276 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

Adakutay wrote...

How could a character be simplified into suave, rude and sarcastic? I could be evil yet suave; or lawful yet sarcastic. There were some lines without this: "kind, funy and maniac" cliché and they were the best. Like the moment Arishok asks your view about Kirkwall and such.

Well going by the writers intention based on responses, the warden's responses didn't really go beyond this either.

simfamSP wrote...

Good post, yet I tend to disagree. Hawke becomes a different person when you force these expressions. He becomes more agressive, more comical, more neutral in his own way.

In a way you are developing him. And that should be enough. Though I still stick to the fact that he is much less versatile than the Warden in terms of Roleplaying.

The tones may be somewhat limited, although it should be noted that the tones do go beyond just the 3 default tones, but I really just use them as a starting point to build the character of Hawke in my head. I don't see how this is any different from imagining tones on a silent protagonist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

I see what you mean now. And yes you are correct. Though it's a problem that seems to vary between people. I don't see the point of paraphrase at all tbh, thought you have to admit, the tone icons 'do help' in a way. They atleast give you an indication of what Hawke's intention is behind that paraphrase.

They would help better if they were better defined.  Aggressive isn't a useful label if I don't know at whom that aggression will be directed, for example.

Though in Origins, imagination does allow you to create a tone because of the lack of voice, doesn't the response from the NPC break that immersion to you? Or am I getting you wrong somewhere Sylvius? The text infront of you says 'yes' for example. And you imagine your warden saying it with an infinte amount of intentions, expressions, and emotions behind it. Since he is not voiced that is clearly possible. But the NPC's reaction must have broken immersion for you once or twice no?

I don't see how the NPC's reaction can matter.  Forf that to "break immersion" I would need to be confident that I knew what that reaction meant, and under what circumstances it would occur, and further I would need to be confident that the tone I imagined fell outside that range.

How could anyone ever know that?  If an NPC reacts in a way my PC doesn't expect, that tells my PC that he doesn't know that NPC as well as he thought he did.

[Jonathan Seagull]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They would help better if they were better defined.  Aggressive isn't a useful label if I don't know at whom that aggression will be directed, for example.

That was one problem that I definitely had sometimes -- sometimes it was clear, other times not so much.  "Wait, am I being aggressive towards Fenris, or aggressively agreeing with him?"  There was at least once where there was an aggressive option, and I honestly had no idea whether it was in support of mages or in opposition to them.

But that's a problem with the paraphrasing, which I do hope they improve.  As for the tones themselves, I like them quite a lot, although they could also use a little smoothing out.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 20 septembre 2011 - 06:46 .

[Bhaal]

Morroian wrote...

Well going by the writers intention based on responses, the warden's responses didn't really go beyond this either.

You're simply evasive. Warden's responses aren't the same things with different expressions; they were insights which vary  according to the current dialog. So you were able to be versatile with your rp.

[NedPepper]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

Yellow Words wrote...
I'll try and explain without using spoilers and still make it understandable.

That seems like, uh, dietary approach on roleplaying. It's not hard to write three diffirent responses for each situation, if consequences of choosing them would stay somewhere behind the overall plot. And it's not like DA:O lacked the option to be gentle, snarky or mean. You just like the sound of Hawke's voice, maybe?

And you are an ****.  People can disagree without your dismissive,
insulting non-arguments.  If anyone is delusional, it's a guy who is
posting the same cynical crap on a message board for a game he doesn't
like six months after its release.

You mad, bro?

No, I've just reached my limit with dealing with douchebags on this board.

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

So even if you say something and you want your Warden to say it in a specific manner, but the NPC reacts to that sentence as if it was something completley opposite, wouldn't that break your roleplaying immersion?

"Yes" - You say this with a hint of annoyance as you roll your eyes in desperation.
"Oh don't get to excited!" - You are puzzled by this response. There is no sarcasm in her tone whats so ever. Is she not getting the point?

You know what I mean now?

I know what you mean.   I did before.  I don't see how it's a problem.  And I don't see why I, the player, would be puzzled by the response.  The response simply is.  How is that puzzling?

In this example, different characters would take it differently.  Some characters who think she was being sarcastic (sarcasm doesn't always have an obvious tone - sometimes sarcasm is dry).  Some characters would think she wasn't paying attention.  Some characters would dismiss her as stupid.  My typical first character in any game (a character that wasn't permitted by DA2) would draw no conclusions and file that response away as a data point for later analysis.

