491 réponses à ce sujet

[SphereofSilence]

Am happy with the proposed changes by Mike Laidlaw. Looking forward to it

[Stoomkal]

I am just so tired of backward steps.

This is still *less* adaptable or customisable than the *old* game.

Old characters *were* iconic - look at Bastilla or Morrigan for pity's sake...

The easiest way to win an argument is to pretend you are stupid and argue stupidly.

BW are giving us advertising jargon and are hiding behind it.

As in this: are reduction in features or ability to customise a character is not a "development" or "evolution". They are telling us that a lack of sunlight is "evolved rain" and we are scratching our head saying "no, it is an absence of rain".

They are selling a less as a more and using very childish advertising tactics to do so.

I know they want a simplified system. No item descriptions means no writing tasks... by the end of Witch Hunt, entire item sets were simply written as in-jokes or references to television shows. It broke immersion and showed they were frankly bored and jaded with the whole fantasy franchise idea.

This is a new way, I just wish they were honest enough to say truthfully the direction they were going in, because I think alot of people see it.

And we are sick of advertising jargon...

[BroBear Berbil]

Strongly positive for me.

I really don't care if the armor I equip my companions with is visually represented if the stats are there. Optimal sets of gear left characters looking pretty ridiculous a lot of times in Origins with all the mismatched pieces. I liked the iconic looks in DA2 (with the exception of Fenris' armor) too.

Modifié par OnionXI, 11 septembre 2011 - 05:28 .

[seraphymon]

Stoomkal wrote...

I am just so tired of backward steps.

This is still *less* adaptable or customisable than the *old* game.

Old characters *were* iconic - look at Bastilla or Morrigan for pity's sake...

The easiest way to win an argument is to pretend you are stupid and argue stupidly.

BW are giving us advertising jargon and are hiding behind it.

As in this: are reduction in features or ability to customise a character is not a "development" or "evolution". They are telling us that a lack of sunlight is "evolved rain" and we are scratching our head saying "no, it is an absence of rain".

They are selling a less as a more and using very childish advertising tactics to do so.

I know they want a simplified system. No item descriptions means no writing tasks... by the end of Witch Hunt, entire item sets were simply written as in-jokes or references to television shows. It broke immersion and showed they were frankly bored and jaded with the whole fantasy franchise idea.

This is a new way, I just wish they were honest enough to say truthfully the direction they were going in, because I think alot of people see it.

And we are sick of advertising jargon...

Well said. I agree.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Siven80 wrote...

For me Morrigan didnt look right if she wasnt wearing "her" outfit.
Leliana didnt look right without "her" sacred ashes outfit (ah lovely mods).

For me, the attire that "looked right" on Morrigan or Leliana differed from playthrough to playthrough.

In DA2, I'm stuck with the same Fenris every time.  He never changes.  So he's boring.

[TEWR]

Stoomkal wrote...

I am just so tired of backward steps.

This is still *less* adaptable or customisable than the *old* game.

Old characters *were* iconic - look at Bastilla or Morrigan for pity's sake...

The easiest way to win an argument is to pretend you are stupid and argue stupidly.

BW are giving us advertising jargon and are hiding behind it.

As in this: are reduction in features or ability to customise a character is not a "development" or "evolution". They are telling us that a lack of sunlight is "evolved rain" and we are scratching our head saying "no, it is an absence of rain".

They are selling a less as a more and using very childish advertising tactics to do so.

I know they want a simplified system. No item descriptions means no writing tasks... by the end of Witch Hunt, entire item sets were simply written as in-jokes or references to television shows. It broke immersion and showed they were frankly bored and jaded with the whole fantasy franchise idea.

This is a new way, I just wish they were honest enough to say truthfully the direction they were going in, because I think alot of people see it.

And we are sick of advertising jargon...

The only thing iconic about Morrigan was her robes and her face. Her body however wasn't iconic. She had the same body structure that Leliana, Wynne, Teyrna Eleanor Cousland, Lily, and every other human female had.

What Bioware wanted to do was give each character their own body structure as well as their own unique set(s) of armor.

Frankly, I'm happy with the proposed compromise and I'll be even happier if when I equip the character with an armor piece it significantly adds something to their unique appearance until I decide to take it off.

It's a step towards going forward in a better direction. While DAII's current system was a horrible step backwards (and went even farther back since the upgrades don't add anything to the unique look of the companion), going back to the Origins style wouldn't change anything really. It'd just be maintaining the old footing when they can in fact go forward with the idea of armor and companions.

