1502 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Utoryo wrote...

David, what about allowing the same player-initiated dialogue in all inns/taverns (or similar) as well as the camp/base?

You'd have two solutions to that, maybe more but I can't think of them atm.

• Create entirely new cutscenes for the very same discussion within inns / taverns, as there's a lot of cinematic work that has to be accomplished if they want to stay in the cinematic route. This costs time and time is money. You'd have to spend resources that could be spent elsewhere.
• They return to talking head theatre, which kind of removes the point of cinematic dialogue.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 août 2011 - 08:13 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

David Gaider wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...
Sure the cam was somehow in a fixed position when you had a conversation in the middle of the deep road. I can only speak for myself, i liked the possibility to talk whenever i wanted with my companions, i didnt care about the position of the cam. In DAO i felt connected to my companions, because i could talk to them.

I don't doubt you felt connected to the DAO companions. I'm not as certain that it's solely because you could talk to them anywhere, but I imagine anyone's mileage will vary on that account.

In DA2 there is just a bubble over the head of a companion and when i click on it, i get often the same response that has nothing to do with the location we are, the quest we are doing and so on like such one "do i need a bath?".

In DA2 the followers both had location-specific and quest specific barks, as well as generic ones. You would receive a random bark when you clicked on them. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the idea with regards to this sort of dialogue would be to move to more reactive ambient dialogue as in Legacy-- and possibly something more complicated, if we can swing it. It won't be fully cinematic dialogue, however.

I dont understand why the conversation options have changed so much between DAO and DA2. In my opinion DAO conversation options are much better than the conversation in DA2.

The technical issues have been brought up elsewhere in this thread. We're not interested in talking-head dialogue and have chosen to raise the bar on our cinematic presentation whenever we use it. As I mentioned previously, there are ways to arrange the interaction with the party members which could potentially provide more agency-- but if you believe you absolutely require the ability to talk to a party member with full dialogue anywhere in the game, that's not on the table. Sorry.

Being able to talk to my companions anywhere and anytime allows me to have more spontaneous conversations as opposed to the audition method of DA2 where the PC felt like she was forced to talk with the companions for the character development to continue. So yes, like the poster describes the DA:O method greatly contributed to being connected to them in comparison to the forced method. Of course how well those characters are portrayed and what they have to say helps a great deal as well.

Full cinematic story telling is overrated when the story being told is limited to cinematics only. By that I mean: If in a Legacy cinematic I see troops on the move and those troops disappear in thin air when the cinematic stops then the cinematic has no meaning and feels hollow. In general: If in the story it is clear that mages are being hunted then its class should be recognized - not only in cinematic dialogue, but also when Hawke walks the streets of Kirkwall. After all, Hawke uses spells everywhere, carries a staff and wears a robe. It feels silly that Hawke has to tell someone in a dialogue that she's a mage. The same goes for the companion mages. In DA2 the story is being told in cinematics and it seems like it does not exist outside of cinematics. And because the cinematic dialogue does not recognize Hawke as a mage when it should then such a dialogue becomes silly. All these flaws together make the story not very believable.

Another idea that struck me is that the physical locations feel like a map with points of interests, puzzles and bosses. The dialogue merely connects all these points. No matter what you have chosen you will be forced to visit those points of interest, solve the puzzles and fight the same bosses. That requires that each choice has to contain a rationalization of some sort to wrap back to that path. That makes the dialogue feel constructed and artificial. There seems to be a lot going on of that. It disturbs the great story telling that BW is capable of. Of course there are exceptions to any of this in DA2 and Legacy. I was just painting the overall picture of this.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 06 août 2011 - 08:22 .

[Savber100]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

[image snippage]
Is there anyway for more choices that go beyond my "reaction" or a "yes" or "no"?

You could click the investigate to open up 5 additional choices to ask Isabela about her relationship with Hayder, or you could choose to help her or not, and enjoy one of 3 possible responses, colored by the dominant tone you had chosen throughout the course of the game, creating a consistency of character. So that's...let's see....11 possible things you could say there, some of which were determined by how you had played the game up to that point.

