260 réponses à ce sujet

[BldSquirrel]

Honestly...

The only thing that would get me on board with DAIII would be to here that they're replacing Laidlaw. He's made it very clear that he likes the direction that DAII took, and I'm not going to follow him there.

[alex90c]

BldSquirrel wrote...

Honestly...

The only thing that would get me on board with DAIII would be to here that they're replacing Laidlaw. He's made it very clear that he likes the direction that DAII took, and I'm not going to follow him there.

...

how many times does john epler have to say not to say you want RL people to gtfo to restore your confidence in DA

Modifié par alex90c, 17 juillet 2011 - 07:58 .

[BldSquirrel]

alex90c wrote...
...

how many times does john epler have to say not to say you want RL people to gtfo to restore your confidence in DA

Until what? Until it stops being true? Until the forums are properly groomed to only have the sentiments that Bioware approves of? 

There isn't a single bullet point or feature that could restore my confidence in Bioware right now. What I need is to see that the overall vision is where it needs to be, and I'm not seeing that right now. 

[alex90c]

BldSquirrel wrote...

alex90c wrote...
...

how many times does john epler have to say not to say you want RL people to gtfo to restore your confidence in DA

Until what? Until it stops being true? Until the forums are properly groomed to only have the sentiments that Bioware approves of? 

There isn't a single bullet point or feature that could restore my confidence in Bioware right now. What I need is to see that the overall vision is where it needs to be, and I'm not seeing that right now. 

dude, i think DA2 is bloody awful, but john said (paraphrasing, cos imma dialogue wheel)

say you want laidlaw/bioware staff member X to gtfo for you to get confidence in DA and ill be locking this thread

so basically say

reused maps suck
you didnt like the execution of the story
dont like the combat
too much combat
waves
unfocused story

and the 3682762636 other things that suck about DA2

but not:

man ill only play DA again if laidlaw dies

[Serpieri Nei]

alex90c wrote...

BldSquirrel wrote...

alex90c wrote...
...

how many times does john epler have to say not to say you want RL people to gtfo to restore your confidence in DA

Until what? Until it stops being true? Until the forums are properly groomed to only have the sentiments that Bioware approves of? 

There isn't a single bullet point or feature that could restore my confidence in Bioware right now. What I need is to see that the overall vision is where it needs to be, and I'm not seeing that right now. 

dude, i think DA2 is bloody awful, but john said (paraphrasing, cos imma dialogue wheel)

say you want laidlaw/bioware staff member X to gtfo for you to get confidence in DA and ill be locking this thread

so basically say

reused maps suck
you didnt like the execution of the story
dont like the combat
too much combat
waves
unfocused story

and the 3682762636 other things that suck about DA2

but not:

man ill only play DA again if laidlaw dies

3682762636 only? - You're being genourous 

Modifié par Serpieri Nei, 17 juillet 2011 - 08:19 .

[Melness]

1 - Improve the camera.
2 - Improve area variety.
3 - Make your decisions over the course of the game matter as much as possible.
4 - Announce a longer development cycle.
5 - Do NOT make the combat feel slower.
6 - If you make origins, try to make the events of said stories be as much as referred to during the course of the game as much as possible (more often than in DA:O).
7 - Restore NPC equipment system from DA:O while not necessarily making the followers' appearance change accordingly.
8 - Restore DA:O's dialogue system BUT KEEPING the intent icons.

[vania z]

There was nice feature back in baldurs gate 2 I'd like to see in future DA games.
It is deeper party interactions. For example, some party members could fall in love with each other, or kill one another. It would be really nice to see something like that in DA games.

Modifié par vania z, 17 juillet 2011 - 09:05 .

[Savber100]

All right guys... quit with mean-spirited comments about Laidlaw.

I've personally disliked his direction with DA2 but do you really think saying cruel comments like THAT will persuade anyone?

So is this the nature of the so-called "enlightened", elitist/intellectual, hardcore RPG crowd.? You rather that someone dies or loses his job for a VIDEO GAME FRANCHISE. Wow.. exactly how are we any different from the screaming, swearing Halo fanboy when we act like this? In fact, it's worse seeing that at least the whiny 7 years old Halo fanboy doesn't know any better and the so-called "intelligent" RPG crowd does.

Anyways, I'm looking over posts right now. I'll be posting anything new onto the OP.


EDIT: Quick question... can anyone explain to me why non-combat skills are important? I can see where most of you guys are coming from but I'll like a more in-depth reason to place onto the OP.

Modifié par Savber100, 17 juillet 2011 - 09:01 .

[John Epler]

I'm not saying things just to hear myself speak.

