628 réponses à ce sujet

[Zoikster]

Vormaerin wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

I agree that Origins forced you into a role, but that role is printed on the back of the box. It's not like no one knew they would be playing as a Warden when they bought the game. And if they did, well, that's just stupidity. 

There's a difference between knowing you are going to play a role as Gray Warden and knowing that the role is going to completely smother every other aspect of your character.

With one or two exceptions, I get the exact same dialogue, social interaction, and plot development from Ostagar on whether I play a ghetto raised elf rogue only in the Wardens to beat a murder rap or I'm playing the scion of a high noble family who had been keen on Joining the Wardens from the get go.

And that's a meaningful choice?

Yes

[hoorayforicecream]

Monica21 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Laidlaw didn't say "All objective standards suggest that it is non-functional, and the only hope is to reconstruct it from the ground up." He said "we felt were busted."

Well, did he think the Deep Roads and the Fade were busted or did he think dialogue skill trees and crafting were busted, since those were removed altogether?

Regarding the actual skills, Coercion was pretty much a necessity, and the rest of them I don't remember ever using. I occasionally remember a quest or two requiring herbalism, but that's all.

Not having Coercion isn't a game-breaker though. Usually there was an option to Intimidate if you wanted to play big dumb warrior. There are a few quests for herbalism which aren't game breakers either and have more to do with how you've built your party if you even decide to complete them. I saw crafting as really just a means to save money by making potions instead of buying them. But, I also see it as choice and consequence for how you've built your party. It's a pretty minor consequence, but one that forces you to think about your party makeup.

It's not a game breaker, but it wasn't something that (I'm guessing) the telemetry data suggested people used a lot except for coercion. Also, intimidate used the Coercion skill just like persuasion. Since everyone pretty much just chose coercion anyway, why not just make it on by default?

[Zoikster]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

 Laidlaw: “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,” Laidlaw adds. “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.”

And this bit.

 “I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: we stripped some stuff out of DA becuase it was busted”

Exactly what was busted? I'd love some clarification. What exactly was so "imposing" about DA:O? I introducted several people to it who weren't familiar with the RPG genre who absolutely loved it; and hated DA 2. A lot of casual types adored the game. Laidlaw has made some serious miscalculations here.I just can't wrap my mind around his throught process except to think that EA says to dumb the game down to try and draw a larger audience. Which obviously would/has backfired. Can we at least stop blaming DA 2 problems on Origins?

Here is the link

Sorry, just had to vent. 

Hm. OK, I have to tell you that I think you'll find the end result of this kind of feedback - which has been done at great length by many, many people - is going to be pretty damned unsatisfactory.

I have some respect for the way that BioWare has tried to handle the infinitesimally small slice of the backlash that has touched these forums, but in the end the message seems to be that while some small tweaks will happen, the vast majority of the stuff that people loathed about DA2 isn't going anywhere. That is the direction the games are going in, and anyone who doesn't like it can just get the hell off Cliff's bus.

This isn't because of the tiny minority of people who are out to troll feedback and silence criticism on these forums, they can be ignored. It's about the decisions and direction that the developers have committed to - and I guess none of us ultimately knows whether that's through the insistence of this publisher, the blind truculence of that team leader or whatever else we could wildly speculate about.

I think you'll probably come away from this process with an air of resignation - but at least you won't be blindly rushing to buy games from them again and wasting money, y'know?

For my part I got past the idea that "BioWare just doesn't care about Dragon Age fans" a while ago, because you know, apart from the 60 bucks I wasted, that's cool. I will wander off and play other games. I didn't pre-order their latest offering and I'll only really show interest again if anything looks good enough for me to play.

I mean it seems likely to me that "growth" away from the lovely, intelligent and attention-span gifted people I've known to play RPGs over the years, to court (in the largest numbers possible) the flighty, thick and often quite nasty and prejudiced people that make up the bulk of human society will probably reshape the games in the image of the intended recipients - if subtlety and role-play won't appeal to Joe Public, they can be dropped from the games until they are the usual sort of orgiastic, nihilistic wave-of-destruction type games that she does like, If bisexual people and "****s" drive away Joe Public, then they will eventually have to go, too, because companies can't package stuff their customers hate - however much they might like to (naively) think or say otherwise now.