Not too shabby, if you ask me.

Fair enough. 

But my point was more of how in DA2 it seems that no matter what I click, my Hawke just says the same bloody thing but with a different tone rather than different comment entirely.

For example, DA2's options felt more like when I talk to a character: 

1. No (in a happy/diplomatic tone)
2. No (in a sarcastic tone)
3. No (in an angry tone)
4. Investigate 

Compared to DA:O where I feel more in control of what I say. Look at my previous screenshot with Duncan for an example: 

1. You're not wanted here
2. Lets talk about your impending beating
3. Thanks but please go. 
4. What's your business?

I freely admit that the system is similar to each other but I believe DA:O created a better illusion of control of what I'm saying even as the dialogue discreetly loops back. 

Is it possible that the dialogue wheel can better reflect my words rather than be a vague description of my actual words.  Make the player think "This is what I want to say" rather "this is the tone I want" 

Look at DX: HR's dialogue wheel. Is it possible that the next DA3 can use that dialogue wheel instead which I believe is the perfect compromise? 

Modifié par Savber100, 06 août 2011 - 08:24 .

[Savber100]

double post

Modifié par Savber100, 06 août 2011 - 08:23 .

[Persephone]

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.

That is so NOT.....

Ok, I admit it. First time I heard that voice during Fenris' intro my thoughts went "Oh hello! Please be a LI!".

But then, Simon Templeman could be reading the phonebook and I'd be a puddle of goo.

But all fangirling aside, that IS a delicate balance, On one hand the camp/interrogation dialogue from DAO (Which, I admit, I skip through these days except for maybe 2-3 characters on occasion...because it's always the same & never adapts as it does in DAII) and on the other the plot-based/adapting dialogue triggering at a companion's home base which I also enjoy immensely.

One situation where I would have liked interrogation dialogue to trigger would be when you take Izzy to the Qunari compound. She slinks away and her excuses are rather telling. Now after talking to the Arishok, I would have liked to question her on what happened back there. Granted, plot points there....but a flavour response (Adding Rivalry/Friendship) would have sufficed IMO and deepened immersion. For me, anyway.

[Zanallen]

Persephone wrote...

That is so NOT.....
Ok, I admit it. First time I heard that voice during Fenris' intro my thoughts went "Oh hello! Please be a LI!".

But then, Simon Templeman could be reading the phonebook and I'd be a puddle of goo.

But all fangirling aside, that IS a delicate balance, On one hand the camp/interrogation dialogue from DAO (Which, I admit, I skip through these days except for maybe 2-3 characters on occasion...because it's always the same & never adapts as it does in DAII) and on the other the plot-based/adapting dialogue triggering at a companion's home base which I also enjoy immensely.

One situation where I would have liked interrogation dialogue to trigger would be when you take Izzy to the Qunari compound. She slinks away and her excuses are rather telling. Now after talking to the Arishok, I would have liked to question her on what happened back there. Granted, plot points there....but a flavour response (Adding Rivalry/Friendship) would have sufficed IMO and deepened immersion. For me, anyway.

Have you heard Gideon Emery sing? I am a completely straight male and that man's voice makes me tingly.

[Persephone]

Stanley Woo wrote...

b1322 wrote...

I liked Legacy and could feel some of the improvements. And I really appreciate that Bioware takes the time to listen and answer our feedback, thank you! :-)

Increased community interaction is one of the things I would like to do in future projects. I would like us to get back to the way things were in the early days of the BioWare online community, where developers felt safe and valued and their opinions and advice were respected because, hey, these guys made the game y'all love.

Over the years, as the community has gotten bigger and project deadlines more important, we've slacked off a bit. I admit that. I've even gotten grouchier as a Moderator and have had to get people like John Epler to be the "good cop" to my "bad cop," Chris Priestly isn't even able to be online with you guys as much as he used to be.

But going forward, I would like both us and the community to be welcoming to new developers who want to share their expertise, advice and opinions. I want an artist, for example, to come in and talk about what he's working on without a small portion of the community screaming "DA2 SUCKED!" at him. I would like a designer to be able to talk about this new system or solicit ideas for a planned feature without a big long tangent on how "EA is the devil!" And I especially want to come in and chat with all y'all without feeling like I have to fight through some of you to get to those people who can and want to listen to what I have to say.