These boards are not a free-for-all, no matter how much some people seem to wish they were. Temp bans handed out because, hey, I meant what I said.

[Salaya]

Savber100 wrote...
...

EDIT: Quick question... can anyone explain to me why non-combat skills are important? I can see where most of you guys are coming from but I'll like a more in-depth reason to place onto the OP.

I was going to tell that you had forgotten the non-combat skills in the first edited-post

I don't think I'm the most suitable for this task, but I believe that the main reason to the resurrection of non-combat skills is variety. What I always found surprising from western crpgs is precisely that little mark for quests that do not require direct violence, for example. The fact that you can solve things with diplomacy or survival skills with outcomes that completely differ from a direct violent assault gives gameplay value

[syllogi]

Savber100 wrote...

EDIT: Quick question... can anyone explain to me why non-combat skills are important? I can see where most of you guys are coming from but I'll like a more in-depth reason to place onto the OP.

For me, non-combat skills are a huge part of role playing.  Being able to solve problems through diplomacy or coercion is fun and rewarding, and breaks up the monotony of COMBAT-COMBAT-CUTSCENE-COMBAT.  That routine isn't role playing.  Giving us alternate ways to solve quests is always better, whether it's by extra dialogue or other methods.

[Melness]

TeenZombie wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

EDIT: Quick question... can anyone explain to me why non-combat skills are important? I can see where most of you guys are coming from but I'll like a more in-depth reason to place onto the OP.

For me, non-combat skills are a huge part of role playing.  Being able to solve problems through diplomacy or coercion is fun and rewarding, and breaks up the monotony of COMBAT-COMBAT-CUTSCENE-COMBAT.  That routine isn't role playing.  Giving us alternate ways to solve quests is always better, whether it's by extra dialogue or other methods.

While I'm a fan of introducing different ways to deal with problems, maybe non-combat skills aren't necessary for that. If they are, all I ask is that attributes no longer play a part in dialogue. Sometimes it felt that any Warden without 30 cunning was a rather slow fellow.

[devSin]

JohnEpler wrote...

I'm not saying things just to hear myself speak.

You... hear words on the Internet?

That might actually explain some things.

[Shuma Gorath]

devSin wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

I'm not saying things just to hear myself speak.

You... hear words on the Internet?

That might actually explain some things.

Low Blow

[TMZuk]

After having seen a little bit of the gameplay from Legacy, and being able to confirm that the combat ~still~ looks like something out of an eighties arcade game, and seeing that Hawke's new sword looks like an oversized spatula, I'm afraid that Bioware/EA has learned zip.

Unless DA3 is fundamentally different, and we get all the features back that made DA:O so cool, I cannot see my self bothering with it.

-choice and consequence.
-exploration.
-no weapon-restrictions.
-no console combat.
-multiple races.
-no voiced protagonist.
-more classes.
-the possibility to make a generalist character.
-no anime elves.
-no recycling.
-no waves.

Oh, I could go on. Bioware, get a grip!

[John Epler]

devSin wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

I'm not saying things just to hear myself speak.

You... hear words on the Internet?

That might actually explain some things.

I always find it rather awkward when people try to change common phrases to suit the internet - 'just to see myself type' is rather unwieldy, don't you think?

[The Edge]

First of all, I want to present a selfish request: I would like to play as the Warden again.

With that selfish request, though, is a concept that I want to return. In DA:O, I was given an origin and a title; from there, I could fill in the shoes of the character and make him/her my own. Because of this, paired with the dialogue options that reflected many personalities, I could "graft" myself into the game. The branching storylines, mentioned before, further make the story more personal and (IMO) more successful.

In DA2, I wasn't so much myself with a game-given last name and title; rather, I was Hawke. I'm not sure exactly why there was a disconnect, but perhaps the way he was advertised contributed to it. Rather than "playing as the Warden" (insert yourself), you were told that you were "playing as Hawke" (take control and watch from afar). This is not a bad thing, because great stories often tell the stories of others (and in video games, controlling the character rather than "being the character can be rewarding), but for DA II to take such a drastic departure from DA:O (in this regard in particular) seems completely unnecessary.

BASICALLY, I feel that DAII removed a very important aspect that should be reinstated in the sequel: the player themselves.

[Serpieri Nei]

Salaya wrote...

Savber100 wrote...
...

EDIT: Quick question... can anyone explain to me why non-combat skills are important? I can see where most of you guys are coming from but I'll like a more in-depth reason to place onto the OP.

I was going to tell that you had forgotten the non-combat skills in the first edited-post

I don't think I'm the most suitable for this task, but I believe that the main reason to the resurrection of non-combat skills is variety. What I always found surprising from western crpgs is precisely that little mark for quests that do not require direct violence, for example. The fact that you can solve things with diplomacy or survival skills with outcomes that completely differ from a direct violent assault gives gameplay value

Skills are another way to solve a challenge in more ways then one that better portray the player - then just skullbashing everyone you come across.