[The_11thDoctor]

No controller/ joypad support
glitches
recycled maps
bad story
choices not mattering like in DA2
pop in enemies

Fix those and you'll get me on PC. Only reason I dont play my PC copies. No controller support in 2005+ anything is lamesause.

[Marionetten]

I think the game needs to be less keen on making assumptions. When I played the game I played it as a blood mage who sought the wholesale destruction of the chantry. I lost a lot of influence with Anders due to peddling with demons which made sense as he doesn't approve of that. The problem was that Anders started getting mad at me specifically for supporting the chantry when my character never actually did it. I had effectively broken the game as Anders had no rival path for a demon loving Hawke despite having the points for it.

Less stuff like that, please. I appreciate what BioWare tried to do with rivalry and friendship but this completely destroyed the entire experience for me as I felt as if my character wasn't properly acknowledged. If you're going to include the ability to be a blood mage you need to properly support it. Just look at how VtM: Bloodlines handled Malkavians and take inspiration from that.

Expanding on this argument I feel as if BioWare has divorced gameplay from the rest of the formula far too much. Just look at how you acquire some of the very best weapons in Dragon Age II. From your credit card instead of your dungeon crawling. This development just doesn't sit well with me and I'd prefer to see DLC limited to story bits with story related weaponry. More Carsomyr and less singleplayer pay to win nonsense. If you have to make an item DLC then make it a treasure hunt in which the player character goes to find a legendary cache of weapons in a dark and foreboding cave system filled with dangerous beasts. Just try to marry gameplay and plot a bit more, okay?

Modifié par Marionetten, 26 septembre 2011 - 12:51 .

[KilrB]

What will kill Dragon Age 3 for PC gamers.

Oooh ,,, that's me!

1. Plays like a poorly ported console fighter, like DA2.

2. "Style" over substance art with butt-ugly elves, like DA2.

3. Almost no non-combat resolution, nearly all choices result in "kill everybody" ,,, like DA2.

4. No toolset ... like DA2.

5. I decide to play as a blood-mage and commit mass-murder in the Chantry courtyard, and NO ONE NOTICES ... like DA2.

6. If Laidlaw, Gaider, Muzyka, & Zeschuk don't knock it off with the ass-covering corporate double-speak ... the more they talk, the less I believe them.

Hmmm ... odds of me buying DA3 just went way, WAY, down.

[The_11thDoctor]

No controller support. That's about it for me. Rest is the same ol complaints and they know what they did wrong by now.

[Pygmali0n]

KilrB wrote...

What will kill Dragon Age 3 for PC gamers.

Oooh ,,, that's me!

1. Plays like a poorly ported console fighter, like DA2.

2. "Style" over substance art with butt-ugly elves, like DA2.

3. Almost no non-combat resolution, nearly all choices result in "kill everybody" ,,, like DA2.

4. No toolset ... like DA2.

5. I decide to play as a blood-mage and commit mass-murder in the Chantry courtyard, and NO ONE NOTICES ... like DA2.

6. If Laidlaw, Gaider, Muzyka, & Zeschuk don't knock it off with the ass-covering corporate double-speak ... the more they talk, the less I believe them.

Hmmm ... odds of me buying DA3 just went way, WAY, down.

Yep, great list, including number 6. If they're going to bring out another DA2 then they need to just open up and admit that they want 8-15 year old gamers, stop trying to live a lie and deceive the grown-ups, reduce the rating and go all-out for that market.

aang001 wrote...

No controller support. That's about it for me. Rest is the same ol complaints and they know what they did wrong by now.

Not sure that they do aang, best to keep hammering the message in until it sticks.

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 07 octobre 2011 - 02:40 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Right now, DAII has severely reduced the chances of me buying DA3 (and put a bit of a hit on buying ME3...)


(Not sure what the big deal is about controller support on a PC RPG...)

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 07 octobre 2011 - 04:41 .

[alex90c]

KilrB wrote...

What will kill Dragon Age 3 for PC gamers.

Oooh ,,, that's me!

1. Plays like a poorly ported console fighter, like DA2.

2. "Style" over substance art with butt-ugly elves, like DA2.

3. Almost no non-combat resolution, nearly all choices result in "kill everybody" ,,, like DA2.

4. No toolset ... like DA2.

5. I decide to play as a blood-mage and commit mass-murder in the Chantry courtyard, and NO ONE NOTICES ... like DA2.

6. If Laidlaw, Gaider, Muzyka, & Zeschuk don't knock it off with the ass-covering corporate double-speak ... the more they talk, the less I believe them.

