216 réponses à ce sujet

[Sandbox47]

I suspected that it was something along these lines really. I don't know why EA would try to limit BioWare.

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Now you're just spouting marketing boilerplate at me.  DA2 featuers just as much shuffling as DAO does.  If you trigger a melee ability when your target isn't in range, the character will shuffle to get there just like in DAO.  There is literally no difference to the shuffling.

Difference is: the skills involve the movement too in DA2 (if it's a single target skill and not a ranged skill, the charachter will be teletransported to the target most of the times) and the effect happens at the beginning of the animation. It's not marketing: shuffling in to position was a "feature" of DA:O addressed by the contact system of DA2. That's why a lot of people were unhappy of "teleporting" rogues: combining the effect of the skill with the movement of the charachter is a clear action feature that want to adress the shuffling in to position "problem". While the fact that you have to be in the correct position to use a skill is a clear "semi turn based" and "chesslike" feature.

The difference is that abilities can be interrupted in DAO, and they cannot in DA2. 

Now that I think of it, that's not even true in some cases: for example I'm pretty sure that you can interrupt the long firestorm animation with another skill once the first meteor hits the first target (and the spell would run normally).  And most skill's animation are so short that it's not a great concern. Ironically, only autoattacks animation are very long and cannot be interrupted and creates some sort of queue. To say: there is no balance in action lenght if  basic attack sequences takes more time than an high tier skills. So, even if it sound like turn based system to you, it's only an aestetic thing related to arbitrary animation lenght that has nothing to do with the nature of the game.

DA2 makes you wait your turn to act, while DAO does not (nor did BG, for that matter, which is why I say that DA2 is the closest thing to turn-based combat BioWare has ever made - and I'm clearly right about that).

Yes, you are clearly right... in your dreams. You are basing your whole point on a detail of a single feature that does not defines gameplay in a significant way (animations cannot be interrupted and as I said that it's not allways true and it's not a great concern) and dismissing the list I posted before. It's not a single detail that decides if a game feels actiony or turn based to the player.

And I must repeat myself: without some sort of syncronization and balancing in action/animation lenght (the beloved D&D turn system that measured the lenght of each action in relative terms) no game will ever feel "semi turn based" even if superficially it could seem so. In that sense, DA:O and DA2 are both hybrid games but DA2 is the more action oriented of the two because of the possibility of twitch gameplay in real time, the absence of a hit/miss mechanics and the overall importance of damage (the only significant stat of the game).

Modifié par FedericoV, 14 octobre 2011 - 12:02 .

[AlexXIV]

Sandbox47 wrote...

I suspected that it was something along these lines really. I don't know why EA would try to limit BioWare.

I had to lie would I claim to know anything. But obviously Bioware was in a hurry to get DA2 to the shelves. So logic dictates they felt pressure to be quick. Whatever the reasons, be it EA or the market or what do I know, it resulted (imo) in slightly lower quality. Not saying it was a low quality product, just not what I am used from Bioware products. I used to buy anything Bioware made 'blindly' because this company is a guarantee for high quality games for many years. No matter what they did in the past, I liked it.

So what changed? For some people nothing, because they think DA2 is just as great or even greater than any other of their games. But for me and people like me, who obviously also frequent this forum, something changed. In some ways, not every way, DA2 feels cheap, rushed and more of an DA3 advertisement than an actually stand alone game to me. And that's just something I didn't expect.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 14 octobre 2011 - 09:36 .

[Sandbox47]

AlexXIV wrote...

Sandbox47 wrote...

I suspected that it was something along these lines really. I don't know why EA would try to limit BioWare.

I had to lie would I claim to know anything. But obviously Bioware was in a hurry to get DA2 to the shelves. So logic dictates they felt pressure to be quick. Whatever the reasons, be it EA or the market or what do I know, it resulted (imo) in slightly lower quality. Not saying it was a low quality product, just not what I am used from Bioware products. I used to buy anything Bioware made 'blindly' because this company is a guarantee for high quality games for many years. No matter what they did in the past, I liked it.

So what changed? For some people nothing, because they think DA2 is just as great or even greater than any other of their games. But for me and people like me, who obviously also frequent this forum, something changed. In some ways, not every way, DA2 feels cheap, rushed and more of an DA3 advertisement than an actually stand alone game to me. And that's just something I didn't expect.

So ... ... so ... you were caught of guard when you bought the game? That's an alarming lack of ... reason? I mean, what you are essentially saying is "They were great until I bought this and it wasn't as good for some reason." I don't know what that means... =/ Chill. What if their next game is so good that we go blind? Then you'll all regret saying that you didn't find the non-blinding DA2 as good.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Playest wrote...

