1502 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nurot wrote...
 
I prefer a good looking suit of armor to a boring looking suit of armor with better stats

I share this opinion, but in my case this makes me prefer DAO's armour, because it was just better looking.

DA2's unique armours are generally armours I don't like, so I've modded DA2 to allow me to equip whatever armours I like.  Carver, Sebastian, and Fenris, in particular, look much better wearing armours designed for Hawke than they're own custom suits.

[Nurot]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Nurot wrote...
 
I prefer a good looking suit of armor to a boring looking suit of armor with better stats

I share this opinion, but in my case this makes me prefer DAO's armour, because it was just better looking.

DA2's unique armours are generally armours I don't like, so I've modded DA2 to allow me to equip whatever armours I like.  Carver, Sebastian, and Fenris, in particular, look much better wearing armours designed for Hawke than they're own custom suits.

I like the style of DA2 better. I guess I am the "over the top"-type. I like the crazy battlle moves in DA2 as well. Hopefully, future DA-games will have both realistic and non-realistic armor/weapon types. Then there will be something for everyone.

[b1322]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Nurot wrote...
 
I prefer a good looking suit of armor to a boring looking suit of armor with better stats

I share this opinion, but in my case this makes me prefer DAO's armour, because it was just better looking.

DA2's unique armours are generally armours I don't like, so I've modded DA2 to allow me to equip whatever armours I like.  Carver, Sebastian, and Fenris, in particular, look much better wearing armours designed for Hawke than they're own custom suits.

I also prefer DAO´s armor, I like spending time in the inventory screen and customizing my companions and myself, it gives me something extra to do, like the way I like buying and selling stuff.

Modifié par b1322, 09 août 2011 - 06:05 .

[Dragoonlordz]

I bet a lot of people who claim prefer set armour appearence per character downloaded the mod to allow customisation of armour on those characters which makes them hypocrites but... Thats just a guess. 

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 août 2011 - 06:14 .

[b1322]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I bet a lot of people who claim prefer set armour appearence per character downloaded the mod to allow customisation of armour on those characters which makes them hypocrites but... Thats just a guess. 

Haha, I didn´t think of that, you are absolutely right.

[nitefyre410]

I like the idea of character and class specific armor but there should be more than just one set. Instead just store brought upgrades.

[Jamie_edmo]

I think when you specialise you should be granted access to new specific types of armour and weapons too

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

[Nurot]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I bet a lot of people who claim prefer set armour appearence per character downloaded the mod to allow customisation of armour on those characters which makes them hypocrites but... Thats just a guess. 

Well, I didn't. And I really don't see why anyone would do it if they liked the set appearances. So no, they are not hypocrites. They just have a different oppinion than you.

Modifié par Nurot, 09 août 2011 - 06:27 .

[The dead fish]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I bet a lot of people who claim prefer set armour appearence per character downloaded the mod to allow customisation of armour on those characters which makes them hypocrites but... Thats just a guess. 

Exactly, Kudos.

I think you understand that console gamers are much more sensitive to this issue about customization.

[nitefyre410]

Jamie_edmo wrote...

I think when you specialise you should be granted access to new specific types of armour and weapons too

 


So say a warrior that specialize in sword and shield gets armor that has better defense stats and has heavier look- then say a warrior who is 2h sword armor should have better offensive stats and look lightier.

[Jamie_edmo]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Jamie_edmo wrote...

I think when you specialise you should be granted access to new specific types of armour and weapons too

 


So say a warrior that specialize in sword and shield gets armor that has better defense stats and has heavier look- then say a warrior who is 2h sword armor should have better offensive stats and look lightier.

Well yeah, but i meant more like templar and reaver have specific armour like templar armour for templars (obviously) etc, you get what i mean?

Edit: The sub-class choices: http://dragonage.wik...(Dragon_Age_II)

Modifié par Jamie_edmo, 09 août 2011 - 06:34 .

[nitefyre410]

Jamie_edmo wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Jamie_edmo wrote...

I think when you specialise you should be granted access to new specific types of armour and weapons too

 


So say a warrior that specialize in sword and shield gets armor that has better defense stats and has heavier look- then say a warrior who is 2h sword armor should have better offensive stats and look lightier.

Well yeah, but i meant more like templar and reaver have specific armour like templar armour for templars (obviously) etc, you get what i mean?

 


Yes I  exactly what you are saying  -  hmm you know just a thought  Vangaurd  could be the new  duel wielding warrior spec tree.

