295 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

lobi wrote...

The game will not advance until ...... You must complete quest dumb before going to deep roads even if you have enough money. You cannot have Chaotic evil in this game. Quasi bad person char is penalised party members and XP. This game forces the issue and gives no alternatives. 'Gaiders' PC is fanatically imposed. Few more years and they will be calling DOOM3 an RPG classic.

Many games have a certain number or type of quest that a player has to finish before they can get to the main events. It was done in ME and ME2, and to an extent in DOA as well.

As for having "chaotic evil" no such thing in this game, as there are no alignments. Bad people get penialized party members and XP? I lost a party member because I was too much of a goody goody... It has to do with the party members having their own agendas and personalities, sorry that yoiu can't impose your will on them, but then I thought rounded characters with personality was a Bioware hallmark. As for being penialized XP for acting evil? When?

DAO forced issues to: being a Grey Warden, defeating the Archdemon and Loghain... All games have some framework they have to stay inside. This isn't an open world game.

[willholt]

bEVEsthda wrote...

lobi wrote...

The game will not advance until ...... You must complete quest dumb before going to deep roads even if you have enough money. You cannot have Chaotic evil in this game. Quasi bad person char is penalised party members and XP. This game forces the issue and gives no alternatives. 'Gaiders' PC is fanatically imposed. Few more years and they will be calling DOOM3 an RPG classic.

One thing that hit a note in me: " 'Gaiders' PC is fanatically imposed". Yes. Have D.Gaider written too many novels now? And lost the art of writing games?

Do any of the novels end up with the guy you are trying to help turning into the fat guy from Austin Powers and attacking you?.... cause if not it's probably just DA2

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'd rather watch The Room then play Act III again.

If someone told me that Tommy Wiseau wrote parts of Dragon Age 2, I wouldn't be surprised.

Ariella wrote...
I wish people would make up their minds. On one side there are people screaming about not wanting their hand held, and on the other I've got people screaming that Bioware should have handed them every story bit on a platter. RPGs do require a little use of imagination, and considering what Hawke had been through in act two, it doesn't surprise me that she didn't take an active hand until act three. You're assuming that made her opinion known prior to that moment. I'd think the fact that there was a rally outside her doorstep that was about to come to blows was the impetus for forcing her to air her thinking publicly, and she really had no reason to do otherwise.

Addressing that no one knows Hawke's opinion about the dictatorship that's taken place over the course of three years isn't asking anyone to hold their hand. If no one knows what his opinion is, then he clearly hasn't voiced it. Also, it's not like we're introduced to any allies who Hawke may have gained in a clandestine effort to defeat Meredith's dictatorship - we see the nobles being proactive and asking Hawke to help them. So far, your argument seems to be that your imagination is more important than what's in the actual storyline and the dialogue that's explicitly stated, and I can't agree with your argument. You seem to think imagination should trumb the failings of the game or overwrite the fact that Hawke is ridiculously reactive. My problem is that Hawke is the Champion of Kirkwall, but he does nothing - clearly, he could have tried to do something about the situation instead of simply doing nothing for three entire years, which is the same thing he does at the end of "Sheparding Wolves" and "Legacy" when he lets villains simply walk away.

[bEVEsthda]

Maconbar wrote...

lobi wrote...

The game will not advance until ...... You must complete quest dumb before going to deep roads even if you have enough money. You cannot have Chaotic evil in this game. Quasi bad person char is penalised party members and XP. This game forces the issue and gives no alternatives. 'Gaiders aligned PC' is fanatically imposed. Few more years and they will be calling DOOM3 an RPG classic.

And this is substantially different from DA:O?

Yes, there are many things which are substantially different. But one thing is that in DA:O, when your choices are limited, they tend to be so through the plot. It comes natural because it's the demands of the story and the task that "force the issue". In DA2 it just is. The choice limitations are part of the imposed story. "Hawke just stood there and did nothing but maybe dropped that cute snide comment", that's the story imposed on the player.

[Anomaly-]

Ariella wrote...
I found nothing dumbed down, but rather superfluous mechanics removed. Crafting's reengineering was brilliant, and left me grateful for the extra inventory space.

And Legacy does an even better job displaying these ideas.

I half intended to partake in what I expected to be an interesting debate, with valid points on each side, until I read this. What was superfluous about crafting that required more investment and consideration than simply stumbling upon magically unlimited resources (a wizard must have done it) that weren't even well hidden while wiping the drool from your mouth between painfully obnoxious battles? What was superfluous about attributes and skills that actually mattered and actually gave you some variety in the way you developed your character? What was superfluous about dialogue that didn't tell you what you were saying and how it would be interpreted before you said it, or romancing that wasn't so cheesy it would put a grade 7 sexual education video to shame? What was superfluous about a story that may have been cliche, but at least didn't ****** on any of the choices you made by making the end result exactly the same, with all the same gaping logical holes included?

