725 réponses à ce sujet

[adlocutio]

Theagg wrote...
I seriously believe that some people are of the opinion that a combat encounter should go as follows.

1] Enter the arena
2] Survey the arena 'tactically' and move to your chosen spot.
3] Stay in that spot and fight the battle from that spot until you either win or die.
4] Minor movements might be permissable but overall any major movement is 'cheating' etc.

No one here believes that, you just fail to understand.  I want to fight enemies intelligent enough to adapt to the most obvious tactics.  If I'm in a chokepoint, they should switch to ranged and try to focus fire me down. LIke fish in a barrel. which is what I would be.

If I'm kiting, I want them to use ranged attacks against me until I die or realize it's not a valid tactic.  Cover is a valid tactic and should be implemented to some degree.  But the enemies should try to coordinate an assault on that cover.  This is the definition of tactics, not stacking status effects.

Movement should be tactical in nature.  In other words, I should move not to avoid being hit by flying rocks, but to coordinate a defense or an assault, or to counter the enemy's movements.  One is tedious micromanagement, the other is party-based tactics.

[ItsTheTruth]

Stanley Woo wrote...
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.

Taking a wild guess, but maybe it is not the same people.

[KnightofPhoenix]

billy the squid wrote...
If you refer to The Witcher 2, then yes on both counts 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 (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.  

I can't say it's objectively interesting. What I can say objectively, is that the Witcher 2 handled politics in a more complex and realistic fashion.

There are 8 major factions at play (not including minor factions and internal factions), in a web of political intrigue seamlessly integrated in the main plot, that deals with regional / international dynamics and to a lsightly lesser extent, domestic dynamics.  All of these factions are more or less reasonable and logical (and of course also flawed) about pursuing their interests / agenda, without being utter morons or insane lunatics.

That is a real political plot that is complex and realistic, everything considered.
No Bioware game had that on the same level.   Now whether that matters or not in the enjoyement of the game or the overall quality of the story itself, is up to ach player to detemirne. I personaly have little patience for badly written political plots, when the game claims it wants to be political.  

Ideally, I'd love for Bioware to improve itself in that regard, while also focusing on the personal side of thigns as well (companion interactions, family and all).  If they do that, I'd be a happy customer.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:30 .

[AtreiyaN7]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
At least in DA2, Anders actually did something to trigger change, and even if the templar-mage-qunari politics weren't "real" or "complex" enough, it was certainly more entertaining than constant reportage about Weiner's wiener or, say, Sarah Palin's latest gaffe or how many candidates are throwing their lame hats into the ring for the next presidential election.

And that's not what I am arguing. You are entitled to believe that it was entertaining and interesting, and you are entitled to say that real life politics would be too boring and uninteresting.

I certainly believe that daily politics is boring and I wouldn't want to play a game that is focused on it. But if the DA team claims that the franchise is about Thedas, which they did, and that they want to start a conflict, which they tried, I expect it to be written in a more complex and realistic fashion for me to say it was really political. But it's not, and I thought it was written very badly, that I am no longer interested in the franchise / Thedas.  If it still interests you and you didn't think the writing was intolerable, then good for you.

What did you expect them to do when the seeds of the mage-templar conflict were sown in DA:O? To talk each other into submission? To broadcast endless debates? The writers went overboard with the abomination thing, and if given more time, I like to think they'd have had a lot more color and tone to the story as opposed to being quite so ham-handed in some ways. That being said, it was still entertaining overall (because, yes, it's possible to like the story even if it isn't perfect).

It seems pretty clear that the Chantry bombing is a close parallel to 9/11, and that's real-world politics right there too. It's not always complex, and it doesn't always involve debates or intrigue or political machinations and maneuvering. Sometimes "politics" comes down to one man and a bomb (and not to leave out our share of crazies, people like the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, etc.). Having one nut with a manifesto or multiple nuts who think unleashing death is a justifiable action is as valid (and interesting in some cases) as someone who has a byzantine plot to take over a kingdom. If I want complicated political maneuvering in my fantasy fiction, I read George R.R. Martin. I don't feel this need to have a Cersei Lannister or Petyr Baelish in every game that I play (but if, by some miracle, someone managed something equally interesting, I'd play it).