See that Guard that has the Keys

I can either kill him and loot it off his Bloody Carcass
or
I can bribe him with some wine, women, or gold
or
I can use my witty and charming personality
or
I can threaten to bash his face in with a mallet
or
bribe him and then get the key - pickpocket him and get my money back and then spend it on wine and women that would be better appreciated by me than some guard who can barely spell his own name.

Modifié par Serpieri Nei, 17 juillet 2011 - 10:18 .

[syllogi]

Melness wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

EDIT: Quick question... can anyone explain to me why non-combat skills are important? I can see where most of you guys are coming from but I'll like a more in-depth reason to place onto the OP.

For me, non-combat skills are a huge part of role playing.  Being able to solve problems through diplomacy or coercion is fun and rewarding, and breaks up the monotony of COMBAT-COMBAT-CUTSCENE-COMBAT.  That routine isn't role playing.  Giving us alternate ways to solve quests is always better, whether it's by extra dialogue or other methods.

While I'm a fan of introducing different ways to deal with problems, maybe non-combat skills aren't necessary for that. If they are, all I ask is that attributes no longer play a part in dialogue. Sometimes it felt that any Warden without 30 cunning was a rather slow fellow.

But if you take away skills, another "price" needs to be introduced, correct?  Otherwise, it's not much of a game if you can just choose the right answer or find the correct solution without taking the right skills or putting points into the right attributes.  

You wouldn't expect to be given a one-shot-instakill sword at the beginning of a game, to make combat easier.  You earn your way up to abilities that allow you to kill stuff in a more efficient manner.  I would like the same sort of principle applied to non-combat quests and dialogue options.  You put the points in, you get rewarded with more dialogue options, etc.

[The Edge]

JohnEpler wrote...

devSin wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

I'm not saying things just to hear myself speak.

You... hear words on the Internet?

That might actually explain some things.

I always find it rather awkward when people try to change common phrases to suit the internet - 'just to see myself type' is rather unwieldy, don't you think?

It's even worse when people take common phrases and turn them into "That's what she said!!!" jokes.

Every statement is a minefield, that's for sure

[Tirfan]

On non-combat skills; Mostly, they are a nice addition to the characters, a bit gameplay aspect that shows the character isn't only a killing-machine, he can do something else too, Persuasion/intimidation imo should be partly skill/reputation/stat based, a mage should be able to intimidate people by threatening to turn them into frogs and magic-stat would be used in determining if it is successful and things like that. (+ at least once I would love to actually turn someone into a frog.)

Otherwise, one thing I sorely missed in DA2 was puzzles, there wasn't many of them in Origins, but there was the Gauntlet and Fade (I really loved the fade, it just happened in the wrong time and broke the pace so badly, that it was slightly irritating.)

And not that Tower of whatever puzzle - ever again.

[devSin]

JohnEpler wrote...

I always find it rather awkward when people try to change common phrases to suit the internet - 'just to see myself type' is rather unwieldy, don't you think?

Sure.

But I try not to conjure the image of a feeble old man shaking his fist at the kids in his yard when I put my serious hat on. You have to take care when you lay down the law; otherwise, fools like me can make fun of you. :-)

Modifié par devSin, 17 juillet 2011 - 10:24 .

[Melness]

TeenZombie wrote...

But if you take away skills, another "price" needs to be introduced, correct?  Otherwise, it's not much of a game if you can just choose the right answer or find the correct solution without taking the right skills or putting points into the right attributes.  

You wouldn't expect to be given a one-shot-instakill sword at the beginning of a game, to make combat easier.  You earn your way up to abilities that allow you to kill stuff in a more efficient manner.  I would like the same sort of principle applied to non-combat quests and dialogue options.  You put the points in, you get rewarded with more dialogue options, etc.

Of course there must be a price. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be tied to the primary attributes. When picking between, say, Strenght, Cunning and Magic, your priority should be about combat. Mage and warrior characters shouldn't need to gimp themselves to open new dialogue.

The price can certainly be a non combat skill on the same lines as Persuasion from Da:O but I believe that is a bit boring. Personally, when attempting to negotiate for an instance, you should have to pick the best line instead of simply having enough cunning points so that the only negotiate choice actually works.

[Savber100]

Melness wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

EDIT: Quick question... can anyone explain to me why non-combat skills are important? I can see where most of you guys are coming from but I'll like a more in-depth reason to place onto the OP.

