1502 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

I don't think the two are related.

[Leoroc]

I only read dev posts on the forums, and I just wanna say that this is the thread I've been waiting for as a fan. I know from your posts that you are in line with my wishes going forward in the series. Just one thing I have pointed out before but not seen any dev chime in on: can we get me1 style sex scenes (ala liara). The dao ones were ok the da2 ones were meh. We can commit bandit genocide a bit more skin is hardly offensive. Plus i'd like to know how far down Fenris's lyrium goes

[rak72]

b1322 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

If conversations and interactions become a balancing act between logistical limitations vs immersion quality... I think we have to give immersion the priority.

People, RPG fans especially, are more willing to sacrifice cosmetics than depth of character.

Excactly! To me personally it is more important that the characters has depth than the cosmetic view. Besides, I didnt see anything wrong with the cosmetics in da1.

+1 to that

The talking head conversations did not bother me.  I don't see anything wrong with allowing some of the more mundane conversations to happen talking head style.  Save the fancy pants cinematics for the more important conversations.   And yes - kissing anywhere!!  I always would kiss Alistair after on of us fell in battle, I miss that.

Regarding tone/dialog wheel - I found myself not even bothereing with reading the paraphrasing, just clicking on the tone.  Essentially the paraphrase didn't matter, Hawk said the same thing, only with a different tone.  This does not fit well with a roll playing game.  I want to give some thought to what my character would say in a situation, not the tone of voice she says it in.

Another beef I have with the "tone" thing.  There is a banter, for example, in legacy where Bethany tries to flirt with Sebatian.  Sarcastic Hawk says something like, "Oh, just interupting" , while agressive Hawk will say, "Back off".  I still want to be able to tell my sister to back off even though I'm a jokster most of the time.  There are certain things I don't joke about, and I want to be able to decide what they are, not the game.

So that is my 2 copper

[Sutekh]

b1322 wrote...

I also felt that the companions in origins were more "life like" than the ones in da2. For example, if I wanted to break up with Zevran or Alistair from origins, I always got a "oh no how do I do this" feeling inside, I almost got nevous for their reaction, like they were real people, I didnt get that feeling with the companions in da2 at all, not that I could ever talk with them enough to get that feeling... but still.

Well, apart from the fact you can't break up in DA2 past a certain point (which is an enormous problem to me, and is, IMHO, related to the lack of player initiated dialogs), DA2 companions felt as life like than DAO's, and sometimes even more, in certain circumstances.

Example: I did have trouble breaking up with Zevran (actually, never could) or Leliana, but some dialogs with DA2 LIs are as "heartbreaking". One with Anders in particular had me look away from my screen in shame and immediately reload because I just couldn't do that to him.

And, on the other hand, you then spend the whole Act III with him or Merrill standing on the balcony like a statue, with one single line (depending on Friendship / Rivalry), and you can't even kick them out in the street, which any sane person would do when confronted to this type of behavior (or get them professional help, or simply ask them "What in the Maker's name is wrong with you?").

I never felt DA2 companions were less life like, but the way interaction is set, with fixed points, make the relationship you have with them a little bit hollow, especially regarding romances, and this is exacerbated by the time leaps. This is also extremely immersion breaking, because each time I see them up there on that blighted balcony, I'm reminded they're nothing but a bunch of pixels and coded lines, and it feels like a cold shower.

[rak72]

Tirfan wrote...

Oh gods the horrible teeth. Luckily, there is a mod to fix them!
I just wish there was a mod to fix the DA2 darkspawn pepsodent-smile. They need to have brown teeth.

Or Bioware needs to introduce a new sentient darkspawn called The Dentist.

LOL, as a dentist, I approve of this.  This is one darkspawn that I would side with.

[Saintthanksgiving]

I think the PG-13 style love scenes were actually the result of certain... ahem...anatomical limitations...of the parties involved. I know a girl who dated Hawke in college. Let's just say there were "immersion issues."

[Johnny Jaded]

Brockololly wrote...

I'll say it again, that given we're stuck with a voiced PC, Deus Ex: Human Revolution's dialogue system is a huge step up over BioWare's paraphrases.

I've not played it, but looking at screenshots, it seems as though it only gives you four dialogue options; is that the case?
If so, I think a cross between the two would be great - the number of possible dialogue options BioWare's wheel gives combined with the popup of DX:HR's.

