791 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Here's the thing about that for me -

it's not a paraphrase, it's an intent.  I get to choose an intent with no illusion of choosing the wording.

I think the wording is much more important than the intent.  I could choose the same wording for any number of different reasons, but my intent is guaranteed to be more complex than anything they could encapsulate with an icon.

Moreover, my intent doesn't have an effect in the world around me.  My words and actions do, so I should be choosing those.

I'd RATHER have a list of actual responses.  Give me a choice, I pick a numbered lists.

If I have to have a wheel and won't be given exactly what the character will say, give me intent only.  I, personally, am rarely disappointed with intent.  I'm very often disappointed with paraphrase, it's too in-the-middle-but-satisfying-no-one for me.

If I'm limited to just intent or just a paraphrase, I'd rather never know what the full line is so as to avoid it contradicting my preferences.

If I could mute Hawke's voice and turn off the subtitles, I'd do it.  DA2 would be so much better for me if I could just be unaware of what Hawke's spoken lines are and how they're delivered.

[KnightofPhoenix]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
The difference is that KoP's example oversimplifies, while mine does not. In his, you still have to actually consider gathering up the enemies, take friendly fire into account, think about WHICH abilities to use, etc. Then there's also the elemental weaknesses and immunities to take into account, which, on Nightmare difficulty, will affect your choice of AoE attacks and such. This sort of higher-level tactical thinking does not exist in any difficulty level of TW2.

You still have to take into account enemies not flanking or surrounding you otherwise you will be dead in 3 shots. You have to consider that some enemies (especially with shield) would beat you if you do that, and two handed enemies would block (as would endregas and others), if not charge at you. If they have a mage, that tactic would not work or would be limited as they are pretty accurate. You have to take into account that some enemies explode on death.  Elemental weaknesses are present, via oils and traps. You have to take into account whether you are fighting a monster or human. Geralt's susceptibility to poison, incineration...etc should also be taken into account. Attacking from the side or back deals more damage. Space and positioning also matter a lot....etc etc. 

So no, don't pretend that you are not oversimplifying.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 septembre 2011 - 11:15 .

[billy the squid]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

I don't always have the inclination to skip back several pages to find the entire quote.

Then you'll often be talking about the wrong topic when interjecting. Not saying you aren't allowed to do that, but it's like when people are talking about what flavor of ice cream they like and you only hear the 'flavor' bit, hop in and say "I like orange juice". You might like orange juice, but it won't exactly be relevant to the conversation at hand.

Edit:
And as KoP stated DA2 could be summed up in exactly the same way as you did with TW2, which is why I prefer not to oversimplify and compare 2 divergent combat mechanic designs.

The difference is that KoP's example oversimplifies, while mine does not. In his, you still have to actually consider gathering up the enemies, take friendly fire into account, think about WHICH abilities to use, etc. Then there's also the elemental weaknesses and immunities to take into account, which, on Nightmare difficulty, will affect your choice of AoE attacks and such. This sort of higher-level tactical thinking does not exist in any difficulty level of TW2.

In mine, they are literally button presses in an algorithm that can be used to win 99% of the fights in the game. The only fight that I can think of where this algorithm does NOT result in victory is against the armored ghost boss in Act 2, where you need to vary it to HEAVY attack, roll away, shield, repeat, because Geralt doesn't have the time to swing twice before he hits Geralt.

Have you played TW2 on insane? It is not a flippant question, but you found no use for any other skill, potion, oil etc whatsoever? Nor, did you encounter the immunities and resistances to abilities, attacks and items?

Whilst in Da2 elemental weakness, immunities and friendly fire seem to be more an issue due to the vastly over inflated HP to artificially create difficulty. Whilst the excessive speed of combat and parchuting enemies makes friendly fire a pain, because the encounter design allows enemies to pop in from random directions, not because its tactical.

Modifié par billy the squid, 08 septembre 2011 - 11:16 .

[ipgd]

My main problem with DA2's tactics is mainly how this particular tactic basically applies to everything:



DA2's infrastructure is perfectly fine for tactical play, but the encounter design is rather uninspired. Legacy was a good step forward. They could get a lot more out of the system with more attention to staging fights.

