1502 réponses à ce sujet

[nitefyre410]

ademska wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

I've mentioned that other statement because that one seems to me also like an attempt to present the game --as it is-- as appealing to the CoD crowd. To clarify, i'm taking Mr.Laidlaw's statement at face value, i.e. "BioWare doesn't want to appeal to CoD crowd, that's a myth" rather than more specific and narrow interpretation of "BioWare isn't making changes to its games so they're (even more) appealing to CoD crowd"... as the latter isn't what was actually said. (although even that could be questioned, per ME3 example)

...how is that functionally any different? we're getting the same game regardless of marketing to a peripheral demographic, period. it's just semantics at this point.


edit: @nitefyre, it's interesting that you consider pure cinematics necessary to draw you into the game. i agree, actually, but a good chunk of the vocal posters on these boards feel vehemently the opposite.

Not  only thing   but  it is a visual meduim  so you can't ignore it   esp with an RPG because you a telling a story.  Like a writer with peferct flawless grammer but his or her stories are just ... meh.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 05 août 2011 - 07:23 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It is rare that I will apply a totaly unqualified "this" to a Sylvius post, so I am marking this occasion by responding with more than just that singular word.

My frustration with DA2's lack of transparency is made worse by how easily tremendous amounts of transparency were added to DAO with the Detailed Tooltips mod.

That mod was a blueprint that DA2 should have followed.  That standard of transparency is the bare minimum any game should provide out of the box.

I disagree. Not everyone wants to know how the sausage is made for any game, ever. It is not necessary for players to see exact amounts of health for Street Fighter 4, or to have damage numbers appear after each hit in a combo.

Players should be given sufficient information to make reasoned decisions, and if they want to work out the formulae and kinks, that sort of info can and should be made available, but optional. I don't want it in every game I play ever. Trying to tell me that I need to know the exact falling speed in pixels per second of my blocks in Tetris isn't really useful or necessary.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I didn't say you should need to know it, or need to uinderstand it in order to play. But the data should be available. The formulae should not be hidden from a player who wants to see them.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I didn't say you should need to know it, or need to uinderstand it in order to play. But the data should be available. The formulae should not be hidden from a player who wants to see them.

And even a wordy PDF that only power users know about would serve that purpose.

[TEWR]

I don't think he saying  have the game to do work.  He is talking about  presentation and pulling the player in to the story - which having played both ALOT. I can say that DA:O  and DA 2 do not very well  - IMO. 
 
Lets look at Lorthering for example -  now  in DA:O  how much more of impact on the player would I have been  to go back there and see the devastation that  the Darkspawn  left behind, to see the party reaching to it -   Lieana in front of the  burnt out remains of the Chantry,   Morrigan taken back by scene before  her - Alastair and the Warden  actually seeing  what a  Darkspawn how does to a town and not just an army. For me at least I was more driven  to get back Loghain for turning a leaving  than Darkspawn.  Seeing him  actually  stand there give the order and then watching the King that he swore loyality crush made the betrayal stick more. Than say hearing about afterwards  or in the case Lorthering seein a  skull and crossbone on the screen.  

DA 2 with the  Mage/Templar conflict  at the end -  how many more people would understand just how  desperate  First Enchanter  felt  if they  saw  him  watchingfighting   as mages that he raised sense children cut down. Hawke and party fighting a losing battle it would drive home what  drove him to his actions. The same if you choose the Templar side -  Seeing a Templar with his unit infront of  a group of Mages giving up only to watch the rest  his squard cut them down and throw in  his helmet or  question is what there doing "really the right thing"  

ME 2 did marvelously at the Collector base  - esp. when you see either colonist or crew member  liquified .   

Indeed. Origins and DA2 rely more on telling rather than showing, which is the series' biggest flaw. Because of this, I can't consider Origins more than a good game that is better than DA2.

[Redcoat]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

One of the reasons why Call of Duty captivates its audience so well is the adrenaline rush feeling people get when they play on multiplayer. At least that's what my friends and I have come to agree on since we play Call of Duty almost religiously.