If that's not possible, I'd rather go back to the limited list since at least it allows me to know what exactly my character is going to say. I have no interest in playing someone else's interpretation of a character.

[Brockololly]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
The teeth in DAO were disgusting. They were brown or yellow. And on one occasion I could've sworn I saw black teeth.

Thus why one of the first mods was the White Teeth mod...BUt then again, DA2's teeth are just bizarre looking in how each one is a rounded nub, like they've been working at them with a file.

David Gaider wrote...
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.

I'm just curious, from the designer's perspective what is the intent behind having such a great number of conversations limited to the "cinematic" angle, for the player? What are you trying to elliict out of the player by limiting conversations like that as opposed to giving them the freedom of a simpler system like DAO?

Even in DA2 most conversations end up being talking heads cutting back and forth, its just the camera zooms around a little more or people move around a bit. It just seems like a tradeoff which serves to give the developer greater control at the expense of the player.

A conversation is a conversation. While I still want some full blown cinematic conversations, again, a balance needs to be struck between cinematics and agency. And IMO, just taking something like "Talking head" player initiated conversations off the table doesn't make any sense. Everything should be on the table.

My issue with DA's attempt at making things all cinematic is that it strips away player agency, which was a strength of Origins and set DAO apart from other modern games. But in forcing cinematics into everything in DA2, sure, its more cinematic, but on a technical level, that puts the engine under more scrutiny. And quite frankly, if I want a cinematic game, I'll go for something like Uncharted- where you don't see nasty warped hands and weapons clipping and so forth  but they have their stuff down on a technical level, suited for cinematics- from animations to the technical side of graphics.


It just seems like trying to make most everything "cinematic" in DA is basically forcing a square peg into a round hole, given what many enjoyed in Origins and the limitations of the engine on a technical level.

Johnny Jaded wrote...
I've not played it, but looking at screenshots, it seems as though it only gives you four dialogue options; is that the case?
If so, I think a cross between the two would be great - the number of  possible dialogue options BioWare's wheel gives combined with the popup  of DX:HR's.

If that's not possible, I'd rather go back to the  limited list since at least it allows me to know what exactly my  character is going to say. I have no interest in playing someone else's  interpretation of a character.

It basically functions like the wheel, in that it does have an investigate hub which gives you more options and questions. But I think any one screen has four options at once. But I'll take the clarity of DX:HR's system with fewer options over tons of BioWare's vague paraphrases any day of the week.

Modifié par Brockololly, 06 août 2011 - 02:44 .

[alex90c]

Dianjabla wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Cinematic dialogue can happen "out in the world" if it's a place where we can be certain of the location. It won't be wherever and whenver the player feels like, however. That's simply not on the table. If we can make ambient dialogue more interactive, like I said, that will allow interactive dialogue to a degree-- but that is by no means guaranteed.

Interactive ambient dialogue sounds good. I don't mind if party members don't want a good old heart to heart in the middle of the street or hiking up a mountain between fights - I wouldn't either. Save the cinematic stuff for that and plot advancement conversations. But the opportunity to initiate and respond in banter conversations would be great.

Since banter happens quite quickly, they could just let the player respond via something similar to a paragon/renegade interrupt. I mean, let's take DA2 for example.

Going around with your party, idk say it's you, Isabela and Bethany and some other dude.

Isabela: (random vulgar sexual innuendo)
Bethany: what's that supposed to mean?
Player interrupt (available for about 2 seconds):

Diplomatic interrupt: nothing, Bethany ...
sarcastic interrupt: really isabela? really?
aggressive interrupt: oh shut up already.

That way we get control over what the character is going to say (vaguely), plus we even get CHOICE. I mean, to go over the thing I just wrote, you get the opportunity to just get Bethany to ignore it, laugh along with Isabela or tell her to stfu.

Now with banters like this you would:

1. need to get some indicator that you'll get an interrupt (in ME2 on the PC version say for a paragon interrupt you get the mouse showing up on screen with the right button flashing) so if it was via the ME2 path the mouse could be greyed out and then flashes when you get the opportunity to interrupt, OR if there's going to be three options (and not everyone has three mouse buttons) they could just assign the interrupt buttons to currently unused keys

2. you would either need to implement them in a way that they can continue without the player adding input and still making sense, or if willing to go this far even have the dialogue change depending on how your character responds.