Hmmm ... odds of me buying DA3 just went way, WAY, down.

Muzyka and Zeschuk yes, I agree the stuff they say has practically zero substance, but Gaider and Laidlaw? Nah. Gaider is the kind of guy who logs in to BSN and will be happy to debate certain issues with people without going all corporate on everyone, and with Laidlaw ... well, all I've seen so far is pretty much "you're right, DA2 had problems with it, and we're trying to fix it", so I have no idea where you're getting the idea that they're coming out with "ass-covering corporate double-speak" considering everything they've said is to do with how they acknowledge the issues with DA2 and want to improve on them for future installments.

[Pygmali0n]

Dunno, alex, I lost a bit of faith in David Gaider during the furore over Witch Hunt. I also remember him hyping DA2 like crazy. I could be wrong, but other than threads of praise or question, I've only seen him pick easy arguments, and I wouldn't really blame him, if it wasn't for the fact that he started getting involved in the murky world of marketing DA2.

Can't you remember the early Laidlaw interviews which blamed the fans?

[alex90c]

Pygmali0n wrote...

Dunno, alex, I lost a bit of faith in David Gaider during the furore over Witch Hunt. I also remember him hyping DA2 like crazy. I could be wrong, but other than threads of praise or question, I've only seen him pick easy arguments, and I wouldn't really blame him, if it wasn't for the fact that he started getting involved in the murky world of marketing DA2.

Can't you remember the early Laidlaw interviews which blamed the fans?

There you go.

Bioware have gone from damage control to admitting that their game had quite a few big errors (in fact I think somewhere on this forum John Epler joked about how people don't want enemies parachuting out of nowhere) and for a while they've admitted this and said they want to improve on it.

Now I mean, I'm definitely not a fan of DA2 at all, but even I can put aside my dislike of the game to see Bioware aren't just going "la la la" and ignoring the criticisms.

[KilrB]

alex90c wrote...

KilrB wrote...

What will kill Dragon Age 3 for PC gamers.

Oooh ,,, that's me!

1. Plays like a poorly ported console fighter, like DA2.

2. "Style" over substance art with butt-ugly elves, like DA2.

3. Almost no non-combat resolution, nearly all choices result in "kill everybody" ,,, like DA2.

4. No toolset ... like DA2.

5. I decide to play as a blood-mage and commit mass-murder in the Chantry courtyard, and NO ONE NOTICES ... like DA2.

6. If Laidlaw, Gaider, Muzyka, & Zeschuk don't knock it off with the ass-covering corporate double-speak ... the more they talk, the less I believe them.

Hmmm ... odds of me buying DA3 just went way, WAY, down.

Muzyka and Zeschuk yes, I agree the stuff they say has practically zero substance, but Gaider and Laidlaw? Nah. Gaider is the kind of guy who logs in to BSN and will be happy to debate certain issues with people without going all corporate on everyone, and with Laidlaw ... well, all I've seen so far is pretty much "you're right, DA2 had problems with it, and we're trying to fix it", so I have no idea where you're getting the idea that they're coming out with "ass-covering corporate double-speak" considering everything they've said is to do with how they acknowledge the issues with DA2 and want to improve on them for future installments.

Their "improvements" and "innovations" are what have brought us to this.

I have yet to see an unequivocal "your right" from any of them.

I don't expect to either.

The only "problems" they seem to see are the last vestiges of Origins and any meaningful role-playing they haven't managed to remove or make irrelevant.

They get one more chance to either fix it and come up with a winner, or continue with Laidlaw's "screw you Chuck, look what I did to your game" campaign.

What are the odds we'll ever see DA4?

Hell, right now I wouldn't put money on DA3 making it to store shelves.

Modifié par KilrB, 07 octobre 2011 - 08:00 .

[Heimdall]

KilrB wrote...

alex90c wrote...

KilrB wrote...

What will kill Dragon Age 3 for PC gamers.

Oooh ,,, that's me!

1. Plays like a poorly ported console fighter, like DA2.

2. "Style" over substance art with butt-ugly elves, like DA2.