[Jamie_edmo]

I know what the devs meant when they made certain weapons class specific so that classes were more distinctive, but imo their shouldn't be any weapon restrictions (mages and staves excluded) it just makes the game more fun, warriors should at least be able to dual wield.

Edit: Plus remember in origins when you could charge into battle unarmed, with your fists those where the days lol:)

Modifié par Jamie_edmo, 09 août 2011 - 06:43 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Sylvianus wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I bet a lot of people who claim prefer set armour appearence per character downloaded the mod to allow customisation of armour on those characters which makes them hypocrites but... Thats just a guess. 

Exactly, Kudos.

I think you understand that console gamers are much more sensitive to this issue about customization.

Yeh I went from PC gamer to console and now I'm back to PC because really is a better system if can afford it.

It actually annoys my console only friends that while we play the same games because they didn't spend few bucks more they can't play all the mods and expansions and DLC and changes but I can. In an ideal world devs would make titles seporatly from each other as far as versions go so that the PC gamer isn't help back by console player but thats not going to happen anytime soon.

~Off topic rant slightly following

In reailty a half decent PC doesn't cost not much more than say a PS3 bundle or a 360+Kinect bundle. Each costing around few hundred dollars. My PC cost around 400 and its new enough to play games at better resolution than consoles for the next 5-7 years. Even when you buy a less new PC it is still better than a console for simple reason even with medium visual settings and lower resolution it still is higher graphics than a console with older hardware. Now this isn't me belittling consoles as I owned them too still own one infact, but more along lines of people using price to bash PC gaming.

A PC lasts about 5 years for around $400-500, a console lasts for about 5+ years between next gens but the kicker is consoles can't mod and lose out on a truly vast amount of community made expansions and DLC basically plus games on consoles cost around 1/3rd more than PC versions so within those 5 years you would have made back far more than saving on initial purchase of console. The whole PC costs much more for top end system to play games is wrong thing to do imho because you should be comparing same level of graphics and sound and such as console/PC regarding hardware and if do that then price of PC drops drastically to achieve same results as the console instead of surpassing it.

That annoys me when people use price as an issue to compare, they shouldn't compare the price of something vastly better visually and resolution and adaptability with a console that had lower spec results. They should be comparing the price range of PC that is at the same level as the console not one that surpasses it for comparrison purposes. If going to compare high end PC with consoles than compare it to the reailty of buying 2 generations of console to achieve same quality.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 août 2011 - 06:59 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Jamie_edmo wrote...

I know what the devs meant when they made certain weapons class specific so that classes were more distinctive, but imo their shouldn't be any weapon restrictions (mages and staves excluded) it just makes the game more fun, warriors should at least be able to dual wield.

Edit: Plus remember in origins when you could charge into battle unarmed, with your fists those where the days lol:)

Heh yeh, naked slapping Loghain to death was one of my highlights for funny aspects.

There is enjoyment in running into battle naked with no weapons main character/entire team and still winning. Doesn't matter if goes against the RP sometimes if bored and just looking to do something amusing same reason people make funny avatars or appearence in game character creeator, if doesn't suit taste can always just go into combat armoured up with weapons. But removing freedom of choice to do one or other is a negative imho.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 août 2011 - 07:02 .

[nitefyre410]

Jamie_edmo wrote...

I know what the devs meant when they made certain weapons class specific so that classes were more distinctive, but imo their shouldn't be any weapon restrictions (mages and staves excluded) it just makes the game more fun, warriors should at least be able to dual wield.

Edit: Plus remember in origins when you could charge into battle unarmed, with your fists those where the days lol:)

 

A Monk  Like  class specialization that uses more hand to hand combat and fist weapons

[Dragoonlordz]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Jamie_edmo wrote...

I know what the devs meant when they made certain weapons class specific so that classes were more distinctive, but imo their shouldn't be any weapon restrictions (mages and staves excluded) it just makes the game more fun, warriors should at least be able to dual wield.

Edit: Plus remember in origins when you could charge into battle unarmed, with your fists those where the days lol:)

 

A Monk  Like  class specialization that uses more hand to hand combat and fist weapons

I know people will moan and winge but in TW2 you could pick up and use a broom or rake etc as weapon and that was amsung to me and I liked it, maybe in DA3 picking up objects and using them in combat (not to extend of hulk games etc) but more in general would be interesting.

Don't want to use a sword? Fine use a chair to bash enemies heads in.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 août 2011 - 07:05 .

[Nurot]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Jamie_edmo wrote...

I know what the devs meant when they made certain weapons class specific so that classes were more distinctive, but imo their shouldn't be any weapon restrictions (mages and staves excluded) it just makes the game more fun, warriors should at least be able to dual wield.