Though personally I'd rather do away with personalities and in each dialogue simply given responses that would be considered appropriate rather than railroading it down to these three same personalities (besides, if you can crack jokes non-stop throughout a game and still complete a game progressing through the entire story, something's messed up).

Modifié par alex90c, 06 août 2011 - 02:43 .

[b1322]

Sutekh wrote...

b1322 wrote...

I also felt that the companions in origins were more "life like" than the ones in da2. For example, if I wanted to break up with Zevran or Alistair from origins, I always got a "oh no how do I do this" feeling inside, I almost got nevous for their reaction, like they were real people, I didnt get that feeling with the companions in da2 at all, not that I could ever talk with them enough to get that feeling... but still.

Well, apart from the fact you can't break up in DA2 past a certain point (which is an enormous problem to me, and is, IMHO, related to the lack of player initiated dialogs), DA2 companions felt as life like than DAO's, and sometimes even more, in certain circumstances.

Example: I did have trouble breaking up with Zevran (actually, never could) or Leliana, but some dialogs with DA2 LIs are as "heartbreaking". One with Anders in particular had me look away from my screen in shame and immediately reload because I just couldn't do that to him.

And, on the other hand, you then spend the whole Act III with him or Merrill standing on the balcony like a statue, with one single line (depending on Friendship / Rivalry), and you can't even kick them out in the street, which any sane person would do when confronted to this type of behavior (or get them professional help, or simply ask them "What in the Maker's name is wrong with you?").

I never felt DA2 companions were less life like, but the way interaction is set, with fixed points, make the relationship you have with them a little bit hollow, especially regarding romances, and this is exacerbated by the time leaps. This is also extremely immersion breaking, because each time I see them up there on that blighted balcony, I'm reminded they're nothing but a bunch of pixels and coded lines, and it feels like a cold shower.

I somewhat agree, if we have had the option to get to know the companions better in da2 then maybe they would have felt more life like, but still breaking up with zevran is some of the sadest moments in dao and I had to reload to undo it.

[philippe willaume]

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?

that is harsh man...
There mush less useless talent in DA2, the companion side quest are much more eleborate, you don't need to use integration by part to find out waht charateristic influence what to what degree.

I much prefered DA:0 and DA:A to DA2 (even to DA2 with ptach 0.3 and Legacy) but there are some good things even if they did not turn out as nice to play as they should. DA2 made some effort to address some of the DA:0 problem

phil

[rak72]

Brockololly wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
The teeth in DAO were disgusting. They were brown or yellow. And on one occasion I could've sworn I saw black teeth.

Thus why one of the first mods was the White Teeth mod...BUt then again, DA2's teeth are just bizarre looking in how each one is a rounded nub, like they've been working at them with a file.

David Gaider wrote...
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.

I'm just curious, from the designer's perspective what is the intent behind having such a great number of conversations limited to the "cinematic" angle, for the player? What are you trying to elliict out of the player by limiting conversations like that as opposed to giving them the freedom of a simpler system like DAO?

Even in DA2 most conversations end up being talking heads cutting back and forth, its just the camera zooms around a little more or people move around a bit. It just seems like a tradeoff which serves to give the developer greater control at the expense of the player.

A conversation is a conversation. While I still want some full blown cinematic conversations, again, a balance needs to be struck between cinematics and agency. And IMO, just taking something like "Talking head" player initiated conversations off the table doesn't make any sense. Everything should be on the table.

My issue with DA's attempt at making things all cinematic is that it strips away player agency, which was a strength of Origins and set DAO apart from other modern games. But in forcing cinematics into everything in DA2, sure, its more cinematic, but on a technical level, that puts the engine under more scrutiny. And quite frankly, if I want a cinematic game, I'll go for something like Uncharted- where you don't see nasty warped hands and weapons clipping and so forth  but they have their stuff down on a technical level, suited for cinematics- from animations to the technical side of graphics.


It just seems like trying to make most everything "cinematic" in DA is basically forcing a square peg into a round hole, given what many enjoyed in Origins and the limitations of the engine on a technical level.

Johnny Jaded wrote...
I've not played it, but looking at screenshots, it seems as though it only gives you four dialogue options; is that the case?
If so, I think a cross between the two would be great - the number of  possible dialogue options BioWare's wheel gives combined with the popup  of DX:HR's.

If that's not possible, I'd rather go back to the  limited list since at least it allows me to know what exactly my  character is going to say. I have no interest in playing someone else's  interpretation of a character.