We hope that the Dragon Age franchise has a long way still to go. We have lots of ideas, and you guys have a lot of opinions and a desire to learn everything you can about what's coming up, what's in the pipe, and what hit store shelves, like, an hour ago or whatever. To do that, we have to be willing to set our differences aside and work like a community again. We have to believe that you ultimately like us and want to help us build better games, and you have to believe that we love what we do and that we are doing it for you, our community, our fans, and gamers worldwide (as well as for money).

Let's be excellent to each other and help to make this community the best developer board you can find. Let's attract some new devs to talk, and let's agree to disagree when things get too heated or when we start talking in circles. And we, in turn, will continue to be forthright with you and, as always, as open as we can be about what we're doing and why we do it.

Thanks for reading.

That's so wonderful to hear. Brings back SO many memories. So yes, THIS. A billion this this.^

[Firky]

On the issue of when you can talk to companions. I liked DAII and earning dialogue, and that it was delivered in smaller doses after various combat/plot stuff. For some reason I just wanted to talk, talk, talk, then fight, fight, fight in Origins and I'd exhaust all the dialogue in one sitting, but not really take it in. However, the fact that Firky has no self control is a terrible reason not to have some travelling dialogue, if it is implementable. I guess I would definitely say that there are times in an RPG where having the choice to regulate when you just take a break and go explore some lore is rather nice. (A library would be cool. As SoL noted somewhere else, like Ultima's Lycaeum.)

Also, how does dialogue in Legacy work? I keep seeing people mention hubs or something where you can have extra conversations. Did I miss that?

Edit: (I decided to be slightly less OT.)

Modifié par Firky, 06 août 2011 - 09:22 .

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Stanley Woo wrote...

b1322 wrote...

I liked Legacy and could feel some of the improvements. And I really appreciate that Bioware takes the time to listen and answer our feedback, thank you! :-)

Increased community interaction is one of the things I would like to do in future projects. I would like us to get back to the way things were in the early days of the BioWare online community, where developers felt safe and valued and their opinions and advice were respected because, hey, these guys made the game y'all love.

Over the years, as the community has gotten bigger and project deadlines more important, we've slacked off a bit. I admit that. I've even gotten grouchier as a Moderator and have had to get people like John Epler to be the "good cop" to my "bad cop," Chris Priestly isn't even able to be online with you guys as much as he used to be.

But going forward, I would like both us and the community to be welcoming to new developers who want to share their expertise, advice and opinions. I want an artist, for example, to come in and talk about what he's working on without a small portion of the community screaming "DA2 SUCKED!" at him. I would like a designer to be able to talk about this new system or solicit ideas for a planned feature without a big long tangent on how "EA is the devil!" And I especially want to come in and chat with all y'all without feeling like I have to fight through some of you to get to those people who can and want to listen to what I have to say.

We hope that the Dragon Age franchise has a long way still to go. We have lots of ideas, and you guys have a lot of opinions and a desire to learn everything you can about what's coming up, what's in the pipe, and what hit store shelves, like, an hour ago or whatever. To do that, we have to be willing to set our differences aside and work like a community again. We have to believe that you ultimately like us and want to help us build better games, and you have to believe that we love what we do and that we are doing it for you, our community, our fans, and gamers worldwide (as well as for money).

Let's be excellent to each other and help to make this community the best developer board you can find. Let's attract some new devs to talk, and let's agree to disagree when things get too heated or when we start talking in circles. And we, in turn, will continue to be forthright with you and, as always, as open as we can be about what we're doing and why we do it.

Thanks for reading.

This, a million times this.  It is the purpose and the point of me doing the Promoting thoughts channel and trying to open dialogue, because I believe very strongly that community can in the right circumstances be a very valuable idea mine for developers, but the community has to make a concerted effort to be that resource.  I love that Bioware still believes in this too and it is why it is still so easy to love what you people do.