Suffice to say, we're simply not going to come to any common ground here, and if tacking on shallow, after-thought features and taking away any feeling of control, customization, or personalization from the player is the direction "RPGs" are going in now, count me out. At least some of them still release modding tools.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 19 août 2011 - 12:31 .

[Maconbar]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

lobi wrote...

The game will not advance until ...... You must complete quest dumb before going to deep roads even if you have enough money. You cannot have Chaotic evil in this game. Quasi bad person char is penalised party members and XP. This game forces the issue and gives no alternatives. 'Gaiders aligned PC' is fanatically imposed. Few more years and they will be calling DOOM3 an RPG classic.

And this is substantially different from DA:O?

Yes, there are many things which are substantially different. But one thing is that in DA:O, when your choices are limited, they tend to be so through the plot. It comes natural because it's the demands of the story and the task that "force the issue". In DA2 it just is. The choice limitations are part of the imposed story. "Hawke just stood there and did nothing but maybe dropped that cute snide comment", that's the story imposed on the player.

Both games have lots of limitations that "are part of the imposed story." I am not arguing that DA:2 story is better just that both stories are highly constrained.

[lobi]

But DAO constraints make sense and are part of a narrative thread that continues to the end game. DA2 is a celebration of the banal in three acts. Also DAO Chars have their personalities altered by events they do not simply become churlish because PC is a bit harsh.

Modifié par lobi, 19 août 2011 - 12:36 .

[Ariella]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'd rather watch The Room then play Act III again.

If someone told me that Tommy Wiseau wrote parts of Dragon Age 2, I wouldn't be surprised.

Ariella wrote...
I wish people would make up their minds. On one side there are people screaming about not wanting their hand held, and on the other I've got people screaming that Bioware should have handed them every story bit on a platter. RPGs do require a little use of imagination, and considering what Hawke had been through in act two, it doesn't surprise me that she didn't take an active hand until act three. You're assuming that made her opinion known prior to that moment. I'd think the fact that there was a rally outside her doorstep that was about to come to blows was the impetus for forcing her to air her thinking publicly, and she really had no reason to do otherwise.

Addressing that no one knows Hawke's opinion about the dictatorship that's taken place over the course of three years isn't asking anyone to hold their hand. If no one knows what his opinion is, then he clearly hasn't voiced it. Also, it's not like we're introduced to any allies who Hawke may have gained in a clandestine effort to defeat Meredith's dictatorship - we see the nobles being proactive and asking Hawke to help them. So far, your argument seems to be that your imagination is more important than what's in the actual storyline and the dialogue that's explicitly stated, and I can't agree with your argument. You seem to think imagination should trumb the failings of the game or overwrite the fact that Hawke is ridiculously reactive. My problem is that Hawke is the Champion of Kirkwall, but he does nothing - clearly, he could have tried to do something about the situation instead of simply doing nothing for three entire years, which is the same thing he does at the end of "Sheparding Wolves" and "Legacy" when he lets villains simply walk away.

I'm addressing the comment about being in a coma, which I took to be a referrence to the inbetween years, not within act three itself. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

As for act three, I agree that it does have some narrative problems is is the weakest of the three acts, which is unfortunate. There are things I personally, would have done differently both in act two and three to make it make more sense, and if Bioware (as in the dev team) wants to know what those things were, they can PM me, and I'll happily detail it.

However, saying he does nothing goes too far in the other direction. Hawke, to me, seems ready to defend her home, and both sides want to woo her to their cause. And remember you can agree with Meredith and things happen differently than if you agree with Orsino or tell them both to take a leap.

As for the ends of Sheparding the Wolves and Legacy. Those are two different issues. First,
a refugee is discovered having murdered a sister of the Chantry... Hawke's hanging by a rope at that point.

The second is based completely on implication, and information that Hawke doesn't have, as Hawke's not a Grey Warden.

The Legacy ending, we'll just have to wait and see what's really what in the next installment.

[Out to Lunch]

So is this where the forum bullies have gathered to beat up people who might like some part of DA2 or agree in some way with an employee of Bioware?  Sure sounds like it to me. 

[Firky]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ariella wrote...