Not even what Loghain did in DA:O was all that complex or interesting. And since you just said you're no longer interested in the franchise/Thedas, why are you even still here beating a dead horse? Oh, maybe I maybe I need to take up a new hobby involving beating dead horses too. Then I could haunt The Witcher forums and complain about how crappy Geralt and Triss are (the English-speaking VAs) - so much so that they kill any possible interest I might have in the supposedly complex politics that exist in TW1 or TW2.

[adlocutio]

blothulfur wrote...

My Aeducan warden dealing with the politics and power mongering of the nobles and his brother was a good political conflict which reacted to his decisions and not just in a manner he expected. Hawkes slaughter of everybody (which is the only skill he brings to the table) after everything had gone down allready was not political in my eyes.

Glad you brought this up.  The Orzammar questline writ large was exactly what I was hoping for when I heard DA2 would revolve around political struggle.

[KnightofPhoenix]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
What did you expect them to do when the seeds of the mage-templar conflict were sown in DA:O? To talk each other into submission? To broadcast endless debates? The writers went overboard with the abomination thing, and if given more time, I like to think they'd have had a lot more color and tone to the story as opposed to being quite so ham-handed in some ways. That being said, it was still entertaining overall (because, yes, it's possible to like the story even if it isn't perfect).

It seems pretty clear that the Chantry bombing is a close parallel to 9/11, and that's real-world politics right there too. It's not always complex, and it doesn't always involve debates or intrigue or political machinations and maneuvering.

First, the whole world (or issue) does not revolve around 2 factions when 9/11 happened, nor after. But I won't get into that. Suffice to say it's certainly more complicated than the way you present it.

What I did expect:
- Less bipolarity and more multi-polarity. In other words, something beyond just two blocs.
- More exploration of inner Chantry / Templar / Mage dynamics. I wanted to learn more about the Fraternity divide and see how each fraternity (or at least the main ones and the Resolutionists) maneuvred and thought about the whole thing. Also, more insight on Kirkwall's nobility and popular sentiments beyond a few words of dialogue.
- Less idiot ball / insanity / lunacy. Make all players flawed yes, but also more or less reasonable and logical, especially if the point was to make us want to side with any of them.
- having sub plots that spawn over and truly influence all acts. Have a stronger build up, with us exploring the mage resistance for instance instead of being told and not shown. Hence why I am of the opinion that Act 2 would have been better off scrapped and have it focus on mage / Templars.
- character development for Meredith / Orsino, if they were supposed to represent their respective faction.

You can still find it entertaining all you want, I am not arguing for or against that. You are perfectly entiteld to enjoy it and I am happy for you. I on the otherhand did not find it entertaining or interesting. 

And I didn't say DA:O was that complex and realistic in terms of politics. I thought it did a better job, but not by a long shot.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:48 .

[Dhiro]

Eh. DA II isn't perfect, but I liked it. In some parts, even more than DA: O. For each their own, I think.

[Realmzmaster]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

I agree ideally that would be nice. Unfortunately ideals and reality do not always mix well. Once you sign that NDA you are limited in what can and cannot be said. You could go ahead and disregard the NDA at your peril. 

As I said it is far better for Bioware to say very little about what it is planning to do. This way gamers cannot say you promise us this and gave us that which we did not want. Bioware should play its cards close to the vest and let no one peek the hole card.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Realmzmaster wrote...
As I said it is far better for Bioware to say very little about what it is planning to do. This way gamers cannot say you promise us this and gave us that which we did not want. Bioware should play its cards close to the vest and let no one peek the hole card.

Now you mean.
They have to reveal what they are planing eventually, when they want to market for DA3 (and hopefully this time, with a bit more honesty).