Not true DA 2 features a different "dash animation" for each of the weapons types and ytou close groud much faster than in origins

That dash animation only applies to basic attacks.  And it often doesn't work in crowds.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

DA2 is the more action oriented of the two because of the possibility of twitch gameplay in real time, the absence of a hit/miss mechanics and the overall importance of damage (the only significant stat of the game).

Since I play on PC, DA2 has no possibility for twitch-based gameplay (which is fine by me - I abhor twitch-based gameplay), and DA2 does have hit-miss mechanics.  What do you think your Attack score measures?  The only difference is that misses in DA2 are glancing blows, which do reduced damage.

That's all a miss ever was in those earlier games - a reduction to your damage over time.  The same is true in DA2.  There's no material difference between the two systems.

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Since I play on PC, DA2 has no possibility for twitch-based gameplay, (which is fine by me - I abhor twitch-based gameplay)

Yep, I do agree: "click" based gameplay sucks big time. But the fact that the PC version of the game has not used it for techincal reasons connected to the keyboard/mouse setup (and not for design reason), does not change the truth: DA2 has been developed to be played that way on normal level of difficulty. On normal, the game was not meant to be played as a party based RPG to be won (remember Ladlaw's video about the rogue hack & slash?). Most players (a large part of the player base if the sales data are tue) have played it that way on consolles. C'mon, they added autoattack with a patch...

and DA2 does have hit-miss mechanics.  What do you think your Attack score measures?  The only difference is that misses in DA2 are glancing blows, which do reduced damage.

That's all a miss ever was in those earlier games - a reduction to your damage over time.  The same is true in DA2.  There's no material difference between the two systems.

It's not the same since (as you stated) you allways hit. That's a classical version of "the night in which all cows are black" kind of reasoning. Yes, the nature of combat RPG system are just about how you distribute damage over time. But the rules that regulate that distribution make all the difference in the world in terms of player experiences, gameplay system and charachter setup. And the absence of hit/miss mechanic is one of the chore feature that defines action rpgs vs. classic rpgs beside twitch gameplay.

Modifié par FedericoV, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:43 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Did you just say that DA2 was designed to be played in a way that was removed from the PC version for technical reasons?

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Did you just say that DA2 was designed to be played in a way that was removed from the PC version for technical reasons?

Yep, I remember someone asking why it wasn't possible to play the PC version with twitch gameplay (Maria Caliban?) and a dev (do not remember the name) answered that there was a problem with the mouse beeing too sensitive and then being unable to hit the right spot consistently. Infact, maybe you have noted it, sometimes on PC it's pretty painfull to "point and click" an enemy, especially shadows, abominations and spiders.

PS: Oh, yes even to the insinuation between the lines. The game on normal was meant to be won controlling optimally just your charachter. That's Peter Thomas word, not mine. Maybe your forgot that the PC version of DA2 was a rushed port of a rushed game.

Modifié par FedericoV, 14 octobre 2011 - 06:50 .

[AlexXIV]

Sandbox47 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Sandbox47 wrote...

I suspected that it was something along these lines really. I don't know why EA would try to limit BioWare.

I had to lie would I claim to know anything. But obviously Bioware was in a hurry to get DA2 to the shelves. So logic dictates they felt pressure to be quick. Whatever the reasons, be it EA or the market or what do I know, it resulted (imo) in slightly lower quality. Not saying it was a low quality product, just not what I am used from Bioware products. I used to buy anything Bioware made 'blindly' because this company is a guarantee for high quality games for many years. No matter what they did in the past, I liked it.

So what changed? For some people nothing, because they think DA2 is just as great or even greater than any other of their games. But for me and people like me, who obviously also frequent this forum, something changed. In some ways, not every way, DA2 feels cheap, rushed and more of an DA3 advertisement than an actually stand alone game to me. And that's just something I didn't expect.

So ... ... so ... you were caught of guard when you bought the game? That's an alarming lack of ... reason? I mean, what you are essentially saying is "They were great until I bought this and it wasn't as good for some reason." I don't know what that means... =/ Chill. What if their next game is so good that we go blind? Then you'll all regret saying that you didn't find the non-blinding DA2 as good.

No what I am essentially saying that they usually make games I find great, with one exception so far. Why should I regret anything? DA2 was not so good imo and if the next game is great I will say so. I love the ME franchise and it has nothing to do with DA2. Dunno if any of us suffers from an alarming lack of reason, but if then it's not me. You people are simply getting too defensive. And getting offguard is rather easy if you can't trust demo versions or previews or reviews or random people on the net who claim this and that. So it's not so surprising that people say ok, it's Bioware. How bad can it get?