[billy the squid]

@ ipgd

I agree, I prefer not to try and directly compare TW2 and DA2 and they have different focuses. DA2 irritated me in this respect, as you have pointed out, once one realises how the encounters work it gets boring, tactical play becomes irrelevant. Whilst I would encourage elemental immunities and resistances, I despise over inflated HP bars to push up difficulty.

At the basic level, immunities, armour rating, resistances even wading into combat with 10 enemies is okay, as it is part of the inherent game design, like DAO. I didn't expect DA2 to mirror TW2 in that respect where getting surrounded was a death scentence. But encounter design was poor and stretching out individual encounters with large HP boosts at higher difficulty is not the way to go.

Modifié par billy the squid, 08 septembre 2011 - 11:26 .

[hoorayforicecream]

billy the squid wrote...

Have you played TW2 on insane? It is not a flippant question, but you found no use for any other skill, potion, oil etc whatsoever? Nor, did you encounter the immunities and resistances to abilities, attacks and items?

I have. You hit twice, roll away in the direction there are the fewest dudes, then reapply shields. Repeat. Sometimes I'll roll more than once. Sometimes I'll walk a bit after rolling to swing, before rolling again. There are no enemies immune to 'sword', unless I'm somehow using the wrong sword on the enemy. There might be a few who take less damage on occasion, but you really don't get hit if you roll in the direction of the fewest dudes, and they all fall eventually.

[Sabariel]

So we've gone from "iconic is bad/good" to tactics? Intriguing...

[syllogi]

Sabariel wrote...

So we've gone from "iconic is bad/good" to tactics? Intriguing...

Honestly, I will totally admit I was wrong if an iconic appearance system in DA3 is well implemented for those who want even partial choice in their party's visual customization, but strategic gameplay is the hill I die upon.  If we're really being told not to expect it in Bioware RPGs anymore, I guess that's the tipping point for me.

[billy the squid]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Have you played TW2 on insane? It is not a flippant question, but you found no use for any other skill, potion, oil etc whatsoever? Nor, did you encounter the immunities and resistances to abilities, attacks and items?

I have. You hit twice, roll away in the direction there are the fewest dudes, then reapply shields. Repeat. Sometimes I'll roll more than once. Sometimes I'll walk a bit after rolling to swing, before rolling again. There are no enemies immune to 'sword', unless I'm somehow using the wrong sword on the enemy. There might be a few who take less damage on occasion, but you really don't get hit if you roll in the direction of the fewest dudes, and they all fall eventually.

Just as there is no immunity to standard physical attacks in DA2, certain creatures do have resistance in TW2 to certain oils, fire and other factors which KoP has already stated, which I won't repeat. Da2's combat becomes an issue due to the artificial inflation of every enemy's HP to a huge level and bad encounter design, not due to the resistance to certain elements. I belive TW2 lacks the huge HP boost, but makes it so damage inflicted on Geralt if far higer. Yet, the weakness of creatures and thinking behind attacking from a direction, using bombs, throwing knives attack etc remains..

Modifié par billy the squid, 08 septembre 2011 - 11:40 .

[Agamo45]

I might forgive it if the companion outfits changed between acts, but they remain the same for 10 years. It's sheer laziness.

[ipgd]

billy the squid wrote...

Da2's combat becomes an issue due to the artificial inflation of every enemy's HP to a huge level and bad encounter design, not due to the resistance to certain elements.

Enemy HP on Nightmare isn't really that high. The game assumes you are specced and geared optimally, though.

I'm not sure how else to implement a "are you good at math" check without increasing the math-based components of enemies' offenses and defenses (and you really do need them, since many of the people who want to play on Nightmare are the kind of people who are going to be trying their damnest to outmath everything but still want to be challenged even on the min/max level). DA2 certainly needed more plain old skill checks than it had, but if you know how to build your character correctly, Nightmare isn't bad in the artificial difficulty area (except for the Arishok, **** the Arishok).

[billy the squid]

ipgd wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Da2's combat becomes an issue due to the artificial inflation of every enemy's HP to a huge level and bad encounter design, not due to the resistance to certain elements.

Enemy HP on Nightmare isn't really that high. The game assumes you are specced and geared optimally, though.