It doesn't matter, the message might be, if you don't like where DA2 is going you're SOL, but there's a very easy solution to that. Chalk down the money you spent on DA2 as wasted, and keep the rest of it in your pocket.

It was me venting. That's aslo quite clear in the post. 

[Monica21]

Zoikster wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

I think I'm more aggrivated that he seems to be implying Origins was broken. Drives me up the wall.

People that say DAO was not broken drive me up the wall.

I'm here to tell you while it wasn't perfect, it wasn't broken. Calling it broken is a bit hyperbolic.

Go back and read your original post. He didn't say that Origins was broken. He said they stripped some stuff out. That could mean it was broken from a developer perspective because it didn't allow for X other things they wanted to do.

[FieryDove]

In Exile wrote...

Did it matter in game? How does having Bhelen instead of Harrowmont change anything in DA:O that isn't an epilogue slide? 

The slides only gives the start of what happens. Some may have far reaching impact, some do not. We won't know for quite awhile I imagine. DA4/5/6/7.

[Mr.House]

Zoikster wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

I think I'm more aggrivated that he seems to be implying Origins was broken. Drives me up the wall.

People that say DAO was not broken drive me up the wall.

I'm here to tell you while it wasn't perfect, it wasn't broken. Calling it broken is a bit hyperbolic.

Gift system was broken, the dialog system was broken(why do you think there is so many dialog mods), many talents where broken(again, there's so many mods that had to fix them), one choice was broken(which am od had to fix) and the approval system that was bugged and would stop you from getting conversations. DAO was broken, an unmodded and fixed DAO is not fun at all.

[Zanallen]

Zoikster wrote...

Haha, you're the one saying my choices in Origin weren't meaningful or impactful just because in the end you fight the arch demon. I think it's a ridiculous notion myself. And yes it is a RPG, it doesn't matter as long as you're enjoying them. 


Edit: I want my choices, I want my alternate beginnings, and I want my alternate endings. (The landsmeet was suitable as an alternate ending in my opinion.)

I didn't say that at all. I have posted exactly twice, three times now, in this thread and have said nothing of the sort. You are the one saying that the choices matter because you loiked them, despite them having absolutely no impact on the game.

[Zanallen]

Zoikster wrote...

Haha, you're the one saying my choices in Origin weren't meaningful or impactful just because in the end you fight the arch demon. I think it's a ridiculous notion myself. And yes it is a RPG, it doesn't matter as long as you're enjoying them. 


Edit: I want my choices, I want my alternate beginnings, and I want my alternate endings. (The landsmeet was suitable as an alternate ending in my opinion.)

I didn't say that at all. I have posted exactly twice, three times now, in this thread and have said nothing of the sort. You are the one saying that the choices matter because you liked them, despite them having absolutely no impact on the game.

[Zoikster]

Mr.House wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

I think I'm more aggrivated that he seems to be implying Origins was broken. Drives me up the wall.

People that say DAO was not broken drive me up the wall.

I'm here to tell you while it wasn't perfect, it wasn't broken. Calling it broken is a bit hyperbolic.

Gift system was broken, the dialog system was broken(why do you think there is so many dialog mods), many talents where broken(again, there's so many mods that had to fix them), one choice was broken(which am od had to fix) and the approval system that was bugged and would stop you from getting conversations. DAO was broken, an unmodded and fixed DAO is not fun at all.

The gift system being broken is certainly sujbective and debateable, dialogue was in no way shape or form broken. You can't fault DA:O for having a few mods, all great games do. You should see the number of people wanting to mod DA 2, I'm not sure you have a point. If every game that has a mod is "broken" then all games are and always will be.

[Monica21]

Vormaerin wrote...
There's a difference between knowing you are going to play a role as Gray Warden and knowing that the role is going to completely smother every other aspect of your character.

With one or two exceptions, I get the exact same dialogue, social interaction, and plot development from Ostagar on whether I play a ghetto raised elf rogue only in the Wardens to beat a murder rap or I'm playing the scion of a high noble family who had been keen on Joining the Wardens from the get go.

And that's a meaningful choice?

Nope, and I didn't say it was. Unless you mean that buying the game is your meaningful choice.