3. Almost no non-combat resolution, nearly all choices result in "kill everybody" ,,, like DA2.

4. No toolset ... like DA2.

5. I decide to play as a blood-mage and commit mass-murder in the Chantry courtyard, and NO ONE NOTICES ... like DA2.

6. If Laidlaw, Gaider, Muzyka, & Zeschuk don't knock it off with the ass-covering corporate double-speak ... the more they talk, the less I believe them.

Hmmm ... odds of me buying DA3 just went way, WAY, down.

Muzyka and Zeschuk yes, I agree the stuff they say has practically zero substance, but Gaider and Laidlaw? Nah. Gaider is the kind of guy who logs in to BSN and will be happy to debate certain issues with people without going all corporate on everyone, and with Laidlaw ... well, all I've seen so far is pretty much "you're right, DA2 had problems with it, and we're trying to fix it", so I have no idea where you're getting the idea that they're coming out with "ass-covering corporate double-speak" considering everything they've said is to do with how they acknowledge the issues with DA2 and want to improve on them for future installments.

Their "improvements" and "innovations" are what have brought us to this.

I have yet to see an unequivocal "your right" from any of them.

I don't expect to either.

The only "problems" they seem to see are the last vestiges of Origins and any meaningful role-playing they haven't managed to remove or make irrelevant.

They get one more chance to either fix it and come up with a winner, or continue with Laidlaw's "screw you Chuck, look what I did to your game" campaign.

What are the odds we'll ever see DA4?

Hell, right now I wouldn't put money on DA3 making it to store shelves.

Keep in mind that there are a large number of people who like the features of DA2.  I even know some origins fans that preferred DA2 when they played it.  I like some of the things they did myself, and thought quite a few new ideas they had were good ones (Albeit, many with lackluster implementation).

For that matter, you'd be hard pressed to get a massive number of people to agree on what precisely constitutes 'roleplaying'.

[KilrB]

Lord Aesir wrote...

KilrB wrote...

alex90c wrote...

KilrB wrote...

What will kill Dragon Age 3 for PC gamers.

Oooh ,,, that's me!

1. Plays like a poorly ported console fighter, like DA2.

2. "Style" over substance art with butt-ugly elves, like DA2.

3. Almost no non-combat resolution, nearly all choices result in "kill everybody" ,,, like DA2.

4. No toolset ... like DA2.

5. I decide to play as a blood-mage and commit mass-murder in the Chantry courtyard, and NO ONE NOTICES ... like DA2.

6. If Laidlaw, Gaider, Muzyka, & Zeschuk don't knock it off with the ass-covering corporate double-speak ... the more they talk, the less I believe them.

Hmmm ... odds of me buying DA3 just went way, WAY, down.

Muzyka and Zeschuk yes, I agree the stuff they say has practically zero substance, but Gaider and Laidlaw? Nah. Gaider is the kind of guy who logs in to BSN and will be happy to debate certain issues with people without going all corporate on everyone, and with Laidlaw ... well, all I've seen so far is pretty much "you're right, DA2 had problems with it, and we're trying to fix it", so I have no idea where you're getting the idea that they're coming out with "ass-covering corporate double-speak" considering everything they've said is to do with how they acknowledge the issues with DA2 and want to improve on them for future installments.

Their "improvements" and "innovations" are what have brought us to this.

I have yet to see an unequivocal "your right" from any of them.

I don't expect to either.

The only "problems" they seem to see are the last vestiges of Origins and any meaningful role-playing they haven't managed to remove or make irrelevant.

They get one more chance to either fix it and come up with a winner, or continue with Laidlaw's "screw you Chuck, look what I did to your game" campaign.

What are the odds we'll ever see DA4?

Hell, right now I wouldn't put money on DA3 making it to store shelves.

Keep in mind that there are a large number of people who like the features of DA2.  I even know some origins fans that preferred DA2 when they played it.  I like some of the things they did myself, and thought quite a few new ideas they had were good ones (Albeit, many with lackluster implementation).

For that matter, you'd be hard pressed to get a massive number of people to agree on what precisely constitutes 'roleplaying'.

True, but if you look at the sales of DA2 it's quite apparent that a "massive number of people" decided against purchasing DA2, and many of us who did regret doing so.

Project those numbers through to DA3 if it is made in the same mold and tell me what becomes of the Dragon Age IP after that debacle ...

[Heimdall]

KilrB wrote...

True, but if you look at the sales of DA2 it's quite apparent that a "massive number of people" decided against purchasing DA2, and many of us who did regret doing so.