And there isn't a large market for titles like Origins. The RPG market in general is a niche market that isn't huge to begin with, and a lot of the limitations that BG had you can't really get away with in the new market because of certain expectations, one of which being three dimensional graphics and cinematic style.

You don't need a larger market if you don't waste development resources on features that are unreleated to gameplay.  That "cinematic style" adds nothing to the game.  I'd say it dimishes the game considerably both by limiting player agency and damaging the fidelity of the PC's point-of-view.

Personally, I agree with the assertion that "cinematic style" adds nothing to an "RPG." (For me. Well, it probably adds a little.) I'd also guess that it's probably expensive and that driving things from a cinematic angle contradicts (or forces them to leave behind) from some areas of "RPG gameplay" I'm very sorry to see go the way of the dinosaur.

But, would these guys be able to get away with releasing something Dragon Age that looked like ... Avadon, for example? It would be cheaper to make (if you were going to entirely restructure the design team). I'd certainly play it. 

I just can't see it, though. Realistically, I'm hoping that "evolution" sees cinematic style design finding more clever and meaningful ways to engage the player (or maybe the more old school amoung us) as well as enhancing gameplay rather than forcing things out.

[Zanallen]

Out to Lunch wrote...

So is this where the forum bullies have gathered to beat up people who might like some part of DA2 or agree in some way with an employee of Bioware?  Sure sounds like it to me. 

Yeah, the recent Laidlaw responses on the forums lead to an article were quotes were taken out of context from Laidlaw's posts which then lead to all of the DA 2 haters returning to the forums.

[lobi]

Out to Lunch wrote...

So is this where the forum bullies have gathered to beat up people who might like some part of DA2 or agree in some way with an employee of Bioware?  Sure sounds like it to me. 

You truly are "out to lunch".

Zanallen wrote...
Yeah, the recent Laidlaw responses on the forums lead to an article were quotes were taken out of context from Laidlaw's posts which then lead to all of the DA 2 haters returning to the forums.

Also the apologists it seems.

Modifié par lobi, 19 août 2011 - 12:44 .

[LobselVith8]

Ariella wrote...

I'm addressing the comment about being in a coma, which I took to be a referrence to the inbetween years, not within act three itself. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

Nothing to apologize for. I meant between the Acts, which does include between Acts II and III. After Act I, Hawke achieves money and status, but does nothing with it. After Act II, he becomes Champion, but does nothing about the dictatorship taking place in his city-state across the span of three years, and we see this is true in Act III.

Ariella wrote...

As for act three, I agree that it does have some narrative problems is is the weakest of the three acts, which is unfortunate. There are things I personally, would have done differently both in act two and three to make it make more sense, and if Bioware (as in the dev team) wants to know what those things were, they can PM me, and I'll happily detail it.

However, saying he does nothing goes too far in the other direction. Hawke, to me, seems ready to defend her home, and both sides want to woo her to their cause. And remember you can agree with Meredith and things happen differently than if you agree with Orsino or tell them both to take a leap.

But if Hawke agrees with Meredith, why are pro-templar players denied the option to have a pro-active Hawke who has been supporting her for the past three years? Why are pro-mage players denied the option of having a pro-active Hawke who has disputed Meredith's dictatorship for the past three years? The dialogue options and the voice actors make it clear that the Champion of Kirkwall isn't doing anything.

Ariella wrote...

As for the ends of Sheparding the Wolves and Legacy. Those are two different issues. First,
a refugee is discovered having murdered a sister of the Chantry... Hawke's hanging by a rope at that point.

You mean a refugee isn't discovered having killed a sister and a templar because they are in an abandoned house where killing two people isn't going to be traced back to him, especially since no one else knows the sister and the templar are there. He could have dragged the bodies to the gang in the Undercity he took care of. Hawke doing nothing is what caused people to die later on.

Ariella wrote...

The second is based completely on implication, and information that Hawke doesn't have, as Hawke's not a Grey Warden.

The Legacy ending, we'll just have to wait and see what's really what in the next installment.

I hated the ending to Legacy - Hawke, once again, doing nothing. I gave them a chance, and they disappointed me again. Would it kill BW to write Hawke as an intelligent person who doesn't let the bad guy walk away? Larius acting completely different and sounding like Corypheus should have tipped Hawke off. I'd have no problem with Larius escaping without the writers depicting Hawke as a dim-witted fool.

[Ariella]

Anomaly- wrote...

Ariella wrote...
I found nothing dumbed down, but rather superfluous mechanics removed. Crafting's reengineering was brilliant, and left me grateful for the extra inventory space.

And Legacy does an even better job displaying these ideas.