If Dragon Age had an adrenaline rush feeling in the storyline and the combat (which means the combat needs to become incredibly tactical), it would help garner more fans.

Of course, that's not the only way the DA series could grab new fans. Most of the people I know however don't like fantasy, so it wouldn't really matter.

This made me think of something:

CoD's multiplayer (or any multiplayer game, really) succeeds because it keeps players coming back for more. You cannot "beat" the multiplayer game; there will always be someone better than you, and there's always another challenge. This is not unlike "classic" games like Pac-Man or Tetris, where the game just increased the challenge level until the player was overwhelmed. In a game like Baldur's Gate, the game has a definite end, but one can always roll a different character, with completely different set of proficiences or skills, and with an entirely different party (or go solo for the ultimate challenge). Not only that, the game is challenging, so that if you beat it as a straight-up fighter, you still might find it challenging as a Mage or a Thief. There were challenging segments, but there were multiple ways of approaching them. By keeping the game challenging, you keep players coming back for more. It's like the "just one more quarter, damn it!" situation of the arcades.

Lately, however,  the attitude seems to be "everyone is entitled to finish the game merely by purchasing it." Hence, games today are ridiculously easy (although there are exceptions, like Demon Souls), made with the idea that "if players don't finish it, they won't enjoy it." That reminds of a quote from Shigeru Miyamoto where he said that half the people who played Ocarina of Time never finished it. But Ocarina of Time was a huge seller and occupies a spot at or near the top of every "Greatest Games Of All Time" list. So clearly players not finishing the game wasn't a huge detriment.

So with DA2, I felt like the game was always holding my hand and offering very little in the way of difficulty. Nearly every encounter is just a mob of mostly identical enemies with no special attributes or abilities I have to account for. Nearly every encounter is an ambush. The game simply did not challenge me. But without challenge, the game has no "value." Paying $59.99 for something that I breeze through feels like I'm getting ripped off; I'll play it once, then shelve it and never touch it again. Now, you might say "Just increase the difficulty" but all that does in DA2 is stack the deck in the game's favour by tweaking HP and damage numbers. It doesn't, say, throw in more powerful creatures to fight (remember how in Doom upping the difficulty level would put more powerful monsters into each level?), or allow party members to be permanently killed off a-la Baldur's Gate.

The result of this, that there's no challenge and no sense of danger, leads to me becoming BORED. To get back to the "adrenaline rush" feeling you mentioned, the thrill of a game comes from the danger, from the possibility of failing. I remember getting sweaty palms whenever I played classic Nintendo games like Super Mario Bros., Battletoads, or The Legend of Zelda. Compare this to modern Zelda, where the game is so easy that you have to work at dying. Not coincidentally, I struggled to finish Twilight Princess, and once I did, never touched it again. What this means for DA3 is that the game needs to be good and challenging; it needs that "Just one more quarter, damn it!" feeling (if DA3 worked like an arcade game).

Modifié par Redcoat, 05 août 2011 - 07:36 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I didn't say you should need to know it, or need to uinderstand it in order to play. But the data should be available. The formulae should not be hidden from a player who wants to see them.

And even a wordy PDF that only power users know about would serve that purpose.

Even if we had to download it separately because it wouldn't fit on the disc - just let us see the math.

[jds1bio]

nitefyre410 wrote...

I don't think he saying  have the game to do work.  He is talking about  presentation and pulling the player in to the story - which having played both ALOT. I can say that DA:O  and DA 2 do not very well  - IMO. 
 
Lets look at Lorthering for example -  now  in DA:O  how much more of impact on the player would I have been  to go back there and see the devastation that  the Darkspawn  left behind, to see the party reaching to it -   Lieana in front of the  burnt out remains of the Chantry,   Morrigan taken back by scene before  her - Alastair and the Warden  actually seeing  what a  Darkspawn how does to a town and not just an army. For me at least I was more driven  to get back Loghain for turning a leaving  than Darkspawn.  Seeing him  actually  stand there give the order and then watching the King that he swore loyality crush made the betrayal stick more. Than say hearing about afterwards  or in the case Lorthering seein a  skull and crossbone on the screen.  