I just hope that with the coverage these issues get eventually other developers will start to see community as a resource to be tapped rather than as a drain on their existing resources.  Because that to me would be a huge win for the gaming industry as a whole, but for that to happen, the community its self has to grow beyong circular arguments and jumping down the throat of any staff member who pokes his head over the parapets and posts a response. 

There are many good things to take from this thread, but I think that realisation for some people is probaby the biggest one of all.

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 06 août 2011 - 09:25 .

[Utoryo]

Dave of Canada wrote...

You'd have two solutions to that, maybe more but I can't think of them atm.

• Create entirely new cutscenes for the very same discussion within inns / taverns, as there's a lot of cinematic work that has to be accomplished if they want to stay in the cinematic route. This costs time and time is money. You'd have to spend resources that could be spent elsewhere.
• They return to talking head theatre, which kind of removes the point of cinematic dialogue.

I think you're not using the same definition of 'talking head' dialogue as David does. Look at this thread: http://social.biowar...ex/7177791?lf=8

David Gaider wrote...

You can have "unstaged" dialogue... but if you use pre-set cameras without knowing the area you're working in you run the risk of cameras being blocked by objects or other area geometry. The only realistic option in those instances is to go with a single camera showing the character directly in front of the PC and never switching. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that after experiencing most cinematic conversations being staged it's actually quite jarring to suddenly switch to a static camera. It feels like something's wrong. This is why major conversations, the ones where you have everyone interacting with the environment (like sitting down in a chair, for instance), need to happen in a specific place.

There will always be dialogue that requires a very high level of interaction with the environment (e.g. many of the Aveline dialogue) or that is base-specific (e.g. Merrill apologising about her house being messy). But I think you can get away with something slightly more generic but still much more cinematic than DA:O without having to create the cut-scenes multiple times. You simply need to know the worst-case freedom of movement for your cinematics and make sure all inns have a location with that amount of space. It might even be possible to use chairs/tables although that might be too much effort or force all inns to be too similar.

Is it free? No, but it's pretty cheap compared to most of the alternatives. Is it perfect? No, but it's an improvement and should feel very natural. Is it worth the effort? That's not for me to decide at this point.

Modifié par Utoryo, 06 août 2011 - 09:24 .

[Persephone]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
I honestly don't know how much more Bioware can cut, before any vestiges of role playing in the series, is considered being more of an action/adventure game. Sales count hugely, and rightfully so, but DA:O on average is the better seller and grabbed an audience I bet Bioware thought they couldn't considering how well it sold on the consoles. Wouldn't logic state that, maybe, just maybe, going back to most of those elements (not the Warden's story perse) may be the way to go?

My point was more that if we actually wanted to make an action-adventure game, we would have done so much more thoroughly.

Well, IMO, Bioware already accomplished that with DA2. Now all you need are assault weapons and mission directives, and you're there.

Really not true, I am sorry. Being an avid adventure gamer, I can safely say that DAII is a lot but not an adventure game. Does it have adventure-resque features? Yes. But adventure games are way more limited in scope and plot. (May sound like a contradiction but it's true) Even classics like Gabriel Knight II and The Longest Journey are this way. As is Jane Jensen's latest masterpiece: Gray Matter:wub:

[Esbatty]

I wasn't here for the "good times" Communityness. So it'd be a nice if we all cooperated to achieve this.

[ApostleinTriumph]

Savber100 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

[image snippage]
Is there anyway for more choices that go beyond my "reaction" or a "yes" or "no"?

You could click the investigate to open up 5 additional choices to ask Isabela about her relationship with Hayder, or you could choose to help her or not, and enjoy one of 3 possible responses, colored by the dominant tone you had chosen throughout the course of the game, creating a consistency of character. So that's...let's see....11 possible things you could say there, some of which were determined by how you had played the game up to that point.

Not too shabby, if you ask me.

Fair enough. 

But my point was more of how in DA2 it seems that no matter what I click, my Hawke just says the same bloody thing but with a different tone rather than different comment entirely.