I'm not sure how else to implement a "are you good at math" check without increasing the math-based components of enemies' offenses and defenses (and you really do need them, since many of the people who want to play on Nightmare are the kind of people who are going to be trying their damnest to outmath everything but still want to be challenged even on the min/max level). DA2 certainly needed more plain old skill checks than it had, but if you know how to build your character correctly, Nightmare isn't bad in the artificial difficulty area (except for the Arishok, **** the Arishok).

Its not the difficulty that is a problem, I just found it rather boring after completing the game on hard, which I found tedious. I found the game to be similar in execution on nightmare, with the battles lasting slightly longer. I saw very little point in continuing another run through on nightmare, it just did not appeal to me.

Edit:
I don't know whether, such a "math check" system would be implemented in Da3, current design approach seems to suggest make things less intimidating by making it easier to pick up and play, rather than explain or modify systems to illustrate how the it works. For instance, I didn't particularly like the way in which the attribute system was simplified, so warriors etc. would rarely have to place points outside of their key attributes and skills like coercion were removed, in DAO somehting like this actually encouraged me to place points in cunning.

But, I am unsure how they would reconcile such the systems.

Modifié par billy the squid, 09 septembre 2011 - 12:12 .

[Tommy6860]

Stanley Woo wrote...


We are willing to lose some (meaning,  alot of) fans if they feel we no longer provide the kind of game they are looking for. Some (meaning, a lot of) people are not willing to accept us making games they don't like.

fixed

Well, congrats, Bioware already achieved that with DA2 and the numbers glaringly reflected that, as shown from how many of DA2 sales came on pre-orders based on those who experienced Origins. If you're willing to keep sales low, then so be it. The only way to draw a substantial profit going this route, is by a quick turnover of the sequel releases, and we know what that will entail. You'd be best to sticking to being the harsh draconian moderator here, than attempting PR as an actual rep for Bioware.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 09 septembre 2011 - 12:05 .

[Mr.House]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...


We are willing to lose some (meaning,  alot of) fans if they feel we no longer provide the kind of game they are looking for. Some (meaning, a lot of) people are not willing to accept us making games they don't like.

fixed

Well, congrats, Bioware already achieved that with DA2 and the numbers glaringly reflected that, as shown from how many of DA2 sales came on pre-orders based on those who experienced Origins. If you're willing to keep sales low, then so be it. The only way to draw a substantial profit going this route, is by a quick turnover of the sequel releases, and we know what that will entail. You'd be best to sticking to being the harsh draconian moderator here, than attempting PR as an actual rep for Bioware.

Not everyone that bought DAO liked it, thus no reason to buy DA2.

[Mr.House]

Agamo45 wrote...

I might forgive it if the companion outfits changed between acts, but they remain the same for 10 years. It's sheer laziness.

No they don't.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Here's the thing about that for me -

it's not a paraphrase, it's an intent.  I get to choose an intent with no illusion of choosing the wording.

I think the wording is much more important than the intent.  I could choose the same wording for any number of different reasons, but my intent is guaranteed to be more complex than anything they could encapsulate with an icon.

Moreover, my intent doesn't have an effect in the world around me.  My words and actions do, so I should be choosing those.

I'd RATHER have a list of actual responses.  Give me a choice, I pick a numbered lists.

If I have to have a wheel and won't be given exactly what the character will say, give me intent only.  I, personally, am rarely disappointed with intent.  I'm very often disappointed with paraphrase, it's too in-the-middle-but-satisfying-no-one for me.

If I'm limited to just intent or just a paraphrase, I'd rather never know what the full line is so as to avoid it contradicting my preferences.

If I could mute Hawke's voice and turn off the subtitles, I'd do it.  DA2 would be so much better for me if I could just be unaware of what Hawke's spoken lines are and how they're delivered.

I don't know how much of a difference this will make to you, but I'll try one last time.

I'm not a fan of the paraphrase.  At all.  AT ALL.  Nor the wheel.  Do I dislike the whole wheel phenomenon, going back to like NWN or so.

But I was talking about Alpha Protocol and not DA2.

Do I think the icons in DA2 help.  Eh, yeah, they help.  Don't make it good, but they help.