And this is where I think the illusion of choice, shoehorned or not, was presented much better in DAO than in DA2. No, you really can't change anything. You become a Warden, you make some treaties, you decide who's going to be king, and you kill the Archdemon. That stuff never changes. But again, it's all in the presentation. Nothing meaningful changes in DA2 but I'm aware that nothing meaningful is happening even as I'm playing, and that's the big difference for me.

[Mr.House]

Zoikster wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

I agree that Origins forced you into a role, but that role is printed on the back of the box. It's not like no one knew they would be playing as a Warden when they bought the game. And if they did, well, that's just stupidity. 

There's a difference between knowing you are going to play a role as Gray Warden and knowing that the role is going to completely smother every other aspect of your character.

With one or two exceptions, I get the exact same dialogue, social interaction, and plot development from Ostagar on whether I play a ghetto raised elf rogue only in the Wardens to beat a murder rap or I'm playing the scion of a high noble family who had been keen on Joining the Wardens from the get go.

And that's a meaningful choice?

Yes

lol.

[Zoikster]

Zanallen wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

Haha, you're the one saying my choices in Origin weren't meaningful or impactful just because in the end you fight the arch demon. I think it's a ridiculous notion myself. And yes it is a RPG, it doesn't matter as long as you're enjoying them. 


Edit: I want my choices, I want my alternate beginnings, and I want my alternate endings. (The landsmeet was suitable as an alternate ending in my opinion.)

I didn't say that at all. I have posted exactly twice, three times now, in this thread and have said nothing of the sort. You are the one saying that the choices matter because you loiked them, despite them having absolutely no impact on the game.

They didn't have an impact on the end, they did have impact on the game, and actually depending on how you deal with Alistair, can have an impact past Origins.

[Zoikster]

There are people positing that game choices have to have impacts on the end of the game to be worthy, I disagree. Simple as that.

[Ianamus]

The fact that the majority of people believe that DA:O was better than DA2, and that almost all reviewers gave DA2 a slightly lower lower score than Origins shows it's DA2 that is "busted", not Origins.

Modifié par EJ107, 14 août 2011 - 10:27 .

[Erani]

I understand where you are coming from and agree with many of the posts on this thread but couldn't we have this discussion in the thread where Mike originally made these comments (and the source of that article)? The DA2 community discussed thread is open and contains lots of great feedback. I just do not understand why new threads are made and many of them go like "mike laidlaw this..." or "david G. this..." just please make use of the existing feedback threads. Just my opinion, feel free to ignore it obviously. 

[Darth Krytie]

Zoikster wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

It doesn't matter, they were choices I enjoyed being able to make.

Ah, so it doesn't matter as long as you enjoy it. And people think you feel your opinion to be more important than that of others. Where could they have possibly gotten such a notion?

Haha, you're the one saying my choices in Origin weren't meaningful or impactful just because in the end you fight the arch demon. I think it's a ridiculous notion myself. And yes it is a RPG, it doesn't matter as long as you're enjoying them. 


Edit: I want my choices, I want my alternate beginnings, and I want my alternate endings. (The landsmeet was suitable as an alternate ending in my opinion.)

Truth is, you play the same exact quests regardless of your choices in Origins. The only thing that is actually different were the origins quests themselves. DA2 actually had quests you only got if you picked certain choices, in game and through background/upload.

All those different choices in Origins were only made at the tail end of each quest and really had little impact on the final game except who you could call to battle during the finale in Denerim. (And the epilogue slides of dubious truth)

There were two endings to DA2. And you had choices that could affect who was in your party and who wasn't. You could side with party member A or party member b. You had choice. Just because you don't like the choices, doesn't negate the fact they do, in fact, exist.

All you've been saying througout this entire thread is: Well, your opinions and arguments are wrong because I say so.

You've dismissed any counterarguments for purely specious reasons.

Whatever.

DA:O and DA:2 have more similiarities than you'd care to admit.

[Monica21]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
It's not a game breaker, but it wasn't something that (I'm guessing) the telemetry data suggested people used a lot except for coercion. Also, intimidate used the Coercion skill just like persuasion. Since everyone pretty much just chose coercion anyway, why not just make it on by default?