For example, DA2's options felt more like when I talk to a character: 

1. No (in a happy/diplomatic tone)
2. No (in a sarcastic tone)
3. No (in an angry tone)
4. Investigate 

Compared to DA:O where I feel more in control of what I say. Look at my previous screenshot with Duncan for an example: 

1. You're not wanted here
2. Lets talk about your impending beating
3. Thanks but please go. 
4. What's your business?

I freely admit that the system is similar to each other but I believe DA:O created a better illusion of control of what I'm saying even as the dialogue discreetly loops back. 

Is it possible that the dialogue wheel can better reflect my words rather than be a vague description of my actual words.  Make the player think "This is what I want to say" rather "this is the tone I want" 

Look at DX: HR's dialogue wheel. Is it possible that the next DA3 can use that dialogue wheel instead which I believe is the perfect compromise? 

What I really don't like about the dialogue wheel system is exactly this. I cannot correctly gauge what I'm going to say. What I think a neutral response may seem like an aggressive one. There is no way to know. I prefer the DA:O/KOTOR style old system with choosing exactly what your character is going to say, because you know what you're getting into. There were times in DA2 that I said "Hey, I didn't mean that!", because the dialogue wheel system is stupid.

ME2 had the same thing, but ME2 is not a true RPG game. It is sort of like interactice storytelling, and a great, great one at that. I really love that game. But please, just let DA franchise do its own thing, don't make DA into another ME.

[Posmerga]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

If I'm going to ****** you guys off, it's going to be because I still firmly believe that RPGs do need to be more accessible to new players. Not dumbed down, not "consolized" (whatever that means. There are insanely complex games on the console), not diminished, but made less imposing and less terrifying to new players. In part because I want more people to play Dragon Age, and in part because there have been a lot of improvements in gameplay and UI design in the past 15 years, and we can learn from them.

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "making rpgs less terrifying to new players?" Less skills? Less variety when it comes to class play style? Cause if you do that, than you are effectively alienating your original fans; and if we are going to assume that you read our complaints, you already do know that the lower number of skills, and less class playstyle variety was a major issue in DA2.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not against attracting new players to the rpg genre, cause in the end EA and Bioware are a business your doing this to make money, we get it, no need to dance around the issue, but at least find better ways to do this without taking things away from your older fans.

[philippe willaume]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Let's be frank. To my understanding the "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" myth devloped like this:

• Greg Zeschuk comments in an interview that Bioware aspires to sell to a larger audience, and that numbers like Call of Duty's 10 million are the long-term goal.
  
• DAII's combat is, in fact,  faster, and more "actiony." Some RPG elements are removed (skills), and others are changed (iconic follower armor, rather than complete customization).
  
• Magical Alchemy happens and "Apparently Dragon Age only wants Call of Duty players to play their game." is the result.

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.

And to be really honest, if we were dead-set on cutting RPG systems, we could have cut much, much deeper.

Hello mike,
That was exactly what I was trying to get at in my reply to you.
 
I could be wrong but I believe that the effort you made to simplify the games mechanic did not go unnoticed and in fact were appreciated.
I may be slightly biased, I teach a fencing style where there are only 5 strikes and you use them to attack and to defend, so I am partial to stream lining.
 
In fact I like the concept EA/BIOWARE has brought into DA2.  And yes they are a leap forward at the conceptual level.
However I really think this is the crux of the “frustration” is how it comes together at the end.
 
You mentioned the speed of the combat or late in the thread the dialog option where brought up.
 
I thing this post from Savber100  sums it up perfectly.
===== Quote
But my point was more of how in DA2 it seems that no matter what I click, my Hawke just says the same bloody thing but with a different tone rather than different comment entirely.

For example, DA2's options felt more like when I talk to a character:

1. No (in a happy/diplomatic tone)
2. No (in a sarcastic tone)
3. No (in an angry tone)
4. Investigate

Compared to DA:O where I feel more in control of what I say. Look at my previous screenshot with Duncan for an example:

1. You're not wanted here
2. Lets talk about your impending beating
3. Thanks but please go.
4. What's your business?

I freely admit that the system is similar to each other but I believe DA:O created a better illusion of control of what I'm saying even as the dialogue discreetly loops back.
===== End of quote
 
Yes the system are similar to each other and in DA:0 I had a fair big of reload due to “opps this is not really what I meant”. So from a pure conceptual point of view DA2 is better but ends up looking oversimplified by being pretty much more of the same.
 