Project those numbers through to DA3 if it is made in the same mold and tell me what becomes of the Dragon Age IP after that debacle ...

DA2 sold quite well actually.  It's when the Origins comparisons start coming in that they become negatives.  That actually pretty much describes the game for a lot of people.  "Good game, but not as great as Origins"

DA2 has been described as a 180 from Origins, I forget who but it was someone important, and they intend to go into that middle ground between the two games.  Some who hated DA2 won't like this, some will see it hopefully, and others who liked DA2 and Origins will just hope they took our favorite parts from each game.

Either way, they are going closer to the Origins design rather than farther from (According to all we know now) so I don't foresee the same loss.

[KilrB]

Lord Aesir wrote...

KilrB wrote...

True, but if you look at the sales of DA2 it's quite apparent that a "massive number of people" decided against purchasing DA2, and many of us who did regret doing so.

Project those numbers through to DA3 if it is made in the same mold and tell me what becomes of the Dragon Age IP after that debacle ...

DA2 sold quite well actually.  It's when the Origins comparisons start coming in that they become negatives.  That actually pretty much describes the game for a lot of people.  "Good game, but not as great as Origins"

DA2 has been described as a 180 from Origins, I forget who but it was someone important, and they intend to go into that middle ground between the two games.  Some who hated DA2 won't like this, some will see it hopefully, and others who liked DA2 and Origins will just hope they took our favorite parts from each game.

Either way, they are going closer to the Origins design rather than farther from (According to all we know now) so I don't foresee the same loss.

That is what EA/BioWare have said ... We KNOW nothing of the sort.

Recall that they also told us how much they had "improved" and "innovated" DA2 ...

"Sold quite well actually ." !?!?

More than a few will disagree with you there, and I'm certainly one of them.

Riding the coat-tails of Origins should have seen DA2 sales at least equal those of it's predecessor, had it been as good ... and better them if it truly were "improved" and "innovated".

That is not the case, and never will be.

[Heimdall]

KilrB wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

KilrB wrote...

True, but if you look at the sales of DA2 it's quite apparent that a "massive number of people" decided against purchasing DA2, and many of us who did regret doing so.

Project those numbers through to DA3 if it is made in the same mold and tell me what becomes of the Dragon Age IP after that debacle ...

DA2 sold quite well actually.  It's when the Origins comparisons start coming in that they become negatives.  That actually pretty much describes the game for a lot of people.  "Good game, but not as great as Origins"

DA2 has been described as a 180 from Origins, I forget who but it was someone important, and they intend to go into that middle ground between the two games.  Some who hated DA2 won't like this, some will see it hopefully, and others who liked DA2 and Origins will just hope they took our favorite parts from each game.

Either way, they are going closer to the Origins design rather than farther from (According to all we know now) so I don't foresee the same loss.

That is what EA/BioWare have said ... We KNOW nothing of the sort.

Recall that they also told us how much they had "improved" and "innovated" DA2 ...

"Sold quite well actually ." !?!?

More than a few will disagree with you there, and I'm certainly one of them.

Riding the coat-tails of Origins should have seen DA2 sales at least equal those of it's predecessor, had it been as good ... and better them if it truly were "improved" and "innovated".

That is not the case, and never will be.

So says you.  Others might say that there will always be those afraid of innovation and change (Not serious, but there are quite a few people who enjoyed the changes, as many as rejected them).  I don't expect you to consider DA2 a good game.  Like many, it is too chained to your impressions of Origins to form opinions seperately.  As it's own game, it was good, as a sequel to Origins, it could have been much better, that's what I say.

They did not say "improved" or "innovated".  They said "Marrying both previous games."  Take that as you will, but you seem bent on pessemism.

[KilrB]

They DID say they had "improved" and "innovated" DA2.

"Marrying both previous games." is what they are supposedly doing for DA3.

... and as for my pessimism.

My new attitude toward BioWare is that they are only as good as their last game.

... and their last game sucked.

... big time.

Good thing I've got New Vegas and Origins to keep me occupied until Skyrim gets here.

[Heimdall]

KilrB wrote...

They DID say they had "improved" and "innovated" DA2.

"Marrying both previous games." is what they are supposedly doing for DA3.

... and as for my pessimism.

My new attitude toward BioWare is that they are only as good as their last game.

... and their last game sucked.

... big time.

Good thing I've got New Vegas and Origins to keep me occupied until Skyrim gets here.

Fair enough, I disagree, but fair enough.