I do agree though that items should have their own descriptions again and that weather effects should be seen again, along with detail in the environments (books do serve a purpose in a place that's supposed to be a center of learning).

[MerinTB]

Stoomkal wrote...

I am just so tired of backward steps.

This is still *less* adaptable or customisable than the *old* game.

Old characters *were* iconic - look at Bastilla or Morrigan for pity's sake...

The easiest way to win an argument is to pretend you are stupid and argue stupidly.

BW are giving us advertising jargon and are hiding behind it.

As in this: are reduction in features or ability to customise a character is not a "development" or "evolution". They are telling us that a lack of sunlight is "evolved rain" and we are scratching our head saying "no, it is an absence of rain".

They are selling a less as a more and using very childish advertising tactics to do so.

I know they want a simplified system. No item descriptions means no writing tasks... by the end of Witch Hunt, entire item sets were simply written as in-jokes or references to television shows. It broke immersion and showed they were frankly bored and jaded with the whole fantasy franchise idea.

This is a new way, I just wish they were honest enough to say truthfully the direction they were going in, because I think alot of people see it.

And we are sick of advertising jargon...

I've been saying this for awhile-

I feel this is where the "you can't define what an RPG is" meme came from...

as well as where the "RPG = story" came from.

This is such a prevalent tactic, not just here and not just for game companies.  Confuse language, reframe what words could mean, attack those who try to correct the purposeful chaos, rinse and repeat.

I'm not saying BioWare is scheming to confuse people.

But I am agree with the idea that marketing both wants to call their game an RPG, trying to tap the RPG market, while simultaneously claiming that you cannot describe what is an RPG and therefore don't try to say their game ISN'T an RPG.

So much of the changes from DA:O to DA2 were billed as "advancements" or "evolutions" when they were quite often devolutions or, at best, side-steps.  Almost nothing was new, even new for BioWare, but instead going back to older things or simpler things.

---

That people like the changes bothers me not at all.  What bothers me is when people buy the lines about how it's "evolution" ...
or that it's impossible to define "RPG", for that matter.
Not trying to pass MY definition as THE definition - just saying that to claim that you CANNOT have a universal definition is only true insomuch as people keep vehemently claiming such.

[Willybot]

If you feel your characters have to wear 'iconic' outfits to be memorable, then perhaps the problem doesn't lie in their clothing.

[Il Divo]

Willybot wrote...

If you feel your characters have to wear 'iconic' outfits to be memorable, then perhaps the problem doesn't lie in their clothing.

Why? Iconic worked for Morrigan just fine. And the Jade Empire cast. Amongst others.

[MerinTB]

Willybot wrote...
If you feel your characters have to wear 'iconic' outfits to be memorable, then perhaps the problem doesn't lie in their clothing.

It's either that, or you are low-balling what you guess your audience's ability to remember different characters is.

It's like the majority of cartoons and how you see the same characters always wearing the same outfits - the assumption being children won't be able to remember who's who without clear color-coded help.

I like to refer to this as "stupid-friendly" when it comes to computer peripherals - we went from having multiple different connectors and slots on cases and mboards, because different connectors were needed to handle data/power differently, to making certain kinds of connectors for certain kinds of devices (PS/2 for keyboards and mice, for example, or AGP for video cards), to color-coding the parts of the board and the connectors when even icons and instruction manuals weren't simple enough...
to where we are now, pretty much all connectors being USB ones so no one has to worry about it.  Leads to some inefficiancies with power and data flow, but hey, have to make sure people aren't confused when the 2 inch connector won't fit into the 1 inch slot.

[willholt]

Results so far, after 795 votes:

Strongly Positive ... 27%(212 votes)

Positive ... 18%(147 votes)

Neutral ... 7%(57 votes)

Negative ... 10%(77 votes)

Strongly Negative ... 38%(302 votes)


45% positive , 48% Negative, & 7% neutral

The other poll, the voiced/non-voiced PC one is at 51%/49% ... after 1000 votes.

WOW!!... talk about a split fanbase!

[esper]

willholt wrote...

Results so far, after 795 votes:

Strongly Positive ... 27%(212 votes)

Positive ... 18%(147 votes)

Neutral ... 7%(57 votes)

Negative ... 10%(77 votes)

Strongly Negative ... 38%(302 votes)


45% positive , 48% Negative, & 7% neutral

The other poll, the voiced/non-voiced PC one is at 51%/49% ... after 1000 votes.

WOW!!... talk about a split fanbase!

