628 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sith Grey Warden wrote...
Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but do you mean you want every item to have a side quest where an NPC goes into some story about the item? Doesn't that seem a bit... excessive and wasteful of resources?

Yes. But I'm also hardcore against an expansive inventory. I think most weapons should be perfectly generic, and that should be the only thing you can buy from merchants/blacksmiths.

Above that, I think you should have quests for handcrafted equipment that's of an especially high quality.

[Persephone]

Atakuma wrote...

shadowhawk233 wrote...

Then why don't the devs come out and say, "Yes we really screwed up on Dragon Age 2, we're sorry..."

Because they don't have to and it wouldn't help.

And because: It may make those fans who felt that way feel better or catered too, but it would be a slap in the face to those fans who loved/enjoyed/liked DAII. We are not a myth, you know?

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...
I'm just talking about sense. To me, an item description doesn't make sense.

Where does it come from? How does the PC know it? If it comes from a merchant, why can't the merchant give you the description in game (as more show and less tell)?

it really doesn't have to make sense, does it?   It's one of those  things like  eating, sleeping and going to the bathroom in a game.  Does the process have to exist?    No, thank god, because that would be the most boring thing ever.  And while It doesn't make sense that you can go day in and day out... for months without putting anything in your mouth or using the toilet, I'm OK with it.


Item descriptions are the same  concept.  Until the Devs incorporate Lore-checks and  make you hire scholars to research every magic item you find,  Ill be totally Okay with just having an item description  magically present itself  along with the item.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 août 2011 - 06:37 .

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
Not really. Items don't come with tag descriptions.

Very often, items do come with descriptions, particularly high-end clothes, antiques, and art, and it certainly isn't "incoherent" to have tiems do so more often in a fictional world whose inhabitants might care about such things much more than we do. 

It's also conceivable that magic items telephatically transmit that information to the owner's mind, but that doesn't make it more coherent. 

Oh?  How so?

DA2's other failings aren't relevant, though.

Yet you're making a big deal over this relatively tiny gameplay-story segregation, which does create an icongruity given their existence.  (I'll also note your reply here is not responsive to the point of the passage you quoted, for which DA2 served as an incidental illustration.  I'm not sure I see the need for evasiveness.)  Furthermore, having a Blade of Mercy-type situation for each item would become very tedious, as I said... or very spartan, which I suppose you prefer, although I'm not interested in arguing your preference.  

The thing with a tutorial is that it always deals with learning through blocks of text. That's useless. And it's always about how to play the game, not how to deal with leveling or abilities. That's what an RPG needs. An interactive way to learn how to do RPG things, like manage inventory, loot, resistances, etc.

I don't know why you think tutorials always have blocks of text, but even if they did, I don't see why you'd assume they couldn't encompass inventory management, ability selection, etc.  

[Thor Rand Al]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

GarrusV4karian wrote...

Not these kind of threads again...

What's wrong with my thread? I vented some legitimate complaints and would love some clarification.
 

1. This sort of whinge-fest has been done to death and then some necromancer brought it back to life just to do it to death for a second and more annoying time.

2. I swear these threads are done because people get a thrill out of having the people you're writing about hear your insignificant opinion.

3. Origins wasn't perfect and some people played both and preferred DA2. It'd be awesome if anyone on this forums present their opinions as just that...opinions instead of touting them as fact. Fact is, not everyone will agree.

4. Get some prespective. If it were just as easy as phoning your boss and saying, "Hey, yo, give me x more months to work on this (which does, in fact, equal x more dollars to pay for it), it'd have been done. There are realities of the gaming industry which people need to accept. It costs money to make games. There are limited resources. You can't prevent 100% of bugs no matter how many QCers you use.

5. Busted might just be referring to old technology not working with the new technology. It actually has been explained before on the forums. Many times. There were aspects of the old engine that would not work well with the new one. There were things that did not transfer well. There were things they tried to improve on. Mind you, they have telemetry and data we do not to base their opinions on. And experience. And know-how. etc. etc.

Is there a thumbs up emot here, hmm here ya go.   for an excellent post. 

[Thor Rand Al]

Persephone wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

shadowhawk233 wrote...