The combat are the same, yes they are quicker bar few exceptions, and the link between the char and the damage output is much much clearer  and there are much less useless talent than in DA:0. However in DA:0 You could swap strategy and role by swapping weapons and with DA:A every class could do any role at least for a short while. So you don’t have to kite because you could swap and do something during the cool down and you could adapt to every encounter
 
phil

[Wozearly]

David Gaider wrote...

We're not interested in talking-head dialogue and have chosen to raise the bar on our cinematic presentation whenever we use it.

To be honest, I didn't (and wouldn't) have a huge beef with a bit of talking head dialogue to allow some limited conversations that could happen anywhere.

I guess my concern with the ambient dialogue is that from a player-interacted perspective so far its pretty much been the one-line "barks" that you referred to. The party banter is excellent use of the ambient system, the barks only really serve to stop characters being completely mute when you try to engage with them.

Using cinematics at key locations in the world on an irregular basis, plus stronger cinematics in the 'home base' or arranged meeting areas, makes a lot of sense as I think that plays to the strengths of the approach. But if the only way you can have conversations with characters is by going to where they want you to go, randomly arriving in the right part of the world, or at the home base, it could seem a bit forced.

A possible solution might be to blend the barks so that in areas where a chatty dialogue would be inappropriate given the location (e.g. during the middle of a burglary, or whilst in the deep roads and expecting darkspawn attacks at any minute) the barks are used, but in less threatening areas (e.g. wandering around Hightown) the player has some ability to engage in conversation via the talking heads model?

For example, there's a lot of 'background' dialogue with a character that won't require cinematics - characters don't always walk around, or do things, or require highly artsy different angle shots when explaining that their mother is a mad old coot. This could be made available both at party camp, and at 'appropriate' locations on the road...so at least there would be a sense of being able to decide when to have conversations, not only be led by other characters or have to wait until you're home.

[Xewaka]

Anarya wrote...

I'm really trying to figure out what exactly about DA2's dialogue system I didn't like. Because in Origins I got annoyed at rapidly mowing through dialogue and then getting the same "I have nothing new to say" dialogues whenever I made the rounds, so I like how DA2 paced the content a bit, and I would certainly have been annoyed at having to make the rounds in a situation like DA2's where the companions were all over the map, so I like the idea of the notifications. I also, given the choice, would probably choose the type of full cinematic DA2 had over the "talking head" style. But at the same time, I did feel a bit closer to the companions in Origins than the ones in 2, and I can't exactly pinpoint why that is.

I seem to recall someone (I believe it was DG) postulating that it was because if you mowed through all the dialogue at the beginning of the game, your experience was front loaded with a lot of information about the followers and therefore you felt like you knew them during the rest of the game. I think it's probably a sound theory, but I don't know if I would want to go back to having 2/3 of my game devoid of new dialogue because I greedily consumed it all in the first third.

Sooo I guess what I'd like is to increase the illusion of close friendship/attachment while still having the content paced in some way, which I'm not sure is even possible but I'll happily dump that task on the guys who are getting paid to figure these things out.

DA:O allowed for an implicit first person narrative, while DA 2 explicitly disallows it to enforce the third person narrative. There was one less layer of separation between the player and the companions in DA:O, thus enhancing the perceived interaction with said companions.
That'd be my guess, anyway.

[WidowMaker9394]

It is good to see that you acknowledge the flaws of DA2 but I haven't heard any mention whether or not the art of DA2 is representative of the art of DA3. Because the art of DA2 stinks, if you ask me. And by that I refer to the character designs, area designs and the general look of things.

[Wozearly]

Posmerga wrote...