Because having it on by default doesn't let you build your character. I don't think that's roleplay. That's playing a character someone else created for you. Just because people used it a lot doesn't mean you remove dialogue skills trees.

[Zoikster]

Erani wrote...

I understand where you are coming from and agree with many of the posts on this thread but couldn't we have this discussion in the thread where Mike originally made these comments (and the source of that article)? The DA2 community discussed thread is open and contains lots of great feedback. I just do not understand why new threads are made and many of them go like "mike laidlaw this..." or "david G. this..." just please make use of the existing feedback threads. Just my opinion, feel free to ignore it obviously. 

Understandable

[Zjarcal]

Monica21 wrote...

There are a few quests for herbalism which aren't game breakers either and have more to do with how you've built your party if you even decide to complete them.

There's only two quests that involve herbalism, the one from Elder Mirriam in Lothering and the one from that sick person in Orzammar. There's only one that involves poison (also in Lothering), one that involves Survival (the sick Halla), and one involving traps (the girl in Lothering). Other than those there are no more quests involving the skills. While it was nice when your skills became involved in quests, it was so rare that it hardly made a difference (I usually just respecced for that particular quest and moved on).

While I kind of liked the skills and the crafting, they were completely unnecessary (not useless, but totally unecessary), especially due to how everyone had access to the same skills (save coercion). There really was no reason (other than roleplaying) to give your PC skills like herbalism and poison (save your point for Combat training or Coercion instead, and just let your companion craft items). Trap making at least had the small benefit of increainsg the trap detection line of sight (convenient for the PC since the PC is always in front of the party).

I would say that the skill system was one of the things that was busted in Origins. Did it needed to be removed completely? No, of course not, it should've been improved and I can understand that people want it back, but I can't really say I miss the system as it was implemented in Origins.

[Zoikster]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

It doesn't matter, they were choices I enjoyed being able to make.

Ah, so it doesn't matter as long as you enjoy it. And people think you feel your opinion to be more important than that of others. Where could they have possibly gotten such a notion?

Haha, you're the one saying my choices in Origin weren't meaningful or impactful just because in the end you fight the arch demon. I think it's a ridiculous notion myself. And yes it is a RPG, it doesn't matter as long as you're enjoying them. 


Edit: I want my choices, I want my alternate beginnings, and I want my alternate endings. (The landsmeet was suitable as an alternate ending in my opinion.)

Truth is, you play the same exact quests regardless of your choices in Origins. The only thing that is actually different were the origins quests themselves. DA2 actually had quests you only got if you picked certain choices, in game and through background/upload.

All those different choices in Origins were only made at the tail end of each quest and really had little impact on the final game except who you could call to battle during the finale in Denerim. (And the epilogue slides of dubious truth)

There were two endings to DA2. And you had choices that could affect who was in your party and who wasn't. You could side with party member A or party member b. You had choice. Just because you don't like the choices, doesn't negate the fact they do, in fact, exist.

All you've been saying througout this entire thread is: Well, your opinions and arguments are wrong because I say so.

You've dismissed any counterarguments for purely specious reasons.

Whatever.

DA:O and DA:2 have more similiarities than you'd care to admit.

That's not true at all, you'er just trying to argue somehow that DA 2 had better/more impactful choices, and I'm arguing that I disagree. I think it's rubbish. MHO.

Modifié par Zoikster, 14 août 2011 - 10:30 .

[Mr.House]

Zoikster wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

I think I'm more aggrivated that he seems to be implying Origins was broken. Drives me up the wall.

People that say DAO was not broken drive me up the wall.

I'm here to tell you while it wasn't perfect, it wasn't broken. Calling it broken is a bit hyperbolic.

Gift system was broken, the dialog system was broken(why do you think there is so many dialog mods), many talents where broken(again, there's so many mods that had to fix them), one choice was broken(which am od had to fix) and the approval system that was bugged and would stop you from getting conversations. DAO was broken, an unmodded and fixed DAO is not fun at all.

The gift system being broken is certainly sujbective and debateable, dialogue was in no way shape or form broken. You can't fault DA:O for having a few mods, all great games do. You should see the number of people wanting to mod DA 2, I'm not sure you have a point. If every game that has a mod is "broken" then all games are and always will be.