DA 2 with the  Mage/Templar conflict  at the end -  how many more people would understand just how  desperate  First Enchanter  felt  if they  saw  him  watchingfighting   as mages that he raised sense children cut down. Hawke and party fighting a losing battle it would drive home what  drove him to his actions. The same if you choose the Templar side -  Seeing a Templar with his unit infront of  a group of Mages giving up only to watch the rest  his squard cut them down and throw in  his helmet or  question is what there doing "really the right thing"  

ME 2 did marvelously at the Collector base  - esp. when you see either colonist or crew member  liquified .   

There is another thread going started by Mr. Epler here that deals with what you are saying.  But briefly, I acknowledge your point, and presentation certainly plays a major role in setting the mood or getting the adrenaline pumping, whether it's COD, DA, ME, or 2D bullet-hell shooters.

[ademska]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I disagree. Not everyone wants to know how the sausage is made for any game, ever. It is not necessary for players to see exact amounts of health for Street Fighter 4, or to have damage numbers appear after each hit in a combo.

Players should be given sufficient information to make reasoned decisions, and if they want to work out the formulae and kinks, that sort of info can and should be made available, but optional. I don't want it in every game I play ever. Trying to tell me that I need to know the exact falling speed in pixels per second of my blocks in Tetris isn't really useful or necessary.

actually, that's not quite true. i don't play tournament-level ssf4, but all my friends do (i have terrible friends), and a good portion of high-level play is learning details of hitboxes, framerates, attack combo damage output, etc. they don't remember these in the heat of fighting in the street (oho!), but it shapes how they approach matches.

similarly, players tackling rpgs at a high level don't necessarily need to know the exact damage output of their cross-class combo offhand, but having a basic rubric is extremely helpful all the same.


edit: ....and what the hell world am i living in where battletoads is lauded as a fun challenge to which modern games should aspire

Modifié par ademska, 05 août 2011 - 07:26 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I didn't say you should need to know it, or need to uinderstand it in order to play. But the data should be available. The formulae should not be hidden from a player who wants to see them.

And even a wordy PDF that only power users know about would serve that purpose.

We asked for and got a "hide helmet" toggle from BioWare, for DA2.  It seems fair to ask for a "reveal details" toggle for DA3.


*watches a kitten sail through a plate glass window*

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I didn't say you should need to know it, or need to uinderstand it in order to play. But the data should be available. The formulae should not be hidden from a player who wants to see them.

That is not what you said, nor was it what *I* said. I don't want my interface cluttered up with massive amounts of information that I don't necessarily need to know. I like minimalist UI. I don't like having to sift through a bunch of extra stuff when I don't need to. I find it wastes time and concentration I would rather spend on the game itself.

This is what you said.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My frustration with DA2's lack of transparency is made worse by how easily tremendous amounts of transparency were added to DAO with the Detailed Tooltips mod.

That mod was a blueprint that DA2 should have followed.  That standard of transparency is the bare minimum any game should provide out of the box.

I don't want my tooltips to be super cluttered at the bare minimum. I am fine with that information being made available for those who want it through various avenues, but that is not what you said. You said that at the bare minimum, the game should provide all this information by default. I disagree.

[TheBlackBaron]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I don't want my tooltips to be super cluttered at the bare minimum. I am fine with that information being made available for those who want it through various avenues, but that is not what you said. You said that at the bare minimum, the game should provide all this information by default. I disagree.

If that level of information is enabled by default with the option to switch it off, I don't see how it's a problem.

[tmp7704]

JohnEpler wrote...

TLDR - I think there's a vast gulf between saying 'we have some stuff that people who play CoD might like, let's bring them in with those aspects and then show them what's unique to our games that wil hook them' and 'DA must become more like Call of Duty!'