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "making rpgs less terrifying to new players?" Less skills? Less variety when it comes to class play style? Cause if you do that, than you are effectively alienating your original fans; and if we are going to assume that you read our complaints, you already do know that the lower number of skills, and less class playstyle variety was a major issue in DA2.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not against attracting new players to the rpg genre, cause in the end EA and Bioware are a business your doing this to make money, we get it, no need to dance around the issue, but at least find better ways to do this without taking things away from your older fans.

I don't see why Bioware would 'need' to do any of those things.

The core of games like DA:O and DA2 is pretty easy to grasp, particularly on the more forgiving difficulties. But there's a lot of complexity and balancing and decision-making that sits behind that which most RPG players love and I can appreciate that newcomers look at and feel their eyes bleeding.

Reducing the number of things to worry about is one approach, but not the only one. Better tooltips and more transparent information on what choices mean is a great one. Structuring the ability trees so that its clear classes have a natural role (or roles) to play and that certain abilities complement those roles.

Ushering the concepts of levelling up, different types of armour for different purposes, potions, runes, poisons, etc. over time rather than all at once also helps. That way you already feel you've grasped the basics by the time the next series of things to consider appears...and hopefully by that stage, you look at it as "Ahh, I could use those to do/support *this*" rather than "OMG, how the hell am I supposed to know what resistances are useful. And what's this force thing all about?"

[Firky]

Xewaka wrote...

DA:O allowed for an implicit first person narrative, while DA 2 explicitly disallows it to enforce the third person narrative. There was one less layer of separation between the player and the companions in DA:O, thus enhancing the perceived interaction with said companions.
That'd be my guess, anyway.

Do you mean "while DA 2 explicitly disallows it " being the paraphrased responses?

I didn't mind them, but I did feel separation (in rather an un-RPG kind of a way.) For me the issue of pacing was seperate to that. (I just wanted to get all the story now.)

[Firky]

Posmerga wrote...

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "making rpgs less terrifying to new players?" Less skills? Less variety when it comes to class play style? Cause if you do that, than you are effectively alienating your original fans; and if we are going to assume that you read our complaints, you already do know that the lower number of skills, and less class playstyle variety was a major issue in DA2.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not against attracting new players to the rpg genre, cause in the end EA and Bioware are a business your doing this to make money, we get it, no need to dance around the issue, but at least find better ways to do this without taking things away from your older fans.

(I'm as old school a fan as it gets and I wasn't alienated by DAII. I do understand many were.)

I'm guessing that being accessible to newer audiences might come down to how they present information rather than cutting things. Like, in Legacy, you often met the new enemies individually before you fought them in an army of darkspawn. The early levels of DAII locked out many talent choices (especially compared to Origins) with prerequisites but it soon opened into complex trees. (Not soon enough, for me, but still.)

Maybe it's more about how they structure the game, rather than what they strip or streamline. (I think that's a separate issue.)

[Wulfram]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

You could click the investigate to open up 5 additional choices to ask Isabela about her relationship with Hayder, or you could choose to help her or not, and enjoy one of 3 possible responses, colored by the dominant tone you had chosen throughout the course of the game, creating a consistency of character. So that's...let's see....11 possible things you could say there, some of which were determined by how you had played the game up to that point.

Not too shabby, if you ask me.

Investigate options aren't really choices which reflect Hawke's character - just the players interest in hearing expostion.  And I'd prefer to be able to choose what Hawke says, rather than have to wrestle with the damn dominant tone system to get what I want.

[Tirfan]

^The dominant-personality system is one of the things that really annoys me. I can see that in theory it is nice.. but then again - if the character is supposed to be my character (Hawke wasn't, but that is a separate issue) I don't want some flawed system trying to guess what the character is like and what is the consistent action for the character.

[KennethAFTopp]

Mr. Laidlaw constantly keeps saying that a mix of the best parts of DA:O and DAII would make the ultimate DA game, but I keep wondering what good bits in DAII that would be?

[Lord Gremlin]

KennethAFTopp wrote...

Mr. Laidlaw constantly keeps saying that a mix of the best parts of DA:O and DAII would make the ultimate DA game, but I keep wondering what good bits in DAII that would be?

Proper optimization on consoles.