For me, non-combat skills are a huge part of role playing.  Being able to solve problems through diplomacy or coercion is fun and rewarding, and breaks up the monotony of COMBAT-COMBAT-CUTSCENE-COMBAT.  That routine isn't role playing.  Giving us alternate ways to solve quests is always better, whether it's by extra dialogue or other methods.

While I'm a fan of introducing different ways to deal with problems, maybe non-combat skills aren't necessary for that. If they are, all I ask is that attributes no longer play a part in dialogue. Sometimes it felt that any Warden without 30 cunning was a rather slow fellow.

You make an interesting point although I believe that attributes that affect dialogue is good for C&C.

If you've played Fallout 1, you'll be able to create a character of low intellgience which affected the player's choices. You basically spoke in a "herp derp" dialgoue throughout the entire game which was the funniest crap you'll ever see in a video game. What was even better was how you could still finish the entire game although most of the sidequests were closed because no one would entrust your dumb character to anything. That was role-playing at its finest.

If your character is stupid, it should be reflected by the world's reaction to it. Sadly, there no RPGs left that allow you to do that.

Anyways, most of you are saying that non-combat abilites help broaden the role-playing and opening up a variety of new options. I believe that dialogue choices is better when it depends on stats and skills rather than your current morality standing etc but do most of you disapprove of simply choosing the right dialogue as a means of persuasion rather than having a static skill that basically lets you pass without much effort?

The reason I'm asking is because I generally thought that the dev team made a good point when they decided to remove coercion as a set skill and instead have the player choose the necessary dialogue to persuade another character without any connection to a morality system (which DA2 fortunately didn't have). To me, stuff like that seems more organic.

Thoughts?

Modifié par Savber100, 17 juillet 2011 - 10:35 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Savber100 wrote...

Anyways, most of you are saying that non-combat abilites help broaden the role-playing and opening up a variety of new options. I believe that dialogue choices is better when it depends on stats and skills rather than your current morality standing etc but do most of you disapprove of simply choosing the right dialogue as a means of persuasion rather than having a static skill that basically lets you pass without much effort?

The reason I'm asking is because I generally thought that the dev team made a good point when they decided to remove coercion as a set skill and instead have the player choose the necessary dialogue to persuade another character without any connection to a morality system (which DA2 fortunately didn't have). To me, stuff like that seems more organic.

Thoughts?

Then the idea is to use attributes/skills as a method of developing alternative avenues of conversation rather than a binary success/fail type check. Furthermore, depending on the conversation, or your goal, you may not want to "succeed". For example, the cunning stat could be used to open up options to blackmail people in conversation. Now usually, this would get you some extra gold and/or help. But what if you encounter an NPC with a weak personality?

Say for example you're doing an investigation quest for a criminal syndicate who are shaking down the local merchants. You could try and intimidate one of the shopkeepers to help you by blackmail, this is checked by Cunning. He tells you where the hideout is but once you get there, you'll find that they had been expecting you. The shopkeeper was already broken in by the syndicate and while your blackmail was successful (you got the information), he was still too scared and went to tell the syndicate of your plans. The same would happen if you tried to Intimidate him aggressively.

Now, in this case, through the dialog, you'd want to reassure him and let him know in no uncertain terms that they will protect him afterward. So, Coercion skill. Alternatively, you could pickpocket him or steal a parchment from his store that gives clues on where the hideout was. If your character has a high enough Intelligence, you could decode that parchment. If not, you could take the information to the shopkeeper and Coerce, Blackmail or Intimidate him without the need for a skill check. Obviously, you'd need to add some challenge to the Stealing/Pickpocketing aspect of it to prevent it from becoming too easy. So maybe, reactive NPCs with an actual law and order system. Like most games already.

Also, making them invisible (no skill tags) would make it easier from a roleplaying perspective.

So you'd have:

"Look, we need that information. People's lives are at stake at, we both know that. Look at my face, do I look like I am lying? I promise you, no matter what happens, we'll protect you."
"I wonder what the Guards would say if we told them that you were doing business with the Syndicate, hmm? I don't think they'd be too happy. Tell us what we need to know or you're taking a one way trip to prison."
"I could stay here and beat you down to a pulp. I mean, I'm in the mood to do exactly that!! So tell me where I can find the Syndicate, or your criminal friends will be sweeping what's left of you off the floor!!

1. Coercion
2. Blackmail
3. Intimidate

But leave it displayed as above with no tags.

On second thought, I am okay with tags, just not the New Vegas type where they display the check level too. Makes it too gamey.

Of course, in a world where both protagonists and NPCs are fully voiced, the kind of depth I'm looking for isn't really possible.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 18 juillet 2011 - 02:05 .