We have a simple misunderstanding here -- my interpretation of "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" is exactly how it reads, that is BioWare wants the CoD crowd to play and enjoy BioWare games. That's why i questioned if it's really a "myth" that BioWare would want that, because i'd imagine it's actually quite normal for the game developer to want to see their games appeal to people even outside of the initial target group. And because the company does take steps to show how their games can be appealing to said crowd.

In other words, i've never read Mr.Laidlaw's statement as "it's a myth DA must become more like Call of Duty!" because as you say, it's quite a different thing and i didn't think that's what he's saying.

[FieryDove]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
In truth, what we would like is for there to be 10 million RPG fans out there, not to toss aside RPG fans. If anything, I suspect that we didn't put enough focus on stats, cross-class combos, and so on in our message, which would have helped.

There is that many and more...
But one thing that is apparently vital to the many has never been an item of importance in Bioware games. Yes, I’m leaving this vague on purpose. I don’t want to derail the thread with a war.

Secondly MP of some form will gather in more of many than not if implemented well no matter how I feel about it. MP must have! In every game…bleh

MP will always be at war with story driven RPG’s. It is a hard to balance variation and some (like me) prefer sp games. I do enjoy MP, just not in everything.

More aspects of the inner working of the game would have been good to add bits here and there to your PR campaign. I do wish you would poke some of your PR people a bit. RPG players not wanting details/detailed and varied enviroments is really a  moment.

Modifié par FieryDove, 05 août 2011 - 07:41 .

[hoorayforicecream]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

If that level of information is enabled by default with the option to switch it off, I don't see how it's a problem.

I don't mind this. I already said that I'm good with putting it out there for players who want it. But once again, that is not what he said. He said that all of that should be the bare minimum by default. By definition, that means there is no way to turn it off, and there is no way to not have it. I don't want that.

[Mike Laidlaw]

b1322 wrote...

I have a question for Bioware and I hope someone will answer it:

One thing I really missed from origins to be seen in DA2 is the ability to talk with your companions, I loved all the deep conversations, is this something that Bioware intents to integrate back in DA3?

Oh, FINE. One more fun one: yes.

Our intention is that there will be the ability to initiate companion dialogs at "home base," whatever that is. Remember, though, that we have a finite amount of resources, and there's a delicate balance between the resources spent on personal plots out in the world and dialogs in the "base," and the we'll have to tread carefully.

Still, I completely understand the desire to plunk down and at least have the option to ask Fenris a few things, even if they're eventually going to be the same things (as was the case in Origins), if only to show off / enjoy / savor Gideon Emery's dulcet tones.

[Anarya]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

b1322 wrote...

I have a question for Bioware and I hope someone will answer it:

One thing I really missed from origins to be seen in DA2 is the ability to talk with your companions, I loved all the deep conversations, is this something that Bioware intents to integrate back in DA3?

Oh, FINE. One more fun one: yes.

Our intention is that there will be the ability to initiate companion dialogs at "home base," whatever that is. Remember, though, that we have a finite amount of resources, and there's a delicate balance between the resources spent on personal plots out in the world and dialogs in the "base," and the we'll have to tread carefully.

Still, I completely understand the desire to plunk down and at least have the option to ask Fenris a few things, even if they're eventually going to be the same things (as was the case in Origins), if only to show off / enjoy / savor Gideon Emery's dulcet tones.

Gideon Emery!! *swoon*

Will this be the primary way of talking to the companions, so that we're back to "making the rounds" again?

[TEWR]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

b1322 wrote...

I have a question for Bioware and I hope someone will answer it:

One thing I really missed from origins to be seen in DA2 is the ability to talk with your companions, I loved all the deep conversations, is this something that Bioware intents to integrate back in DA3?

Oh, FINE. One more fun one: yes.

Our intention is that there will be the ability to initiate companion dialogs at "home base," whatever that is. Remember, though, that we have a finite amount of resources, and there's a delicate balance between the resources spent on personal plots out in the world and dialogs in the "base," and the we'll have to tread carefully.

Still, I completely understand the desire to plunk down and at least have the option to ask Fenris a few things, even if they're eventually going to be the same things (as was the case in Origins), if only to show off / enjoy / savor Gideon Emery's dulcet tones.