But I agree. Like I said, what I think is ideal is not going to happen.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:22 .

[Lenimph]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


That is a real political plot that is complex and realistic, everything considered.
No Bioware game had that on the same level.   Now whether that matters or not in the enjoyement of the game or the overall quality of the story itself, is up to ach player to detemirne. I personaly have little patience for badly written political plots, when the game claims it wants to be political.  

Ideally, I'd love for Bioware to improve itself in that regard, while also focusing on the personal side of thigns as well (companion interactions, family and all).  If they do that, I'd be a happy customer.

 

Hold on... When did DA2 claim to be political? Last time I checked DA2 was about Hawke.   
Hawke rose to "power" with a title... what someone chooses to do with such is a totally different issue. I'm sorry you didn't get to roleplay Hawke to the extent of which you wanted.  Also it seemed to me most of the politcal nonsense was set up and tease for DA3, which I'm sure you wont buy so oh well. 

And as far as Bioware and politics in its games, I think Mass Effect did a excellent job reflecting the physics of poltics: 

"The universe going to..." 

"Hold on Shepard we're going to talk to you after we decide which color to paint the lower deck of the Citadel and not listen to a word you say." 

Yep seems about right to me. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lenimph wrote...
Hold on... When did DA2 claim to be political? Last time I checked DA2 was about Hawke.   
Hawke rose to "power" with a title... what someone chooses to do with such is a totally different issue. I'm sorry you didn't get to roleplay Hawke to the extent of which you wanted.  Also it seemed to me most of the politcal nonsense was set up and tease for DA3, which I'm sure you wont buy so oh well. 

The DA team said time and time again that Dragon Age was not about any character, but about Thedas (this of course was used to justify the absence of the Warden, which I don't disagree with). And that the overall plot of DA2 was to start the mage / templar conflict. That to me seems to indicate that they attempted for it to be political (which as it stands, is only so in concept and a few tiny bits and pieces hiding the bg).

A character driven narative can do political elements right (or much better than this). What is Hawke's story? Isn't it supposed to be him being caught up in the conflict and ultimately siding with either Templars and Mages?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:39 .

[Yrkoon]

^plus, Hawke is specifically given the title of "Champion of Kirkwall", which, if I'm not mistaken (I'll take another look at the codex entry later), is long standing Kirkwallian political title, and which was something very frequently talked about and advertized in the leadup to the game's release.

Of course DA2 was meant to be political, and Hawke was meant to be a significant entity for all of thedas, not just Kirkwall.  But  hardly anything of the  sort played out.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:18 .

[jlb524]

I don't think Hawke was intended to be a political entity....s/he really didn't have any power...it all belonged to Meredith...that was evident from the beginning. The story itself was meant to be more political.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jlb524 wrote...

I don't think Hawke was intended to be a political entity....s/he really didn't have any power...it all belonged to Meredith...that was evident from the beginning. The story itself was meant to be more political.

Now if only the marketing didn't say the complete opposite.

[jlb524]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

I don't think Hawke was intended to be a political entity....s/he really didn't have any power...it all belonged to Meredith...that was evident from the beginning. The story itself was meant to be more political.

Now if only the marketing didn't say the complete opposite.

Ah, who listens to marketing?  It may also depend on what you interpret 'rise to power' as?

Hawke did become more powerful vs. where he/she started.  However, there was a check on it, in the name of 'Meredith'.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:02 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

jlb524 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

I don't think Hawke was intended to be a political entity....s/he really didn't have any power...it all belonged to Meredith...that was evident from the beginning. The story itself was meant to be more political.

Now if only the marketing didn't say the complete opposite.

Ah, who listens to marketing?

I was stupid enough to do so. Learned my lesson.

EDIT: what I saw is Hawke being more famous and potentially more influencial, both of which were not used, so might as well not be there. The title itself is powerless, it's symbolic (and symbols have power when used, not intrinsically).

But even if there was a "rise to power", which I'd say is more a stumbling on fame, there certainly was no "determining" it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:04 .