Really? You where not here at launch, I was under a diffrent account. Dialog was bugged, it's still bugged. Go look at Zev fix pack and then come back and tell me that the dialog is not bugged. How about the infamous Alistair is always king?

You missed the point also, it's not about a game having mods, it's the fact there is TOO many of a certain mod that fixs issues that where voiced by people when the game cameo ut and Bioware hardly fixed any of, or deisgn issues. DAO was a broken game, you can agree or not but getting mad because someone says that is just inmature. You don't think the game was broken? Good for you, other people do.

[kingjezza]

Mr.House wrote...
Gift system was broken, the dialog system was broken(why do you think there is so many dialog mods), many talents where broken(again, there's so many mods that had to fix them), one choice was broken(which am od had to fix) and the approval system that was bugged and would stop you from getting conversations. DAO was broken, an unmodded and fixed DAO is not fun at all.

In my three plays I never really had a problem with any of those things. All games have certain bugs but it's a bit of a stretch to say those things were outright broken and needed stripping altogether.

Maybe certain aspects needed refining but Mike's comment was that things in Origins were outright busted and had to be removed, I'm still struggling to think of what, if you're going to make a comment like that then at least come out and explain your reasons.

[Hatchetman77]

Celtic Latino wrote...

I do respect OP for being reasonable though, sorry if I came off as a little rude. : )

Well, to avoid being rude in the future you may not want to use the word whining to describe a negative opinion of something that disagrees with your opinion. Berateing people who don't share your opinion also can come off as rude as well.

[Zoikster]

Mr.House wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

I think I'm more aggrivated that he seems to be implying Origins was broken. Drives me up the wall.

People that say DAO was not broken drive me up the wall.

I'm here to tell you while it wasn't perfect, it wasn't broken. Calling it broken is a bit hyperbolic.

Gift system was broken, the dialog system was broken(why do you think there is so many dialog mods), many talents where broken(again, there's so many mods that had to fix them), one choice was broken(which am od had to fix) and the approval system that was bugged and would stop you from getting conversations. DAO was broken, an unmodded and fixed DAO is not fun at all.

The gift system being broken is certainly sujbective and debateable, dialogue was in no way shape or form broken. You can't fault DA:O for having a few mods, all great games do. You should see the number of people wanting to mod DA 2, I'm not sure you have a point. If every game that has a mod is "broken" then all games are and always will be.

Really? You where not here at launch, I was under a diffrent account. Dialog was bugged, it's still bugged. Go look at Zev fix pack and then come back and tell me that the dialog is not bugged. How about the infamous Alistair is always king?

You missed the point also, it's not about a game having mods, it's the fact there is TOO many of a certain mod that fixs issues that where voiced by people when the game cameo ut and Bioware hardly fixed any of, or deisgn issues. DAO was a broken game, you can agree or not but getting mad because someone says that is just inmature. You don't think the game was broken? Good for you, other people do.

Well, I think complaining about the minor flaws in DA:O and clapping with glee at DA:2 is a bit odd. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, as I am. DA:O was a flawed game as all are, but it was a playable, fun game. It was not "broken" as you're trying to claim. Sorry.

[mesmerizedish]

Zjarcal wrote...

There's only two quests that involve herbalism, the one from Elder Mirriam in Lothering and the one from that sick person in Orzammar. There's only one that involves poison (also in Lothering), one that involves Survival (the sick Halla), and one involving traps (the girl in Lothering). Other than those there are no more quests involving the skills. While it was nice when your skills became involved in quests, it was so rare that it hardly made a difference (I usually just respecced for that particular quest and moved on).

While I kind of liked the skills and the crafting, they were completely unnecessary (not useless, but totally unecessary), especially due to how everyone had access to the same skills (save coercion). There really was no reason (other than roleplaying) to give your PC skills like herbalism and poison (save your point for Combat training or Coercion instead, and just let your companion craft items). Trap making at least had the small benefit of increainsg the trap detection line of sight (convenient for the PC since the PC is always in front of the party).

I would say that the skill system was one of the things that was busted in Origins. Did it needed to be removed completely? No, of course not, it should've been improved and I can understand that people want it back, but I can't really say I miss the system as it was implemented in Origins.

This. So much this. My agreement is only 23% based on how sexy Zjar is.