You have no idea how happy you've just made me. You're saying that you'll try and give us the option to be able to kiss our romances when we want, right? Because I really wish I could've done at least that with Merrill a lot of the time, but I was a sad panda when she kept talking about Sandal.

[Johnny Jaded]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

He said that all of that should be the bare minimum by default. By definition, that means there is no way to turn it off, and there is no way to not have it. I don't want that.

That's not what Sylvius was saying at all. He was saying that that level of informatin should be available as standard and not have to added by a mod, not necessarily that it's shoved in your face.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

It doesn't mean the solution is to just revert to Origins, however.

While I was spectacularly disappointed by DA2, there are a few things I liked - such as the reduction in shuffle (it's still there, just nowhere near as prevalent and infuriating as it was in Origins), the new animations for the mage, the distinct racial models and the focus on a more personal story rather than the cliche quest to save the world from a Big Bad.
However, I personally feel that certain things should revert back to DA:O's implementation - stats being one of them. The make very little sense in DA2, especially elemental resistances. For example, in Origins, one point of X resistance equalled a 1% negation of damage from the particular element (5 points fire resistance = 5% negation of a fire-based attack), this was simple, logical, easy to understand even for those who had never played an RPG before. Compare that to DA2: my Hawke currently has a fire resistance of 528 or something which equates to 8% damage negation; now obviously more is always better, but the math behind that is rather convoluted and not conducive to working out at a glance if a high resistance to X is preferable to a medium resistance to both A and B, for example.
Defense (which is described as essentially being the chance to dodge an attack) makes little sense being tied to cunning over dexterity. I could go on but I'd feel like I'm nitpicking over minor gripes.

One thing that bothered me more than anything else in DA2 - more than the neglect shown to item naming and descriptions, more than the re-used environments, more than the wave combat and paratrooping enemies - was the complete disregard for your own lore. I can understand the need to make gameplay more engaging, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the lore. Giving enemy mages the abilty to teleport when it was explicitly stated that teleportation is not possible is...questionable, at best. Abominations rising from the ground (I'm sure everyone remembers a certain scene involving a certain Knight-captain and his recruit) when they're the result of demonic possesion is also careless. I don't know how the writers feel, but I'd be offended were I one of them. The gameplay should fit the lore, otherwise there's little point in creating such in the first place - the enemy mage ability to throw up a barrier for protection is a good example of where gameplay meets lore.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
there have been a lot of improvements in gameplay and UI design in the past 15 years, and we can learn from them.

I find this statement ironic considering DA2's UI was inferior to Origins by far, and felt very out of place not only for a fantasy game (since it's appearance seemed more in line with a sci-fi game), but also compared to the games own art style. I'm going to paraphrase here, but (even more ironic) is that you once stated that DA:O had several assets
in it's UI (map, leather-bound journal, loading screen etc) that made it felt like a melting pot of various fantasy
styles and that it needed one distinct style, yet DA2 was even worse in this regard since it had a very distinct art style for the cutscenes and loading screens (which I very much liked by the way), and then a completely separate (and as I said, out of place) style for the GUI.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see a return of the leather-bound book and scroll effect of Origins. Or at least a GUI that's more in keeping with the art style shown in the cutscenes and loading screens. More importantly, one that actually feels suitable to a fantasy RPG.

Whilst on the subject of the GUI, the character portraits, health and mana/stamina bars in DA2 felt very sub-optimal. While they weren't as obtrusive as I had thought they were going to be, the bottom left corner still felt cluttered and the screen would have been more balanced had they been in the top left corner as they were in Origins.
As for the health and mana/stamina bars, I think I understand what you were trying to accomplish with their length being relative to the character with the highest numerical value, but I don't think it really worked. It no doubt comes down to personal opinion but I find it's easier to tell who needs what potion when the characters' bars are all equal length since it shows who's lower on health/mana/stamina as a percentage of their total and thus who is more need of a potion relative to their individual stat.