It basically functions like the wheel, in that it does have an investigate hub which gives you more options and questions. But I think any one screen has four options at once. But I'll take the clarity of DX:HR's system with fewer options over tons of BioWare's vague paraphrases any day of the week.

+ 1 to this too.  In fact, you can +1 me to anything Brock says, I find I pretty much always agree with him.

Modifié par rak72, 06 août 2011 - 02:50 .

[nitefyre410]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Laidlaw dediced he can't be wrong. Non he tells us how much he learned from feedback witch legacy....and then we have a dlc with mediocre scores from all reviewers.....ahhahahha
Really Laidlaw...dragon age 2 is totally wrong. Origins is the way. I you can't accept this...prepare for a dragon age 3 epic fail.

This is constructive How?... Just because doesn't agree with you or those who are of the same opinion as you  does not mean that he does not think he is wrong or that  mistake were not made...

back to  other matters.

Well just an example...everyone hates waves....now he could decide to eradicate waves...no he wants to work on waves to fix them simply cause he can't admit waves are bad. He said that legacy is  the evidence of a change of gameplay flaws in da2....reviewers think that legacy is more of the same......(crap)....scores are generally in the 4-5/10 range....

Okay ...   Well  mob spawning is something that any and I do  mean any video game has issue with  and has been a issue for years.  The waves are annoying - yes  but is it say like killing a mob in WowW and having it  respawn on  top of its dead body  or  having trash mobs respawn in the middle of the boss fight right on top of you - No.   Every game deals with spawning issues CoD - the magic  check point where the mob room stops spawning mobs.     

So what could have been done - well I am in the opinion that  quick travel map as the only means of getting around Kirkwall  is one of the main issues.    If they say allow for foot travel between districts open the city  up more you have more dark alleys and places to hide you mob spawn points instead of trying to make it like there way jumping down from the roof tops to ambush you.    


Going  back to Origins  is not the way because that is regression and not progression...  blindly sticking to DA 2 style is not the way because that just being stubborn. When you are trying to move a series  foward you are going to have points where it just does not work they  you want to. You take your lumps, learn and continue forward but the worst thing that they can do is try to go back to the Origins   

I like to use   King of Fighters XII as an example - fans of that game absoluty hated it- you think  the uproar over Dragon Age was bad - ha  this is pleasent.    What did SNK do wen back look at the what they did wrong with  KOF 12,  fixed or changed some mechanics they dropped some they refained and made better.  KOF 13  was previewed at this yes Otakon and from my friends who are huge fans of the series say  they love it.  
 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 06 août 2011 - 02:54 .

[philippe willaume]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


Yes, the same reviewers who gave DA2 amazing reviews when DA2 was mediocre are now giving Legacy mediocre reviews when it was amazing.


Can you say "jumping on the bandwagon"?

it is hard to be a critic .you know,
they are trying their little cotton sox out ,and to be fair occasionally, they even got it right sometimes..... 

phil

[Dormiglione]

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.

I agree with you that its not only the conversation who give you a feeling of connection to the companions. The story itself and the introduction of the main character and the companions are also very important to build immersion. 
As an example i take the Arishok. His conversation part, how he reacts on the different answers of Hawke is amazing. You know that feeling when you on the second / third playthrough, there are dialogs that you skip and there are dialog lines where you get quiet because you want to hear again and again what this characters says, even if you are able to recite it from memory.
I feel more connected to the Arishok than to any other companion including Hawke (except Varric).

The dialog, the introduction and the story about and around a character are very important to build immersion. If you cut out or limit one of this elements, you have the risk that the character becomes unattractiv / uninspiring.

David Gaider wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

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.

But this moments are really rare in DA2. Most of the time i get just the "standard" same answers of the characters.

Let me take Sten of DAO as an example. When i had Sten in my party i always paied attention at his party banter. Because something you could start a conversion with Sten talking about "what he had mentioned". I remember where Sten had a discussion with Morrigan about Qunari Mages. Afterwards you could start talking with Sten about what he mentioned. I found this option absolute amazing.

David Gaider wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

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.

I understand your decision and i accept it also. Mike Laidlaw mentioned before in this thread that its planned to have more conversation like the base camp (DAO) / conversation at specific location DA2. For me its a good compromise that i would appreciate. 
Because for me the conversation system, the depth of conversation and the possibility of conversation in DA2 are absolute unsatisfying. 