When I say "just give me intent", I mean like Westwood's Blade Runner.  Or Alpha Protocol.  You choose professionalism, complimentary or insulting, for example... instead of having to decipher a paraphrase.  Even with the icons for DA2, the paraphrase can still throw me.  But when I choose INTENT ONLY, as Alpha Protocol or Blade Runner gave, then I'm not preconceiving hardly at all what Thorton might say.

That's not what you want or are looking for, I understand that, but for me there's an important step in not lying to me, or even inadvertantly tricking me.  Don't give me two doors to open and they both lead to the same room.  Don't give me a paraphrase that I read as "jackass" but actually the game takes as "concillatory."

You don't even need the paraphrase for that - DA:O had one particular line of dialog, with Leliana, that closed off a whole part of the game if you didn't choose it.  And it was a line that, aiming for that part of the game, I would NEVER have chosen as it read, to me, as exactly the opposite of what it was taken to mean by the game.  That wasn't a paraphrase, but an actual full line as was "spoken" so... yeah.

I want the game mechanics to work for me, not against me.  Intent inidicators (and intent indicators only, no paraphrase) prevent me from being confused.

Again, that's not what you are looking for... but I hope I made my distinction clear.

....

and what this has to do with iconic looks, I know not.

Other than voiced protagonists... but that's a whole other kettle of rotted fish.

[Tommy6860]

Mr.House wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
No, it breaks immersion when the enemies are in battle gears (you know, armors and the like), while they can take hits, Isa does the same thing, but almost in her skivvies. See what I mean?

Everything about RPG combat is immersion-breaking. There's nothing realistic about being captured in a dragon's maw, shaken, tossed back to the ground, and then being able to get back up and fight again. (And that was an example from Origins.) Isabela's ability to fight in her pirate gear is the really the least of any issues I have with combat.

Not to mention that Isabela is a grown up with her own housing arrangements and can dress herself. I don't think she'd take too kindly to me dictating what she wears.

But since it is me playing the game and I choose my companions and their abilties as they level up, why shouldn't I be able to add other gear for them to wear. Your example could applied to any game of lore, but we use suspension of disbelief to play through it. Not having armor on while getting chewed up by a dragon, makes that effort of SoD jarring.

But anyway, I never heard Isa tell me not to apply that increase to one of her abilities, when she wanted another as well.

Yet you can suspend your imersion in DAO when werewolfs pounce on you and rip you to shreads, the example Monica gived, a orge grabing you and punching you like five times, a spider trying to eat you ect?

Exactly, but that wasn't the point she was covering regarding any
creature(s) chewing up someone. It was the lack of armor in appearances
that makes this more jarring, that is my point, though Monica didn't
imply that it mattered to her, it does to me.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 09 septembre 2011 - 12:22 .

[Tommy6860]

Mr.House wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...


We are willing to lose some (meaning,  alot of) fans if they feel we no longer provide the kind of game they are looking for. Some (meaning, a lot of) people are not willing to accept us making games they don't like.

fixed

Well, congrats, Bioware already achieved that with DA2 and the numbers glaringly reflected that, as shown from how many of DA2 sales came on pre-orders based on those who experienced Origins. If you're willing to keep sales low, then so be it. The only way to draw a substantial profit going this route, is by a quick turnover of the sequel releases, and we know what that will entail. You'd be best to sticking to being the harsh draconian moderator here, than attempting PR as an actual rep for Bioware.

Not everyone that bought DAO liked it, thus no reason to buy DA2.

That's besides the point. Many people who never played DA:O, and bought DA2, didn't like DA2 as well (see, I can do this as well). But none of this correlates to the sales between the two, does it? Stanley would have done better not making that comment, because when a company wants to include their ioverall sales to be for the overall crowd, dismissing a certain portion of it won't help matters there.

[Mr.House]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...


We are willing to lose some (meaning,  alot of) fans if they feel we no longer provide the kind of game they are looking for. Some (meaning, a lot of) people are not willing to accept us making games they don't like.

fixed

Well, congrats, Bioware already achieved that with DA2 and the numbers glaringly reflected that, as shown from how many of DA2 sales came on pre-orders based on those who experienced Origins. If you're willing to keep sales low, then so be it. The only way to draw a substantial profit going this route, is by a quick turnover of the sequel releases, and we know what that will entail. You'd be best to sticking to being the harsh draconian moderator here, than attempting PR as an actual rep for Bioware.