Modifié par Johnny Jaded, 05 août 2011 - 07:56 .

[BlooShinja]

I'm someone who loved DA2, and I rank it as one of my favorite games of all time.  But I know developers skip over positive comment and find negative things, so here's a negative:

The DLC equipment is way better than the equipment in the game, and you have access to most of it at the very beginning of the game.  This has negative effects in 3 areas that I've seen:

1. When I open a treasure chest/corpse/rubble (which I search for compulsively), I get some money, a piece of junk (more money), and possibly some random 0 to 3-star equipment that isn't as good as the 5-star "green" equipment I got in Gamlen's house at the beginning of the game (more money, I guess).

2. When I go to a shop, there are 6 pieces of random 0 to 3-star equipment that is average for my level, and two unique pieces of equipment that are either too weak to be worth my time, or too expensive (even with all my money from selling pretty much everything that isn't DLC equipment).  So I save my money for the Black Emporium where I can actually buy DLC equipment.

3. When I level up, I check the stat requirements on my DLC equipment to see what stats I need to pump up in order to equip the next level of "green" equipment.  Only when I don't have any higher DLC equipment to shoot for do I actually think about how to distribute my attributes (the one exception is Cunning for a Rogue so I can open locked chests for more money).

In my last playthrough, I immediately Stashed all of the DLC equipment in Storage and played the whole game with non-DLC equipment.  It was a completely different experience.  It was much harder (especially at the beginning).  I found myself actually using looted equipment a lot (which made looting way more fun), and I even bought some stuff from the plain old vendors besides Backpacks and armor upgrades.

I realize that DLC equipment needs to be better than what's in the game if BioWare wants people to pay for it.  My problem is with the early accessibility of it.  I think it should be gained through quests, or at least not be available until it closer in power to the available non-DLC equipment. 

Also, equipment that improves as you level up is a cool idea, but it makes it so you pretty much
can have the same weapon equipped the whole game (which removes a lot
of the fun of upgrading to better equipment).  Maybe have some points in
the game where you can upgrade your equipment to your current level (so
it might fall behind and make you use some other stuff for awhile, then
you can upgrade it and it becomes strongest again).

[Tirfan]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


You have no idea how happy you've just made me. You're saying that you'll try and give us the option to be able to kiss our romances when we want, right? Because I really wish I could've done at least that with Merrill a lot of the time, but I was a sad panda when she kept talking about Sandal.

Hah, serves you right! I can go back to DA:O and smooch Morrigan any time I want.
Join the dark side, abandon Merril, you know you want to.

I hate to admit, this sounds perhaps a bit too creepy. But sometimes I have to do what I have to do.

[AloraKast]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

b1322 wrote...

I have a question for Bioware and I hope someone will answer it:

One thing I really missed from origins to be seen in DA2 is the ability to talk with your companions, I loved all the deep conversations, is this something that Bioware intents to integrate back in DA3?

Oh, FINE. One more fun one: yes.

Our intention is that there will be the ability to initiate companion dialogs at "home base," whatever that is. Remember, though, that we have a finite amount of resources, and there's a delicate balance between the resources spent on personal plots out in the world and dialogs in the "base," and the we'll have to tread carefully.

Still, I completely understand the desire to plunk down and at least have the option to ask Fenris a few things, even if they're eventually going to be the same things (as was the case in Origins), if only to show off / enjoy / savor Gideon Emery's dulcet tones.

*blink* Gideon... Emery.... Oh, Maker!  *shiver*

Do you have any idea how happy you made me with that comment? No? Let me demonstate:

*ahem*

Mike, may I kiss you?

[TEWR]

Merrill trumps Morrigan all the time!

[ademska]

i'm just going to state very gently that decorative typeface as body text is the single-worst design decision possible in anything ever.

da2's minimalist, console-friendly ui fell in line just fine with the game's overall more streamlined look. given da2's aesthetic, i think the dao ui would actually be incredibly out of place. @JohnnyJaded, your points about the on-screen clutter are well-made, but i'd also point that dao's health and stamina bars were also presented as relative.