I half intended to partake in what I expected to be an interesting debate, with valid points on each side, until I read this. What was superfluous about crafting that required more investment and consideration than simply stumbling upon magically unlimited resources (a wizard must have done it) that weren't even well hidden while wiping the drool from your mouth between painfully obnoxious battles? What was superfluous about attributes and skills that actually mattered and actually gave you some variety in the way you developed your character? What was superfluous about dialogue that didn't tell you what you were saying and how it would be interpreted before you said it, or romancing that wasn't so cheesy it would put a grade 7 sexual education video to shame? What was superfluous about a story that may have been cliche, but at least didn't ****** on any of the choices you made by making the end result exactly the same, with all the same gaping logical holes included?

Suffice to say, we're simply not going to come to any common ground here, and if tacking on shallow, after-thought features and taking away any feeling of control, customization, or personalization from the player is the direction "RPGs" are going in now, count me out. At least some of them still release modding tools.

And having crafting resources that you carried around in your bag, taking up space, that were found in the most rediculous of places is better, many of which were found after painfully obnoxious and SLOW battles where you had to wait for your character to react to your commands. I don't remember attributes being removed from DA2, but skills did very little except add an extra bar to advancement in abilities, which is not what skills should do in my opinion, because if you're going to have a division between non-combat skills and combat abilities, keep them seperate... They weren't.

My quote doesn't discuss the mechanics for dialogue, and while it's obvious you favor a silent protagonist, it's been pointed out there are advantages to the dialogue wheel system. I forget exactly how it was phrased but the dialogue wheel game more options for interrogative dialogue. I think the ration mentioned was 10 lines to 6 lines in DAO. There's also the advantage that with the dialogue wheel you're not going to end up going over old ground when you talk to your fellows. I'm not sure what your problem was with the romances, especially considering there was a lot more to it than just sex. And considering the fact it was a framed narrative, we KNEW the ending before the game started. The point wasn't to get to the end, but it was HOW you got there, what choices were made in getting there.

As has been pointed out, in DAO it all comes down to a duel at the Landsmeet, no matter what you've done to get the treaties, or how you argued, it comes down to a fight. I didn't mind that too much because it was very satisfying to me to kick Loghain's pasty white butt, however, it still can seem to make everything the player did up to that point pretty meaningless. Maybe if the dev team had went with the plans of having the Landsmeet earlier in the game, it would have worked better, but again that's a YMMV.

[Zanallen]

lobi wrote...

Also the apologists it seems.

Nah, I'm a realist and sometimes a troll.

[bEVEsthda]

Maconbar wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Yes, there are many things which are substantially different. But one thing is that in DA:O, when your choices are limited, they tend to be so through the plot. It comes natural because it's the demands of the story and the task that "force the issue". In DA2 it just is. The choice limitations are part of the imposed story. "Hawke just stood there and did nothing but maybe dropped that cute snide comment", that's the story imposed on the player.

Both games have lots of limitations that "are part of the imposed story." I am not arguing that DA:2 story is better just that both stories are highly constrained.

As Bioware do 'story driven' games, rather than sand boxes, this is inevitable. But there's an art to this, to make it feel natural, and go with the player's flow. And I'd say D.G. have been amazing at this, in the past. I've always counted him as one of Bioware's major assets, if not THE.

From the perspective of games like BG and Morrowind, many things are less in DA:O. And many flaws which annoy us in DA2 were 'available' already in DA:O. But you see, I liked DA:O. So I can tolerate the odd flaws.
I dislike DA2, so every flaw bug me like a thorn in an infested wound. There are two reasons why I dislike DA2. Neither of those reasons are recycled environments or waves. The first reason is that the style and mood of DA2 rubs me the wrong way, to put it mildly. The second reason is that the number of flaws makes it drop below a critical treshold where dislike takes over.

[Zanallen]

Filament wrote...

Indeed. "Hmm, this sack of darkspawn flesh has a deep mushroom on it, I THINK I'LL EAT IT!"

Hallucinogenic mushrooms cause you to deepen your connection to the Fade which then restores your mana reserves.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Ariella wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

When did accessablity become a by-word for "action" or "speed" in a game? I'm talking about things that make it easier to get into, what I consider the most important part of ANY rpg: the story. If mechanics bog a story down, then they aren't working.

If the style of the game precludes an actual story that the character can interact with (rather than be a drooling bystander like Hawke seems to be much of the time), then it isn't working either at least from an RP perspective.

-Polaris

Again it seems you got a different version of the game than I did, because my Hawke made friends, influenced people all based on my choices.