[jlb524]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

I don't think Hawke was intended to be a political entity....s/he really didn't have any power...it all belonged to Meredith...that was evident from the beginning. The story itself was meant to be more political.

Now if only the marketing didn't say the complete opposite.

Ah, who listens to marketing?

I was stupid enough to do so. Learned my lesson.

And your mistake makes the game 'lesser'?

[Lenimph]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


The DA team said time and time again that Dragon Age was not about any character, but about Thedas (this of course was used to justify the absence of the Warden, which I don't disagree with). And that the overall plot of DA2 was to start the mage / templar conflict. That to me seems to indicate that they attempted for it to be political (which as it stands, is only so in concept and a few tiny bits and pieces hiding the bg).

A character driven narative can do political elements right (or much better than this). What is Hawke's story? Isn't it supposed to be him being caught up in the conflict and ultimately siding with either Templars and Mages?

 

A character narrative is still limited to the character.  How is Hawke (and therefore the player) going to  know the most about Meredith or Orsino other then doing their dirty work?  How are you going to know about the inner turmoils of the Chantry other then Leliana letting you have a piece of top secret info?  Maybe your Hawke wanted to look for more info but I doubt he was going to get it considering by Act 3 Kirkwall was a lost cause by the time it mattered.   Want to sit down with Meredith and Orisino and have an honest conversation? Good luck-

DA2 did do the set up for Dragon Age 3 but it never claimed that it would do it in the traditional politcal sense. Hawke was rather dragged in by the whole affair, and the whole point of Varric's 3rd person narrative was to show the Hawke wasn't the political beast Cassandra thought he was, but that Kirkwall went crazy because of some weird ancient idol.

Now you might have a problem with Hawke's character for that then fine.  But it worked rather well for my sarcastic and lazy Briar Hawke who only became a noble to please her mother, became champion to save her pirate booty, and sided with the mages because of her sister's influence. (Mmm character interaction, you felt so good in DA2)   

What is Hawke's story? Not what you wanted sadly, but exactly what I wanted. 

Modifié par Lenimph, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

jlb524 wrote...
And your mistake makes the game 'lesser'?

No, since I many times said what makes the game lesser in my eyes.
Me being stupid enough to pre-order it, is not one of them.

[Yrkoon]

[quote]blothulfur wrote...

My Aeducan warden dealing with the politics and power mongering of the nobles and his brother was a good political conflict which reacted to his decisions and not just in a manner he expected. Hawkes slaughter of everybody (which is the only skill he brings to the table) after everything had gone down allready was not political in my eyes.[/quote]
  [/quote]This is a really good point.

Could you imagine if they had handled the Orzammar story like they did the DA2  ending?

*Warden sides with Bhelen.....Warden comes back from the Deep Roads with a Paragon Crown.  There's intense fighting in the streets as he makes his way to the  Assembly.   He enters.  Bhelen suddenly  loses his mind for some strange reason.  He  turns into a giant Golem and attacks......  Warden fights off  Bhelen and waves of Bhelen   supporters.  When they're all Dead, Harromount gives some Bizzare speech about the future, pulls out a red lyrium  waraxe and attacks.  Warden Kills Harromount.  Fight ends.  Warden and his party are teleported back to  camp in a cutscene.  Oghren Speaks up.  Says:  "well Sh*t.  what the f*ck just happened?"  Oh well, it's over now.    Then Lelianna speaks up:   "This is no coincidence!"

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lenimph wrote...
A character narrative is still limited to the character.  How Hawke (and therefore the player)  know the most about Meredith or Orsino other then doing their dirty work?  How are you going to know about the inner turmoils of the Chantry other then Leliana letting you have a piece of top secret info?  Maybe your Hawke wanted to look for more info but I doubt he was going to get it considering by Act 3 Kirkwall was a lost cause by the time it mattered.   Want to sit down with Meredith and Orisino and have an honest conversation? Good luck-

There are many different ways for that to be included.