Then why don't the devs come out and say, "Yes we really screwed up on Dragon Age 2, we're sorry..."

Because they don't have to and it wouldn't help.

And because: It may make those fans who felt that way feel better or catered too, but it would be a slap in the face to those fans who loved/enjoyed/liked DAII. We are not a myth, you know?

What Persephone says, there are actually some who loved/liked/enjoyed DA2.  Not everyone disliked the game.

[AmstradHero]

I agree wholeheartedly that some things in DAO were busted. I can point out design issues with combat, aesthetics, levels, gameplay sequences, writing... pretty much everything. There are areas where I feel DAO really needed modification.

If you can't look at a game and identify what doesn't work, why it doesn't work, and what could have been done instead (given the relevant time/budget constraints), then to simply complain that "I didn't like this game" offers not a whit of useful feedback to the developers. Moreover, if you can't do this for a game you love, then you're unable to make an objective assessment of why you do or don't like a game. If you can't find something wrong with a game, you're not looking hard enough.

DA2 was not the evil scourge that it is so frequently made out to be. I feel there are some things that DA2 does better than DAO. A lot better, in fact. But that doesn't mean that I can't see the flaws that were also introduced in the design. I confess that I agree with Laidlaw and was amused to read people saying "waves were gone in Legacy", because they weren't.

Vocal critics of DA2 popularised a number of misconceptions due to their lack of understanding of game design. These get pulled out every time someone wants to criticise DA2, and quite frankly this demonstrates a blatant lack of ability to think critically and thus often undermines any credibility that the criticism (and occasionally suggestions) coming from those people might have.

I loved DAO. In fact, I love it so much that I'm still modding for it - I'm hoping to release my mod The Shattered War before the end of the year and offer people around a 10 hour standalone adventure set after the main campaign with a new hero. I'm taking significant design cues from DAO, but I'm changing some aspects that I feel didn't work so well, and adding in elements I felt were missing. I'm still going to be providing a "Dragon Age" experience, and it'll be more akin to Origins than DA2, but I see no point in providing people with exactly the same content they've had before. That's not creative, and it's not pushing the boundaries of the RPG genre and it's not making the players experience something new and different.

DAO wasn't perfect, and had some major flaws. DA2 fixed some of these flaws, but also introduced a new raft of flaws of its own.

I think Mike Laidlaw is probably slightly harsher on DAO than he needs to be, but I also understand where he's coming from. Some of the comments he makes about those major points indicate to me that BioWare are listening to the (valid) criticism levelled at the game. Provided steps are taken to address those concerns, I'm content to believe that DA3 will be a great game.

[csfteeeer]

Vormaerin wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

My point is, DA:O has flaws but it was obviously better implmented, and not rushed. The sales numbers don't lie. These are my opinions, don't like 'em, that's tough,

First, sales figures do lie.   Sales figures will say that Planescape: Torment wasn't nearly as good as Icewind Dale, which I sure as heck am not going to accept.

Second, if you stated your opinions as opinions instead of facts, you'd get less pushback.

Third, 'better implemented and not rushed' has nothing to do with anything previously discussed in this thread. 

aw you can't do that.

First, PS:T wasn't a sequel to a highly succesful game which is more than likely a guarantee For success.

second, PS:T was a game heavily philosophical game, a game that is very heavily guided by dialogue and story.
there is combat, but it's practically a secondary addition, very very simple.
whereas in DA2, the combat is every 5 F***ing seconds, which is something that should immediately please people who don't care about complexity at all, which seems to always work *Cough*COD*Cough*
i haven't played IWD so i can't comment, but from what i've seen, it seems to be the same case.

third, the 90s and early 2000s belonged to the Consoles, almost everything that was a smash hit was on consoles, and in order for it to be succesful on PC, it had to be something revolutionary.

fourth, 90s and early 2000s also belonged to JRPGs, and those are all on the consoles.

and fifth, you can't compare a 1999 game with a 2011 game, sales whise, why?
because this is a different era, back in the day, the Internet had not reached the levels of popularity that it has today, this is the Digital era, and people who have interest in something, usually go to the internet and see what people say about, and considering DA2's only "OK" reviews, and the level of hate that goes across the internet, many people who were interested were driven away.
now obviously some people did that in the 90s, but not that many compared to now.
and yes, some games and even movies get a lot of hate on the internet and are still a success, but those movies and games are part of the mainstream, and they have reached a point where is like, if something has the name of it, it will sell no matter what, example: Call of Duty.
this isn't the case, and only RPG that i can think that comes even close to those levels would be The Elder Scrolls, but not even then.