I've had discussions like these in this very thread with you long ago, and it's why I swayed away from the "hear no evil" forumites. I don't usually don't this, but I think you're just downright dishonest. You change up so much from one point to another, and when you're shown that, you continue on without addressing your inconsistencies. It's fine to like what you like, but entirely another to misrepresent what these games actually do when playing them.

My Hawke did make friends, I wandered down to the Alienage after a certain quest with Aveline and was greeted rather heartily because of my actions. Certain people trust my character because of my choices, and came back to her for help. How is that NOT making friends and influencing people?

And at the end, how I played Hawke made my final choice a natural and logical growth of my game.

There's nothing dishonest about that, Tommy.

Influencing companions is hardly ecompassing the entire world, not to mention key plot choices often have the same exact outcome, with the Arishok questline for example you end up in a fight either way.  Much the same with regardless if you side with the Templars or Mages, it plays out nearly identical. Warn the templars about Anders? Oh gee look same outcome he blows stuff up.  And don't get me started on the laughable deep roads expidition.   2 fairly small rooms connected by a hallway.  oh joy. Suddenly the deep roads don't seem so deep.

Fact of the matter is, many major plot choices over the course of the game matter very little in the scope of the framed narrative, Act 3 especially,  unlike in say a title like Alpha Protocol where you actually MAJORLY affect not only the plot but who lives and dies. 

Though when you rush a game out the door half baked in 18 months, that generally has a habit of happening.

[John Epler]

And now we've hit the 'pointless bickering and snide remarks' part of the thread.

Locking. Because this forum needs another 'Your opinions are -wrong- and you should feel bad for having them' thread like it needs a hole in the head.

[seraphymon]

Ariella wrote...

And having crafting resources that you carried around in your bag, taking up space, that were found in the most rediculous of places is better, many of which were found after painfully obnoxious and SLOW battles where you had to wait for your character to react to your commands. I don't remember attributes being removed from DA2, but skills did very little except add an extra bar to advancement in abilities, which is not what skills should do in my opinion, because if you're going to have a division between non-combat skills and combat abilities, keep them seperate... They weren't.

My quote doesn't discuss the mechanics for dialogue, and while it's obvious you favor a silent protagonist, it's been pointed out there are advantages to the dialogue wheel system. I forget exactly how it was phrased but the dialogue wheel game more options for interrogative dialogue. I think the ration mentioned was 10 lines to 6 lines in DAO. There's also the advantage that with the dialogue wheel you're not going to end up going over old ground when you talk to your fellows. I'm not sure what your problem was with the romances, especially considering there was a lot more to it than just sex. And considering the fact it was a framed narrative, we KNEW the ending before the game started. The point wasn't to get to the end, but it was HOW you got there, what choices were made in getting there.

As has been pointed out, in DAO it all comes down to a duel at the Landsmeet, no matter what you've done to get the treaties, or how you argued, it comes down to a fight. I didn't mind that too much because it was very satisfying to me to kick Loghain's pasty white butt, however, it still can seem to make everything the player did up to that point pretty meaningless. Maybe if the dev team had went with the plans of having the Landsmeet earlier in the game, it would have worked better, but again that's a YMMV.

Carrying stuff is carrying stuff. If you dont have the room for that stuff that either your fault or has to do with the limited number of bag space entirely, which i never had a problem with. its much better than having useless loot in DA2 which you can do nothing but sell for copper. Some skills were useless, but the majority of them wernt really. They added some layers as to how you played, wether one was a herbalist or poison maker. However the persuaion was one thing i wish they really kept. Attributes wernt removed but made much more sompler in where to put them. The game basically made the decision for you depepding on your class, because of the requirements. DAo did this somewhat as well but you had alot more room to still customize. The most recent pathc of DA2 fixed this a little but its still very hand holding.

The dailogue wheel has its uses but im not buying the BS they are trying to sell with it, as imo its worse in every way then the tree. Yes they  may have more options when you add in investigate, but that doesnt progress the conversation either. In the end you only have 3 responses only differented by tone. There was alot more to romance in DAO than just sex, in there its just a matter of opinion as to which a person prefers. Me DAO romance was done way better, but thats just me. and its not how you got there, because as far as i can tell only few choices actually made a difference, nothing changed at all. It might as well been a movie or reading a book.

you point out of DAO railroading, but DA2 was the very same except in a worse way, primarily because of the illusion of choices and the way it worked and didnt work between the games.  Even Bioware acknowledges the impact of choice and how it underperformed in DA2.