Edit: Plus remember in origins when you could charge into battle unarmed, with your fists those where the days lol:)

 

A Monk  Like  class specialization that uses more hand to hand combat and fist weapons

I know people will moan and winge but in TW2 you could pick up and use a broom or rake etc as weapon and that was amsung to me and I liked it, maybe in DA3 picking up objects and using them in combat (not to extend of hulk games etc) but more in general would be interesting.

Don't want to use a sword? Fine use a chair to bash enemies heads in.

I guess this could happen. I mean, you can already use ballistas and stuff. They could just do something similar with a chair. Or maybe you meant something different?

[Dragoonlordz]

Nurot wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I know people will moan and winge but in TW2 you could pick up and use a broom or rake etc as weapon and that was amsung to me and I liked it, maybe in DA3 picking up objects and using them in combat (not to extend of hulk games etc) but more in general would be interesting.

Don't want to use a sword? Fine use a chair to bash enemies heads in.

I guess this could happen. I mean, you can already use ballistas and stuff. They could just do something similar with a chair. Or maybe you meant something different?

Mean't in both terms of objects as weapons in general combat and other objects for use in situational combat.

[nitefyre410]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Jamie_edmo wrote...

I know what the devs meant when they made certain weapons class specific so that classes were more distinctive, but imo their shouldn't be any weapon restrictions (mages and staves excluded) it just makes the game more fun, warriors should at least be able to dual wield.

Edit: Plus remember in origins when you could charge into battle unarmed, with your fists those where the days lol:)

 

A Monk  Like  class specialization that uses more hand to hand combat and fist weapons

I know people will moan and winge but in TW2 you could pick up and use a broom or rake etc as weapon and that was amsung to me and I liked it, maybe in DA3 picking up objects and using them in combat (not to extend of hulk games etc) but more in general would be interesting.

Don't want to use a sword? Fine use a chair to bash enemies heads in.

 

Specialization:   Brawler 
Weapon: Whateve the **** they can get their hands on.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 09 août 2011 - 07:23 .

[The dead fish]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
~Off topic rant slightly following

In reailty a half decent PC doesn't cost not much more than say a PS3 bundle or a 360+Kinect bundle. Each costing around few hundred dollars. My PC cost around 400 and its new enough to play games at better resolution than consoles for the next 5-7 years. Even when you buy a less new PC it is still better than a console for simple reason even with medium visual settings and lower resolution it still is higher graphics than a console with older hardware. Now this isn't me belittling consoles as I owned them too still own one infact, but more along lines of people using price to bash PC gaming.

A PC lasts about 5 years for around $400-500, a console lasts for about 5+ years between next gens but the kicker is consoles can't mod and lose out on a truly vast amount of community made expansions and DLC basically plus games on consoles cost around 1/3rd more than PC versions so within those 5 years you would have made back far more than saving on initial purchase of console. The whole PC costs much more for top end system to play games is wrong thing to do imho because you should be comparing same level of graphics and sound and such as console/PC regarding hardware and if do that then price of PC drops drastically to achieve same results as the console instead of surpassing it.

That annoys me when people use price as an issue to compare, they shouldn't compare the price of something vastly better visually and resolution and adaptability with a console that had lower spec results. They should be comparing the price range of PC that is at the same level as the console not one that surpasses it for comparrison purposes. If going to compare high end PC with consoles than compare it to the reailty of buying 2 generations of console to achieve same quality.

Yeah, I understand. Personally, it's a matter of taste. Nothing to do with the money. Just, Playing games on PC doesn't attract me at all. I'm a true console gamer. ( Legend of Zelda, all CoD, Mario kart, Devil May Cry, Sonic, etc ) I play the console for entertainment at home, but that's all. The PC is more attractive to play games online , but this often means being often in front of the computer which doesn't interest me much. Too much time to devote in my opinion. I tried WoW, I understood, that It was almost like creating another life. Anyway online on console, call of duty gives me enough satisfaction.

Bioware attracted me to this kind of game with Mass effect and DAO, extending it to the console. If they want to extend it to the console, it's cool for us, but I expect in this case that they also give us satisfaction given  our limitations and taken into account. What they have done very well in the past and I hope it will continue. I do not count to buy a Bioware game on pc, simply to have a better quality or mods. Quality and reasonable offer on console is enough for me.

If it looks good on console, I buy, otherwise I do not buy and I move on.

And by the way, I quote Barbarossa, my new hero today, he tells the truth for some of console gamers ( xbox ) like me who didn't know what was rpg game before to play bioware games. The same experience as him.