[turian councilor Knockout]

For ****'s sake DA:O wasn't so *****ng hard that they had to make it more "accesible" to new players, just turn down the difficulty instead of dumbing it down or was the old skilltree to advanced too , bye old players seems to be bioware new policy. pls Bioware don't be so damn ignorant.

Modifié par turian councilor Knockout, 15 août 2011 - 08:20 .

[alex90c]

turian councilor Knockout wrote...

For ****'s sake DA:O wasn't so *****ng hard that they had to make it more "accesible" to new players, just turn down the difficulty instead of dumbing it down or was the old skilltree to advanced too , bye old players seems to be bioware new policy. pls Bioware don't be so damn ignorant.

^this^

DA:O was my second ever RPG and I had absolute hell in it. There were times when I had to turn down the game to easy (would turn it back to normal after the hard fight I failed at 50 times)

But y'know what? Something about it just made me keep going on regardless. I wanted to reach the end of the game. It was great to have a game that was truly challenging rather than with DA2 where we got a button-bashing wankfest where I throttled up the difficulty pretty much an hour in to the game because normal was too easy.

[turian councilor Knockout]

alex90c wrote...

turian councilor Knockout wrote...

For ****'s sake DA:O wasn't so *****ng hard that they had to make it more "accesible" to new players, just turn down the difficulty instead of dumbing it down or was the old skilltree to advanced too , bye old players seems to be bioware new policy. pls Bioware don't be so damn ignorant.

^this^

DA:O was my second ever RPG and I had absolute hell in it. There were times when I had to turn down the game to easy (would turn it back to normal after the hard fight I failed at 50 times)

But y'know what? Something about it just made me keep going on regardless. I wanted to reach the end of the game. It was great to have a game that was truly challenging rather than with DA2 where we got a button-bashing wankfest where I throttled up the difficulty pretty much an hour in to the game because normal was too easy.

Great explained, I agree that in DA:O you wanted to come back after finish it many times but sadly DA 2 lack that replayabilty just for making it more accesible.
                            :wizard:

Modifié par turian councilor Knockout, 15 août 2011 - 08:36 .

[turian councilor Knockout]

Nightmare is only difficult in a few battle in DA 2 while nightmare is DA:O was easier so it's not that much of a difference and the game is plain easy from hard and down so i don't agree with a wider range of difficulties, hard is like normal on dao. and the skilltree still sucks, more complex maybe it's a matter of personal preference but the ton of negative stuff annoys, hell it's even less specs than dao offered, DA 2 sloppy work is a fact.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

In Exile wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
It's the sort of information your character would get by looking at the item, getting a whiff of it, putting it on. In roleplaying terms, what a GM would tell you if your character took the time to examine an item. What colour is it? What is it made of? Does it make me look cool (because I can tell you now, I'm not wearing lime green boots with purple fur trim no matter HOW big an attack bonus I get).

I don't actually play pen & paper, so I didn't think of a GM analogy.

With the rest, isn't that something we should know based on how the item looks?

Even some adventure games like Monkey Island and King's Quest describe more than what their 3D rendered, fully rotateable inventory items look like, so until Dragon Age's items start getting unique icons you can view inside, out and around, *some* written description is better than a generic silver ring icon.

Believe it or not, there are a number of players who will kit up their character according to what items are described as looking like, or with nostalgia items. The stats might suck, but not everyone plays RPGs to minmax or build the best combat monkey. From a roleplaying perspective the words that describe certain items are very important and can be used by the player to tell a story about their own character. Just by what s/he wears.

Is this exclusive to pen and paper RPGers? No. I know that before I played my first D&D game, my Avatar in Ultima never went anywhere without wearing her Ankh medallion, even though it did absolutely nothing besides look pretty and mean something to my character.

I think all item descriptions should be handled like Blade of Mercy.