Not everyone that bought DAO liked it, thus no reason to buy DA2.

That's besides the point. Many people who never played DA:O, and bought DA2, didn't like DA2 as well (see, I can do this as well). But none of this correlates to the sales between the two, does it? Stanley would have done better not making that comment, because when a company wants to include their ioverall sales to be for the overall crowd, dismissing a certain portion of it won't help matters there.

DAO solder over 4 mil, but also took over three years to make.

DA2 sold 2 mil and had less then two years of dev.

DA2 made more profit for EA, like it or not.Bioware is owned by EA, if EA wants Bioware to rush to make a quick buck then Bioware has to do that.

[Morroian]

TeenZombie wrote...

Honestly, I will totally admit I was wrong if an iconic appearance system in DA3 is well implemented for those who want even partial choice in their party's visual customization, but strategic gameplay is the hill I die upon.  If we're really being told not to expect it in Bioware RPGs anymore, I guess that's the tipping point for me.

Where are we being told that by Bioware? If anything its the opposite everything they've said about Legacy and going forward is that there is going to be a bigger focus on encounter design and tactics.

[Morroian]

Mr.House wrote...

DAO solder over 4 mil, but also took over three years to make.

5 years wasn't it?

[billy the squid]

Mr.House wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...


We are willing to lose some (meaning,  alot of) fans if they feel we no longer provide the kind of game they are looking for. Some (meaning, a lot of) people are not willing to accept us making games they don't like.

fixed

Well, congrats, Bioware already achieved that with DA2 and the numbers glaringly reflected that, as shown from how many of DA2 sales came on pre-orders based on those who experienced Origins. If you're willing to keep sales low, then so be it. The only way to draw a substantial profit going this route, is by a quick turnover of the sequel releases, and we know what that will entail. You'd be best to sticking to being the harsh draconian moderator here, than attempting PR as an actual rep for Bioware.

Not everyone that bought DAO liked it, thus no reason to buy DA2.

That's besides the point. Many people who never played DA:O, and bought DA2, didn't like DA2 as well (see, I can do this as well). But none of this correlates to the sales between the two, does it? Stanley would have done better not making that comment, because when a company wants to include their ioverall sales to be for the overall crowd, dismissing a certain portion of it won't help matters there.

DAO solder over 4 mil, but also took over three years to make.

DA2 sold 2 mil and had less then two years of dev.

DA2 made more profit for EA, like it or not.Bioware is owned by EA, if EA wants Bioware to rush to make a quick buck then Bioware has to do that.

Opportunity cost, IP equity, market penetration, future IP profitability potential are factors involved in EA's thinking when financing such a product, so why such a tight time frmae was given I'm unsure, things are not restricted to short term profit margins. DA2 seems to be a move to fill a window in EA's fiscal year in their report to shareholders rather than giving the product adequate time. How much this and the shift in current design direction has damaged the IP and its ability to garner a larger segement in the new market, where DA2 doesn't seem to have had much impact, is currently unknown.

[MerinTB]

Mr.House wrote...
DAO solder over 4 mil, but also took over three years to make.

DA2 sold 2 mil and had less then two years of dev.

DA2 made more profit for EA, like it or not.Bioware is owned by EA, if EA wants Bioware to rush to make a quick buck then Bioware has to do that.

DA2 built on DA:O, so DA2 "technically" took two years + DA:O development time.

Lore, game engine, marketing, etc.... DA2 would have taken more than two years without all the work that DA:O had done first.

Uncritical comparison is uncritical.

Modifié par MerinTB, 09 septembre 2011 - 12:39 .

[billy the squid]

Morroian wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

DAO solder over 4 mil, but also took over three years to make.

5 years wasn't it?

EA took over in 2007, DAO was in development in 2004, i think. The inital costs were borne by Bioware not EA, whether those costs were financed by leverage I don't know. Not without looking at balance sheets and cashflows, only then would the cost of the debt be an issue for EA as Bioware is a division of EA , I believe, usually because divisions are financed by the parent company.