   

Barbarossa2010 wrote...

Mike, I believe myself to be the prototypical example of the 'accessibility' crowd you are attempting to court.  I play primarily on the 360 and have spent a shameful amount of time in XBOX Live MP lobbies and parties. Up until Nov 09, for over a decade, I've only played FPSs and TPSs for my video game entertainment .  This is the first developer community I ever signed up to actually interact with others (outside of MP Deathmatches ) about a video game.

    Dragon Age Origins was the first RPG I ever played. I thought the Ashes trailer was cool, and thought that a video game developer had finally gotten that whole shield thing right and the player could actually use it as a weapon.  That's what led me out of a self-imposed, sole-focused Gears brutality goondom (I can say this still immersing myself among the ranks of the knuckle-draggers) and into playing a "lame" fantasy game.  I played through DA:O seven times, with a number of partial playthroughs to "get things right." I simply could not get enough of it, as I learned more and more from each playthrough.  I couldn't believe how much replayability there could be in a game. I also couldn't believe how much functionality you guys could give me through my XBOX 360 controller.  I was smitten.

    Some of the things that brought me out of the desert, so to speak, were 'realistic' dialogue (for a video game), squad-like tactical pause and play combat that was multi-dimensional, characters and characterizations I had no idea could be developed in a video game, an epic story and PC that felt like were my own creations, a deep inventory to manage, player and team mate customization, siginificant emotional engagement, and a very cool user interface.  These, simply are things I had never had any experience with, and they were there in spades in Origins.  I actually got six of my shooter friends to play this "gay" fantasy game and they too (minus one, who is a hopeless case [but that's another story altogether]) became obsessed; and before you knew it, a small group of veteran shooter goons were talking about Dragons, Darkspawn, character builds, crafting bombs and poisons, and AOE spells.  I have been critical of certain aspects of Origins to be sure; primarily story-related things.  I was certainly not blinded by the faults of my first "love," but my criticisms were not the one's that were supposedly 'corrected' in DA2.  Having said all this, Dragon Age Origins holds the top spot of all video games I ever played. I also purchased all DLC for my 360 and the Ultimate edition for PC, so chalk up two sales (+) for this user.

    DA:O led me to a genre of games that I had no real idea existed.  Since April of 2010, I played ME1, ME2, Fallout 3 GOTY, FO:NV, ES4 Oblivion GOTY, Alpha Protocol, and The Witcher to name a few.  None, still hold a candle to Origins.

    DA2 seemed so denuded of anything I found attractive in Origins that I no longer felt I was playing a Dragon Age game.  I pre-ordered the Sig edition. It lived up to very few expectations I had developed from "my first."  I've been honest in my criticisms of DA2:  didn't hate it, certainly didn't love it; was just supremely disappointed by it.  The criticisms I've seen are well deserved, but I do not begrudge anyone who might have enjoyed it.  My criticisms go way beyond recycled environments and parachuting baddies.  The new user interface, loss of inventory, virtually no team mate customization, loss of the epic story, etc, etc, etc, just barely begin to cover the disappointments. BW's post-game commentary, mainly to include you, seem to be communicating throughout, that even if hell froze over, there will be no return to Origins form.  I know I'm certainly not alone in my disappointment with this game, but no one can call me a PC-elitist, a nostalgic RPG geek, or a firmly entrenched troglodyte incapable of change.  I played DA2 once, and had to force myself to complete it as it was just so blah (a bad indicator of a game's quality in and of itself, but positviely disastrous when comparing it to Origins).  For me, DA2 = one playthrough/DAO = seven playthroughs.  That may mean nothing to your current bottom line, but it will certainly have an impact on future sales, if it becomes a trend among players.  I won't be purchasing any DLC for DA2 (the only BW DLC I haven't purchased) and will not be pre-ordering DA3, because you all seem convinced that Origins was riddled with problems that I (and evidently many others) simply did not see; and that the direction of DA2 has more "potential," which, again, I do not see. Time will tell if you hold to that course or not.

    Bottom line: You won me (and many others it appears) over with Origins; you lost me with DA2.  Origins was more than accessible for the type of players I associate with.  Origins brought over those that WOULD be brought over. I can account for six in my own experience.  There was nothing intimidating or terrifying about Origins, (try entering a GOW Team Deathmatch session and wanting to actually do well, against of team 100 ranks for a real feeling of terror and intimidation); and it was certainly nothing that my simple shooter's brain could not learn after a couple of attempts.  So when I hear the "accessibility" card being thrown around, I have to laugh silently to myself and wonder who in the hell you guys (or what data you are making design decisions on) are listening to.