I don't think it's practical to have every item get a cinematic exposition Blade of Mercy style. I don't mind Codex entries on items you buy from merchants (I'm perfectly happy assuming it's info the merchant gave me when I made my purchase) but it would be nice if items that are important enough to warrant legendary Codex entries get their information across in more engaging ways.

Like I said though, I wasn't debating Codex entries for items. I was debating the removal of (sensory/brief) item descriptions from DA2, and hoping it wasn't done because they were deemed daunting to new players.

I think small descriptions are an awesome way to convey little pieces of common, easily-acquired information, especially details that go beyond the visual and aural senses that computer games are limited to.

[hoorayforicecream]

turian councilor Knockout wrote...

Nightmare is only difficult in a few battle in DA 2 while nightmare is DA:O was easier so it's not that much of a difference and the game is plain easy from hard and down so i don't agree with a wider range of difficulties, hard is like normal on dao. and the skilltree still sucks, more complex maybe it's a matter of personal preference but the ton of negative stuff annoys, hell it's even less specs than dao offered, DA 2 sloppy work is a fact.

This link may be of use to you.

[turian councilor Knockout]

Hard to get a better DA  game when everyone defends it, you may like bad games hooray but i don't.

Modifié par turian councilor Knockout, 15 août 2011 - 09:23 .

[Esbatty]

turian councilor Knockout wrote...

Hard to get a better DA  game when everyone defends it, you may like bad games hooray but i don't.

Someone has to be blamed for Barbie Horse Adventure being backwards compatible on the Xbox 360 but not Star Wars Starfighter. That person... is now you. I hope you're happy with yourself.

[turian councilor Knockout]

Esbatty wrote...

turian councilor Knockout wrote...

Hard to get a better DA  game when everyone defends it, you may like bad games hooray but i don't.

Someone has to be blamed for Barbie Horse Adventure being backwards compatible on the Xbox 360 but not Star Wars Starfighter. That person... is now you. I hope you're happy with yourself.

Ok, batty bring on the blame

[hoorayforicecream]

turian councilor Knockout wrote...

Hard to get a better DA  game when everyone defends it, you may like bad games hooray but i don't.

Oh, and a strawman attack. How cute. Are you going to call me stupid for a logical fallacy trifecta?

You claimed something that is an opinion is a fact. Unsurprisingly, that's wrong.

[turian councilor Knockout]

It's not an attack, i understand that people have different taste so if someone took offense, i'm sorry that was not my intention, BTW, why did you have the link here anyway ?

I did claim that DA 2 was a sloppy work (compared to dao it's a fact but if someone like it then it's a opinion and i respect it) but i have never said to people that liked it that they're wrong.

Modifié par turian councilor Knockout, 15 août 2011 - 09:43 .

[hoorayforicecream]

turian councilor Knockout wrote...

It's not an attack, i understand that people have different taste so if someone took offense, i'm sorry that was not my intention.

It's still a Straw man. I never said either way whether I like DAO or DA2 or both (I actually like both games. Shocking, I know). I just said that claiming an opinion as fact is wrong. I'm sorry if that was hard to understand.

[Johnsen1972]

Fiddles_stix wrote...

I still cry some nights

Anyway continue thread, don't mind me.

Me too 

[turian councilor Knockout]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

turian councilor Knockout wrote...

It's not an attack, i understand that people have different taste so if someone took offense, i'm sorry that was not my intention.

It's still a Straw man. I never said either way whether I like DAO or DA2 or both (I actually like both games. Shocking, I know). I just said that claiming an opinion as fact is wrong. I'm sorry if that was hard to understand.

First iv'e never said that you're wrong to like the game (i said that it's a step backwards from dao and the series) and secondly why even post the link ?. which was why took up the bad games question btw is was meant to be a question but i forgot to use (?).

Modifié par turian councilor Knockout, 15 août 2011 - 09:56 .

[hoorayforicecream]

turian councilor Knockout wrote...

First iv'e never said that you're wrong to like the game (i said that it's a step backwards from dao and the series) and secondly why even post the link ?.

Because you clearly confuse fact and opinion, and it is a very useful tool in showing the difference. You should listen to Arthur, he explains it very well.