In Act 2, instead of being told about a mage resistance and superficially helping them, you could actually involve yourself more directly with them and when doing so, discover different view points and ideas within the mages (a good place to introduce the resolutionists).

In Act 2 or 3. In the Chantry itself, we could see two NPCs (or more) that represent the inner Chantry division vis-a-vis the Divine and the mage issue. They in essence would act as a microcosm. It would still be telling over showing, but it's better than nothing. Since we can chat with Elthina, I don't see why we can't with two sisters of lower rank (indeed, more often then not most ideological divides within organisations happen in the middle and lower ranks). Ideally, maybe they could have had a quest about it, or that shows it.

Meredith should have been introduced way earlier for as it stands, she barely has any character development at all. How? Well I still find it weird that Meredith apparently never cared about the Qunari until they launched their attack. She has the largest military force in Kirkwall and she doens't seem worried about the Qunari that are armed to the teeth in the middle of the city with undeclared reasons? Heck, the Qunari even send a death sqaud to the gallows.  That would have been a proper time to introduce her and a proper time to have Hawke interact with her. Same with Orsino who as it stands, doesn't have a character.

As for mage dynamics. We can see Grace in the courtward of the gallows, so if they don't want to show us the insides, have 2-3 mage npcs from different fraternities debate about it thoroughly and have Hawke come in, listen and potentially participate. Again, telling and not showing, but better than nothing (or 1-2 lines of dialogue). I'd prefer it being integrated into a quest of some sort.

It doens't have to allow Hawke to be able to change the course of events. The info being there however, and preferrably in ways that involve more showing and less telling, would have added more nuance and complexity.

But if they are no longer planning to actually delve into Thedas in more detail and more complex ways, then I'd love to know. So I know it's not my kind of franchise.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:18 .

[Persephone]

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.

Sad but also spot on.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
He wasn't capable of being some types of character.  In Exile has described those limitations very well.

But some personality types were well able to be represented by the Warden.  I have played several of them.  And I've also found some of those limits.  Passive characters, in particular, were well supported by DAO.  Characters who were both strong-willed and expressive, though, were not.

The problem with DA2 is that only one character is supported, and it's the one written by the designers.  If you don't want to play that character, or if you don't happen to know what that character is (and I don't see how you possibluy could your first time through the game), then the game is horribly broken.

I want to just point out and say that I think DA:O allowed for the illusion of variance with certain character types, because essentially DA:O removed a middle step. In reality, we have personality - behaviour - outcome.

But DA:O just has outcome (and it isn't entirely transparent how you pick it) and you have the opportunity for some limited make-believe of behaviour (which may or may not be consistent with the things you do).

The designers never made the game support more than a few personalities of a specific type in either DA:O or DA2. But in DA:O you don't see behaviour, so you can try to make up your personality, even if it should be effectively impossible for that outcome to come about, because players can always say: I had personality Y in mind and still got outcome X! The problem being that in DA:O, you could imagine your character is a sexbob trasnported across dimensions that goes bleets (but the bleets have personality!) and the dialogue just represents the intention of the bleets and the game still works.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

It depends on how you view the dialogue system. If you (for example) have characters that don't avoid saying things, then DA:O only supports I <3 Warden dialogues (the Wynne conversation, for example, where you cannot deny you consider yourself a Grey Warden).

But I agree that overall, DA:O does not smack you in the face too hard about having to feel like a Grey Warden... until you hit the DA:O DLCs like Warden's Keep (where you get into the Wynne dialogue situation).

But the worst offender is DA:A. The game is unplayable unless you have a "Warden" who wants to be a Warden.

[In Exile]

adlocutio wrote...
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. 

There's no way for them to adapt. Even if they do actually sorrounding you, that just makes a 2  warrior party ideal, with either 2 mages (for CC) or a mage (limited CC) and a rogue (for anti-elites DPS).

RPGs will never be tactical until we have intelligent environmental design. And spells & abilities that take advantage of the terrain.