Haven't you discovered that yet by looking at any poll which is serious and concerns da:o vs. da2 gameplay...
No matter what bioware will satisfy everyone and as it seems now they will dissatisy half of their fan base Good luck Bioware.
I actually enjoyed da2 so I have high hopes for you in the future... But you need luck.

[kingjezza]

I think this poll clearly shows that the majority of people are against Mike Laidlaw's ideas for party customisation.

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference, strongly negative could be on 90% and they would still ignore it.

[esper]

@Kingjezza if it is 45/48 it is split. Not everyone votes and not everyone even comes to the forum thus you have to count in a viable margin of the unknown. If it was 60-40 we could begin to talk and if it was 70-30 you might be on to someting, but as it is now. No bioware has a split fanbase.

[FieryDove]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In DA2, I'm stuck with the same Fenris every time.  He never changes.  So he's boring.

I think many people set themselves up for disappointment listening to other *fans* about companions changing looks over a period of 10 years. The developers stated several times it was the exception not the rule.

I really think these threads are moot. The developers will do what they want and what they *can*. I have a sinking feeling DA3 is much like DA2 in terms of resources being limited from all that has been said so far.

We shall see.


Edit: I don't vote in most polls.

Modifié par FieryDove, 11 septembre 2011 - 08:52 .

[John Epler]

Any sort of poll like this, while useful to a degree, shouldn't be looked at as 'See, BioWare, exactly X% of your fans like the idea and Y% dislike it.' Certainly, there's some of that to a degree - a percentage of the people who voted 'no' are completely opposed to the idea, while a percentage of the people who voted 'yes' are completely for the idea. Yet that doesn't really tell the whole story.

For example, someone in the 'no' category might believe that there are aspects of the idea that, if implemented properly, would be an acceptable compromise. Yet they may believe that the way the idea will be implemented in actuality will not be acceptable. To put it simply, they may feel (for any number of reasons) that what we are putting forward looks okay, but what they're actually going to get is the 'worst case' version of it. IE, instead of a selection of companion appearances + statistical customization as a result of the armour being selected, they feel that they'll get exactly the same number of appearances that they had in DA2, with the statistical part added on as a way to 'throw them a bone', as it were.

Conversely, people in the 'yes' category may be looking at the idea in the most positive light possible, and while they may not agree with it in the 'worst case' scenario, they believe that we're going to implement it in a way that belongs more to the 'best case' scenario, whatever they feel that is. So it's hard to look at the numbers and state 'yes, this many people like/dislike the idea'. A lot of the community reaction is going to be based on -how- we implement the idea, as with anything else. And that's something you don't get from simply reading the numbers, but rather the posts being made in support of and against the proposed system.

Which is part of why I'm not an enormous fan of polls, honestly - they're useful if you want to say 'look, X number of people hate it/love it', but beyond that the usefulness breaks down a bit. It's not a good way to inform decision-making, as it's a rather simplified picture of how people are feeling. The feedback that accompanies those responses, now that's useful. Seeing why people feel the way they do helps us inform our decisions in a much more useful fashion, because it gives us something to work off of other than 'YOUR IDEA IS GOOD/BAD'.

[kingjezza]

esper wrote...

@Kingjezza if it is 45/48 it is split. Not everyone votes and not everyone even comes to the forum thus you have to count in a viable margin of the unknown. If it was 60-40 we could begin to talk and if it was 70-30 you might be on to someting, but as it is now. No bioware has a split fanbase.

Well you look at the figures that way, I look at them and see the vote for strongly negative by far the most voted for. Not everyone comes to this forum, you are correct, but considering this is Bioware's own forum and this forum has by far the most postive view of DA2 I've seen online I would take a vote like this coming down on the negative as a rather damning statement.

Being perfectly honest, even if it was 50/50, right down the middle, that's not a good sign, Bioware and the Dragon Age franchise can't afford to lose 50% of their fanbase because they are disenchanted with the way the series is going.

[Maria Caliban]

SphereofSilence wrote...

Am happy with the proposed changes by Mike Laidlaw. Looking forward to it

I don't know that the proposed changes are but I trust that Mike and BioWare will attempt to create a good system. The only BioWare game I've played with a bad inventory was ME 1, and that was as much the UI as the actual concept.

[Ianamus]

kingjezza wrote...

Well you look at the figures that way, I look at them and see the vote for strongly negative by far the most voted for. Not everyone comes to this forum, you are correct, but considering this is Bioware's own forum and this forum has by far the most postive view of DA2 I've seen online I would take a vote like this coming down on the negative as a rather damning statement.