That said, i would like to thank you and Mike Laidlaw for coming in this thread and giving us a little insight in the further development of Dragon Age.
 

[Hatchetman77]

I'm just suprised that people are suprised at the reaction.  Here's a review of Sierra's Mask of Eternity game for the King's Quest series released in 1998 and received a similar fan outrage (albeit before the proliferation of the internet for that rage to go viral) and has many similar criticisms that fans have leveled at DA2.

http://thatguywithth...ask-of-eternity

It's pretty well established in the video game community that making changes to a beloved franchise is tricky business.  If you don't have a good grasp of what your fans enjoyed about the original and prioratize your changes on keeping and enhancing those qualities then it is well established in video game history that you will reveive severe backlash.  Once you slap a number or roman numeral next to a franchise name you just can't make a generic, adequate product.  You are now marketing your new game on the sucess of your old one and certain aditional expectation need to be met.  Not meeting those expectations boarders on false advertising and fans have every reason to be upset.  This is the industry where BioWare has decided to make it's money so this is the environment that it will need to adapt to if it plans on continuing to be a successful company. Hell, this game seemed so rushed that at times this game didn't even live up to the general BioWare standards of quality (yes, I'm talking about the recycled environments.  I expect the bugs in BioWare games, those are standard issue) so I think even people who are fans of BioWare have a reson to rage.

Like many have said before, the game is not a bad game.  It just looses many of the qualities that people enjoyed from the first game.  If the Dragon Age name wasen't used to market this game then I'd say the community reaction would be unwarranted.  The benefit of using a franchise name is that you bring along an established fan base with you (as the preorders for DA2 had shown), but that benefit comes with the cost of having to meet the expectations of that established fan base.  However, since Dragon Age was in the title I think that people are very justified in their backlash of this product.    

Modifié par Hatchetman77, 06 août 2011 - 02:59 .

[b1322]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I'm just suprised that people are suprised at the reaction.  Here's a review of Sierra's Mask of Eternity game for the King's Quest series released in 1998 and received a similar fan outrage (albeit before the proliferation of the internet for that rage to go viral) and has many similar criticisms that fans have leveled at DA2.

http://thatguywithth...ask-of-eternity

It's pretty well established in the video game community that making changes to a beloved franchise is tricky business.  If you don't have a good grasp of what your fans enjoyed about the original and prioratize your changes on keeping and enhancing those qualities then it is well established in video game history that you will reveive severe backlash.  Once you slap a number or roman numeral next to a franchise name you just can't make a generic, adequate product.  You are now marketing your new game on the sucess of your old one and certain aditional expectation need to be met.  Not meeting those expectations boarders on false advertising and fans have every reason to be upset.  This is the industry where BioWare has decided to make it's money so this is the environment that it will need to adapt to if it plans on continuing to be a successful company. Hell, this game seemed so rushed that at times this game didn't even live up to the general BioWare standards of quality (yes, I'm talking about the recycled environments.  I expect the bugs in BioWare games, those are standard issue) so I think even people who are fans of BioWare have a reson to rage.

Like many have said before, the game is not a bad game.  It just looses many of the qualities that people enjoyed from the first game.  If the Dragon Age name wasen't used to market this game then I'd say the community reaction would be unwarranted.  The benefit of using a franchise name is that you bring along an established fan base with you (as the preorders for DA2 had shown), but that benefit comes with the cost of having to meet the expectations of that established fan base.  However, since Dragon Age was in the title I think that people are very justified in their backlash of this product.    

I absolutely agree to this

[TEWR]

Thus why one of the first mods was the White Teeth mod...BUt then again, DA2's teeth are just bizarre looking in how each one is a rounded nub, like they've been working at them with a file.

I actually didn't mind DA2's teeth. They looked fine to me.

[Rixxencaxx]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I'm just suprised that people are suprised at the reaction.  Here's a review of Sierra's Mask of Eternity game for the King's Quest series released in 1998 and received a similar fan outrage (albeit before the proliferation of the internet for that rage to go viral) and has many similar criticisms that fans have leveled at DA2.

http://thatguywithth...ask-of-eternity

It's pretty well established in the video game community that making changes to a beloved franchise is tricky business.  If you don't have a good grasp of what your fans enjoyed about the original and prioratize your changes on keeping and enhancing those qualities then it is well established in video game history that you will reveive severe backlash.  Once you slap a number or roman numeral next to a franchise name you just can't make a generic, adequate product.  You are now marketing your new game on the sucess of your old one and certain aditional expectation need to be met.  Not meeting those expectations boarders on false advertising and fans have every reason to be upset.  This is the industry where BioWare has decided to make it's money so this is the environment that it will need to adapt to if it plans on continuing to be a successful company. Hell, this game seemed so rushed that at times this game didn't even live up to the general BioWare standards of quality (yes, I'm talking about the recycled environments.  I expect the bugs in BioWare games, those are standard issue) so I think even people who are fans of BioWare have a reson to rage.

