)
Final fantasy look character (fernis *coff coff*)
Hentai pirates (isabela with corset and panties)
Exploding Ennemy
Herp Deeerp dialogues....

In the end is only a matter of tastes.... I don't like those things at all

Monica, do you honestly believe that this type of stuff accomplishes anything productive?

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 30 juin 2011 - 11:59 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

billy the squid wrote...
I think it would have been nice to be involved within the internal politiking of the Templar order in Kirkwall, which was a bit of a missed opportunity. Machavelian politics in this senario would have been fun, undermine Meredith, by positioning yourself in alliance with certain elements of the Templars etc. Look at internal politics and structure within other political factions far from unified despite being a supposedly, single political faction and replete with internal divisions and fluid political alliance and betreyals.

Exactly. Hence why Bioware's whole mindset of Bloc A vs Bloc B is flawed from a political perspective (and very tiresome to me). There are always internal dynamics and divisions at play. Always sub-factions maneuvring to better themselves or to push for their own agenda (or sub-agenda). Not to mention that it's seldom about A vs B, with the occasional useless C standing in the middle not doing anything (Elthina). More often then not, there are several major and minor factions at play, each pursuing their own agenda, and all of them being more or less reasonable and logical about it (with of course all of them being more or less flawed as well), in a web of political intrigue, alliances and rivalry.

DA2 failed on both counts (especially mages. With Templars, at least I can say they had Alrik, Cullen and Thrask). And this is not new, all Bioware games I've played have the same design / philosophy. They were usually more polished and less unsubtle about it (which is saying a lot because none of them were that subtle), but they never were able to write complex and deep political plots, as much as video games allow. Which is not impossible, because there is an RPG that did pull if off (whether you think it had a good / interesting story on the otherhand, is another matter).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:06 .

[adlocutio]

Theagg wrote...
Exactly and falling back to a choke point is a real world tactic in warfare.

Wiki has a decent list of the many times this tactic has been used in real wars, including, of course, the battle of Thermopylae and those Spartans. People harping on about this particular tactic being a cheat, breaking the game or a failing obviously haven't studied their warfare.

As it is, I managed most of DA2, even on nightmare, without having to fall back in this manner. But its legitmate and it is a tactic.

OK, I can't let this pass without comment. You completely misunderstood what I said about chokepoints and then used it as evidence to suggest I haven't studied warefare.  What do you think people do in warefare when their enemies use chokepoints against them????  They find a way to effectively assault the chokepoint without trying to cram themselves into the hole or come two by two to get slaughtered.  In other words, they try to neutralize the advantage.

Do enemies in DA2 do that? Do they adapt? NO. They get slaughtered. THAT is the failing.  If you use the chokepoint in DA2 to adapt to waves you break the difficulty because the AI can't adapt to it.  The devs overlooked that manoeuvre when making the game.  That is a failing. 

In other words, you have to handicap yourself as a player by not using chokepoints in order to preserve the intended difficulty.  So you deal with waves as the game intended, by generating threat and moving squishies around the battlefield until threat is established.  It is a failing when a tactical squad-based combat game can't handle the simplest, most obvious tactics.

Edit: And in case you didn't know, the Persians WON the battle of Thermopolae by adapting to the Spartans' tactics, finding a Greek traitor to show them a way around the pass, then surrounding the Spartans and killing them.  The reason the Persians weren't successful earlier is because they were morons and tried to do the same stupid things that enemies in DA2 do.  They lined up to be killed.

Modifié par adlocutio, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:17 .

[billy the squid]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
I think it would have been nice to be involved within the internal politiking of the Templar order in Kirkwall, which was a bit of a missed opportunity. Machavelian politics in this senario would have been fun, undermine Meredith, by positioning yourself in alliance with certain elements of the Templars etc. Look at internal politics and structure within other political factions far from unified despite being a supposedly, single political faction and replete with internal divisions and fluid political alliance and betreyals.

Exactly. Hence why Bioware's whole mindset of Bloc A vs Bloc B is flawed from a political perspective (and very tiresome to me). There are always internal dynamics and divisions at play. Always sub-factions maneuvring to better themselves or to push for their own agenda (or sub-agenda). Not to mention that it's seldom about A vs B, with the occasional useless C standing in the middle not doing anything (Elthina). More often then not, there are several major and minor factions at play, each pursuing their own agenda, and all of them being more or less reasonable and logical about it (with of course all of them being more or less flawed as well), in a web of political intrigue, alliances and rivalry.

DA2 failed on both counts (especially mages. With Templars, at least I can say they had Alrik, Cullen and Thrask). And this is not new, all Bioware games I've played have the same design / philosophy. They were usually more polished and less unsubtle about it (which is saying a lot because none of them were that subtle), but they never were able to write complex and deep political plots, as much as video games allow. Which is not impossible, because there is an RPG that did pull if off (whether you think it had a good / interesting story on the otherhand, is another matter).

If you refer to The Witcher 2, then yes on both counts very good and interesting. I didn't play the first one and the I had very little trouble understanding the internal divisions within Temaria and the ongoing conflict over the Pontar Vally etc. Particularly liked the ending when Letho explains the entire ruse behind the assassinations and (spoiler censored) has crossed the river, and started an invasion of the north.

There is a hell of a lot more in the game's internal politics, for each faction was trying to gain political advantage over one another despite some being allied or neutral (I'm trying not to drop any major spoilers, so I apologise for the lack of specifics) only to be played by Letho the supposed muscle mountain, who is himself a puppet of Nilfgaard.  

Modifié par billy the squid, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:51 .