Being perfectly honest, even if it was 50/50, right down the middle, that's not a good sign, Bioware and the Dragon Age franchise can't afford to lose 50% of their fanbase because they are disenchanted with the way the series is going.

This. Yes, it may only be a small lean, but there is a trend here. Compare to the main DA2 poll: http://social.biowar...65/polls/16602/ the truth is that in nearly every poll more people have voted in favour of Origins (or origins features) over Dragon Age 2. 

And that is on Bioware's official website- where opinion of the game should be at it's highest. 

People say "But a poll of 'x' people is not an accurate representation of everyone's opinion, but just look at the reviews. Dragon Age 2 was scored less than Origins by nearly every reviewer, even meteric, where Bioware employee's added '10' rated votes. 

Modifié par EJ107, 11 septembre 2011 - 09:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

FieryDove wrote...

I think many people set themselves up for disappointment listening to other *fans* about companions changing looks over a period of 10 years. The developers stated several times it was the exception not the rule.

Even if the companions changed their outfit across 10 years in DA2, they'd still make the same outfit changes every time through the game.

I 'm much more likely to replay a game if I get to try things differently on those replays.  I'd like to see Fenris in one outfit in one playthrough, and then a different outfit in a subsequent playthrough.

[GodWood]

willholt wrote...
Results so far, after 795 votes:

Strongly Positive ... 27%(212 votes)

Positive ... 18%(147 votes)

Neutral ... 7%(57 votes)

Negative ... 10%(77 votes)

Strongly Negative ... 38%(302 votes)


45% positive , 48% Negative, & 7% neutral

The other poll, the voiced/non-voiced PC one is at 51%/49% ... after 1000 votes.

WOW!!... talk about a split fanbase!

In other related polls...

DA2, yay or nay?

Yay! 46% (746)
Nay! 52% (844)

DA:O VS DA2

I prefer DA:O 65% (890)
I prefer DA2 13% (173)
I like both games equally 21% (292)
I dislike both games 1% (8)

[Zanallen]

GodWood wrote...

In other related polls...

DA2, yay or nay?

Yay! 46% (746)
Nay! 52% (844)

DA:O VS DA2

I prefer DA:O 65% (890)
I prefer DA2 13% (173)
I like both games equally 21% (292)
I dislike both games 1% (8)

So the fan base is pretty much split. Thanks for telling us things we already know.

[GodWood]

Zanallen wrote...
So the fan base is pretty much split. Thanks for telling us things we already know.

65 to 13 is not a split fanbase.

But hey, I don't recall ever claiming that these were completely contradictory results to what we already know.
I am simply showing the results of related polls.

[Zanallen]

GodWood wrote...

65 to 13 is not a split fanbase.

But hey, I don't recall ever claiming that these were completely contradictory results to what we already know.
I am simply showing the results of related polls.

Please don't cut out the percentage that liked both game equally. And you have to factor in the fact that DA2 suffers from poor implementation due to it being rushed. A well made DA2 may have had better results. But really, these polls are stupid. The people on the forums are not even a tenth of the fanbase and not even all of those participate in the polls. All we really know if that Bioware is pretty much damned if they do and damned if they don't. All they can do is make the game they want to make and do it as well as they can. If half the fanbase doesn't want to buy the game, oh well. Nothing Bioware can do about it.

Modifié par Zanallen, 12 septembre 2011 - 08:09 .

[freyafolk]

I think we can conclude from what Bioware are saying there is going to be no return to DA:O style armour so it's really a matter of whether this is an improvement of DA2 and, if so, how could it best be realised.

Personally, it doesn't bother me if all armour isn't interchangeable between characters. After all, if they have different body shapes then it simply wouldn't be practical. In the same vein I support a variety of body shapes and think that should be extended to non-companion npcs too. I do think the ability and freedom to customise the appearance and stats of your companions is important, however. It shows progress, enables greater specialisation and a general sense of playing a role. So yes Bioware, as you are set on going this way I would ask that the range of armours is not token (ie more than half a dozen choices) and is statistically relevant and different.

Likewise, something which I've not seen mentioned is the practicality of armour available. I'm in favour of an iconic look but for me that doesn't equal running into battle in a t-shirt, which is immersion breaking. Unlike some, I have no problem with Isabela's outfit in general but I can understand the feeling that it's a bit silly in a pitched battle. My solution would be to make a division between 'combat' and 'casual' clothing. Imagine how pleased many RPG fans would be to have outfits that could influence non-combat solutions (e.g. charm/blag your way through rather than fight the guards). I am aware this is more work for programmers but the precedent has been set with Hawke's home robe and the difficulty would be more than offset by the reward.