Like many have said before, the game is not a bad game.  It just looses many of the qualities that people enjoyed from the first game.  If the Dragon Age name wasen't used to market this game then I'd say the community reaction would be unwarranted.  The benefit of using a franchise name is that you bring along an established fan base with you (as the preorders for DA2 had shown), but that benefit comes with the cost of having to meet the expectations of that established fan base.  However, since Dragon Age was in the title I think that people are very justified in their backlash of this product.    

You forget to mention that after mask of ethernity the king's quest serie was cancelled.......

[Rixxencaxx]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Rixxencaxx wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Laidlaw dediced he can't be wrong. Non he tells us how much he learned from feedback witch legacy....and then we have a dlc with mediocre scores from all reviewers.....ahhahahha
Really Laidlaw...dragon age 2 is totally wrong. Origins is the way. I you can't accept this...prepare for a dragon age 3 epic fail.

This is constructive How?... Just because doesn't agree with you or those who are of the same opinion as you  does not mean that he does not think he is wrong or that  mistake were not made...

back to  other matters.

Well just an example...everyone hates waves....now he could decide to eradicate waves...no he wants to work on waves to fix them simply cause he can't admit waves are bad. He said that legacy is  the evidence of a change of gameplay flaws in da2....reviewers think that legacy is more of the same......(crap)....scores are generally in the 4-5/10 range....

Okay ...   Well  mob spawning is something that any and I do  mean any video game has issue with  and has been a issue for years.  The waves are annoying - yes  but is it say like killing a mob in WowW and having it  respawn on  top of its dead body  or  having trash mobs respawn in the middle of the boss fight right on top of you - No.   Every game deals with spawning issues CoD - the magic  check point where the mob room stops spawning mobs.     

So what could have been done - well I am in the opinion that  quick travel map as the only means of getting around Kirkwall  is one of the main issues.    If they say allow for foot travel between districts open the city  up more you have more dark alleys and places to hide you mob spawn points instead of trying to make it like there way jumping down from the roof tops to ambush you.    


Going  back to Origins  is not the way because that is regression and not progression...  blindly sticking to DA 2 style is not the way because that just being stubborn. When you are trying to move a series  foward you are going to have points where it just does not work they  you want to. You take your lumps, learn and continue forward but the worst thing that they can do is try to go back to the Origins   

I like to use   King of Fighters XII as an example - fans of that game absoluty hated it- you think  the uproar over Dragon Age was bad - ha  this is pleasent.    What did SNK do wen back look at the what they did wrong with  KOF 12,  fixed or changed some mechanics they dropped some they refained and made better.  KOF 13  was previewed at this yes Otakon and from my friends who are huge fans of the series say  they love it.  
 

What's wrong with a fixed number of enemies to kill? i know thath in a room i find 10 enemies (hopefully different kind of enemies and not 100000 identical mobs like in da2) and forge a tactic......We don't need 30000 generic mobs coming from the sky.....

[Sutekh]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

What's wrong with a fixed number of enemies to kill? i know thath in a room i find 10 enemies (hopefully different kind of enemies and not 100000 identical mobs like in da2) and forge a tactic......We don't need 30000 generic mobs coming from the sky.....

That's what you get in Legacy. With a couple additional waves that are staged as reinforcement and certainly don't fall from the sky.

[tmp7704]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

That's the problem, i'm afraid -- having no ability to select one of these 3 possible responses directly means i can't input how my character really feels and wants to react at that very moment and in that particular context. Instead, i'm limited to putting up with "consistent character" artificially determined by the game. Which for example ignores that player's character may use different "modes" when dealing with different people -- being rude to strangers and nice to companions is a common thing. Or using the trollface mode in conversation with some people, but different tone in the other. These are also "consistent characters", but their consistency is different and more nuanced than what you've implemented in DA2.