    DA2 lost alot of that magic.  It appeared a product of mass production and sterile business decisions, than a crafted labor of love.  Not terrible, just disappointingly mediocre, as it lost those things that brought us over in the first place.  Me and my friends all agree that DA2 would not have brought us into the RPG genre, as it was barely discernible from what we play already, but was not nearly as fun.  Origins was great precisely because it was not COD, HALO or GOW.  Hack and slash games appear to be mildly fun, but hybridizing DA into something in-between just makes it another game in a sea of action games, as opposed to something special that stands alone and MUST be played, or at least a gem to be kept on the shelf to impress people.

    You may have data that says I'm full of $#!+and that I (and these other five) are some sort of anomoly, or are not representative of "our" demographic, but it doesn't change the fact that Origins was very successful in leading many of those that WOULD be led, from the dark side. To me, it only makes sense to slightly correct the known issues of Origins, keep the core mechanics that your base has a reasonable expectation to see, and bring outsiders into the fold over time.  Marketing will certainly play a key role here, but radically overhauling a game, using hotrod market speak, and downplaying the success or greatness of Origins, seems like a bad call from my humble shooter's perspective.  To me, Origins was the right mix for players who WILL come over.  I know this crowd, and no amount of simplification can change attitudes. It will only dilute and inflame the base you had in place. A quality, emotionally engaging experience, however, can change attitudes and make people try something they might otherwise not.  Giving your base what they want ensures at least that they stay around.  It doesn't appear you can even count on that at this point.  I will await your decisions on DA3, and will take in all reviews first, and still give you a shot at my dollars, if you can (or even want) to return to form.  But expect no pre-order; and if all we are going to get for DA3 is "the potential wrought by DA2," and less Origins...well, we will dissolve our business relationship and part company, amicably.

    Of course, this may all be a 'constrained resource' issue, so, obviously, you would have to distance the franchise from Origins pretending it to be riddled with all sorts of problems; so, if that's the case...nevermind, feedback is virtually rendered moot, and you're going to do what you have to do; player feedback will affect maybe 1-5% of what you do in the future if this be the case.  I'm only making this response and providing a little feedback from a relevant trench, in the event there really is a chance to impact and correct the future course of this great franchise, and it's not already a thing pre-determined from above, and we're just acting as witnesses to your fragile balancing act.

    So, there it is from the COD perspective.  Believe it or don't. I've given BW quite a bit of money thus far if you look at my registered games, there's a few there, so I'm merely exercising my consumer's voice here.  As such, feel free to accept or discard this feedback at your leisure.  

    Respectful.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 09 août 2011 - 07:34 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Sylvianus wrote...

Could you fix the quote as I'm finding it bit annoying trying to figure out who said what, but once fixed I will be very happy to read it. No offense intended though.

[The dead fish]

Forgive me, fixed.

[b1322]

 [quote]

Best post in the whole of this thread. I have a few 360 buddies who just loved Origins and are hard core shooter fans that never got into RPGs. Two of them got DA2 and didn't care it. So, in a sense, though this is anecdotal, it shows that grabbing the "larger audience" with the changes from DA:O to DA2 wasn't the way to go. I think Bioware actually created a huge audience by getting some who were not at all RPGers, and making them RPGers with their expereinces with DA:O. IMO, that's something that no other Bioware game has really done before (though most of their earlier RPGs were PC only, so that not a huge statement to make), outside of maybe KoTOR, but it didn't sell near what Origins did on all platforms. The ME series has heavy shooter elements, so that will probably grab the shooter/action crowd a bit, but even then, DA:O still sold better overall. Seriously, even Fallout 3 and Vegas only sold really well because they are more shooter than RPG, yet DA:O's sales are very comparable to them in overall sales.[/quote]

[/quote]

I like this. I am a shooter gamer myself like gears of war but I was sold by origins very quickly and while I liked da2 BEFORE I played origins, I was majorly disappointed with it after I saw what DA could be like.

Modifié par b1322, 09 août 2011 - 07:47 .

[KennethAFTopp]

I realized something today, When Mr. Laidlaw says that he wants to reach a broader audience than what RPGs have already, does that mean he deliberately designs that way instead I think of design what a good game should be.
It sounds like, I am not saying it is true, but it sounds like Laidlaw purposefully wants to aim for a compromise design instead of letting the game speak for itself and let also reach it's OWN full potential.
Does that make sense? I am not sure it does.