The result is, i don't actually enjoy one of 3 possible response. I feel instead frustration that one of these responses was imposed on me by a very simplified algorithm, frequently missing my actual intention.

[nitefyre410]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

*snip*
 
What's wrong with a fixed number of enemies to kill? i know thath in a room i find 10 enemies (hopefully different kind of enemies and not 100000 identical mobs like in da2) and forge a tactic......We don't need 30000 generic mobs coming from the sky.....

Leveling , farming, etc, etc,   when you have a fixed number of enemies that do not respawn that means the player has a fix amount of  XP  to gain from that area.    Most  areas are set to a  lvl cap and the "boss"  being the test to see if you reached to gone past the   Lvl  requirement  for the next set of missions/quest.  

So if you have a set amount of enemies -  Lets someone like one of my friends who  likes to under level  his characters for challenge  can come  in an area nearly crippled because he is nowhere close being at lvl requirement and he can't go back do some grinding to  up  his  characters lvl some.  Or you can say in my  case  I like to be a Lvl or two ahead of the area  I'm going to into. 

So lets take the  Ashes quest - I ran into a bit of road bloak there I was not  quite  a high enough lvl to deal with fighting the  Cultist. Well I could have taken the option of joining them (did not want to do that) or beat my head up against a wall trying to fight them and not being full prepared for the fight.   

Having respawning emenies allows the player an means of gaining  more Xp  and to have a better control of their characters progession. 

You point about tatics -  It call somes down to how I hide where my mobs and next wave of enemies appear  Lets take you room of  10 mobs for  instance.  Now you have  tactic  and  set to handle this room  but lets say I have a mob that sounds an alarm  so in the corridor off screen  out of sight of player  the next set of mobs spawn  and come in, just as finish dealing with first ten. Now these  say 10 -12  are more cannon fodder or they have a mix of more  challenging trash that means you the player has to think of new tactic on the fly on how to deal with next wave.    So you deal with that wave - my next wave spawn is actually in the room lets some statues, golems that come to life  say by a spell caster by the caster mob through into that wave.  So now you have the player have to shift tactics again  mabye to a more defensive  tactic which you party may be not be able to handle.... that is how to  create challenge in combat.  

The issues is not the waves per -say but how they well hide the  waves showing up  and approaching the player.  

And I willing to bet that you and I have both played an RPG that use this tactic and we never even noticed it.    

Modifié par nitefyre410, 06 août 2011 - 03:52 .

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

However, like Brockololly points out few posts up the thread, large part of DA2 conversations effectively remains talking-head dialogue. And this is pretty normal and also expected, given how many conversations even in the movies are talking-head dialogues beacuse that's how people frequently happen to conduct the conversations -- without dramating posing, pacing around or any other such theatrics. As such, i have to wonder why BioWare would decide they need to be "more cinematic than cinema" and try to eradicate these completely, rather than accept that for certain applications simple is perfectly fine?

To put it differently, it's a bit like hearing developer say "we are not interested in using brown colour anymore, we have chosen to raise the bar when it comes to the colour palette of our games" ... and then the next game comes out and whaddyaknow, half of the Kirkwal and surroundings is still in shades of brown anyway, because for some things that simply makes most sense, being these things typically are, well, brown. Which renders the whole reasoning behind "we won't do it because then it'd be brown and we don't want the brown" ... rather silly?

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 août 2011 - 03:53 .

[phaonica]

alex90c wrote...

Since banter happens quite quickly, they could just let the player respond via something similar to a paragon/renegade interrupt. I mean, let's take DA2 for example.

Though the banter "interrupts" sound interesting, my first impression is that a lot of effort would have to be put into designing and implementing a non intrusive system for players to be able to contribute nearly meaningless "barks" to ambient conversation.

If the interrupts played out more like an actual conversation, then imo they might be more meaningful:

Isabella: (starts a story about being arrested)

Diplomatic Interrupt: How did you get away?
Sarcastic Interrupt: You're always getting into these messes.
Aggressive Interrupt: You're just making these stories up, aren't you?

And the banter itself still wouldn't be player-initiated. I don't know how well I'd like to be interrupted by banter in which I'd feel obligated to participate. Edit: And if I picked a paraphrase that caused my character to say something that I wouldn't have chosen if I'd known the whole line makes me want to reload, reloading banter could be quite a pain.

Modifié par phaonica, 06 août 2011 - 03:48 .