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

Infact, maybe you have noted it, sometimes on PC it's pretty painfull to "point and click" an enemy, especially shadows, abominations and spiders.

I did notice that, even though I literally never give any commands in real time.  I pause the game to do everything.  I pause the game to give movement commands.

PS: Oh, yes even to the insinuation between the lines. The game on normal was meant to be won controlling optimally just your charachter. That's Peter Thomas word, not mine.

Peter was describing the difficulty, not the intended style of play.  On Normal, DA2 was playable controlling just one character optimally.

On Casual, it was one character suboptimally.  On Hard, it was the whole party suboptimally.  On Nightmare it was the whole party optimally.

Maybe your forgot that the PC version of DA2 was a rushed port of a rushed game.

I'm certainly not claiming that DA2 was a good game.

[Gallimatia]

FedericoV wrote...

Now that I think of it, that's not even true in some cases: for example I'm pretty sure that you can interrupt the long firestorm animation with another skill once the first meteor hits the first target (and the spell would run normally). 

It, and any spell animation, can be canceled and the spell will continue as normal but you can not interrupt it yourself. It requires a force that knocks you out of your animation. Before the patch that made fortitude sort of obsolete this would happen often. Basically any time a weak mage was hit by an arrow the casting anitmation was cut off, often times to your benefit.

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I did notice that, even though I literally never give any commands in real time.  I pause the game to do everything.  I pause the game to give movement commands.

I play in the same way as yours. I pause the game every second. It's still painfull to click those creatures because of the targeting system: that's the main cause of the lack of twitch gameplay in PC. It would not be confortable because of the sensivity of the mouse.

But I rarely use movement commands. My standard party is composed by me (mage), Isabela, Varric and Aveline. Me and Varric are ranged. Aveline just need one movement at the beginning of the battle, then aggro will do the rest for her. At the end there is only one class that need to be constantly moving (imho) wich is the DW rogue, in my case Isabela (maybe even the 2H but I never played that class because I hate those silly anime swords of theirs).

And skills are just much better and more confortable to move your DW rogue around the battlefiled. Imho, they are meant to be used that way and it's one of the smartest thing of DA2. Generally, giving moving commands in DA2 is painfull because of the lack of an isometric camera. Party based game should allways have an isometric view. Without one, I refuse to give too many movement commands and I prefer to rely on skills.

Peter was describing the difficulty, not the intended style of play.  On Normal, DA2 was playable controlling just one character optimally. On Casual, it was one character suboptimally.  On Hard, it was the whole party suboptimally.  On Nightmare it was the whole party optimally.

And the difficulty does not change the intended style of play? Playing tactically with your party at normal is a waste of time from what I've experienced, except boss battles maybe (but that's because of other reasons that I won't touch since I'm allready OT).

I know I'm making an assumption but I do not think that it's such a logic leap. Let's recap:

- DA2 was developed with consolle in mind and ported only to PC (proof: no tactical camera 2.0).
- The intended gameplay for consolles was with no autoattack and twitch gameplay (optional autoattack just after the first patch: probably, autoattack was a late addiction to the game).
- At normal level of difficulty the game only requires you to controll one charachter optimally.
- Controlling one charachter optimally with autoattack and pause&play is clearly not how they envisioned the game, since the intended aim was to build a bridge between party based RPGs and God of War like action games (Laidlaw's words and the "fight like a spartan" theme are sufficient proof of that, I believe).
- Remember the "DA2 is both an action and tactical game" Laidlaw's video? When he controlled just one charachter (the rogue) and played the action sequence, he played it as a pure hack and slash "click click click" game.

So, imho, the game was meant to be played as an action hack & slash rpg on normal and casual. While on hard and nightmare was meant to be played tactically, just like a classical party based RPG, while not being that good in both areas overall (DA2 is too statdriven to be an interesting action RPG and too action driven to feel like a good party based RPG). While DA:O was meant to be played as a party based RPG at every level of difficulty.

That's one other reason why DA2 is more of an action game than DA:O: but I know better than think that I could change your mind on the subject . Just hope I explained my point even if you do not agree. You know, I respect your overall position about RPGs and allways read your post with interest. And sorry for the wall of text.

Modifié par FedericoV, 15 octobre 2011 - 10:57 .

[schalafi]

Stanley, I've been a member of Bioware fourms since 2003, and this is the longest, and most comprehensive explanation of how things are in the gaming industry I have ever heard from you, or any other Bioware employee. Thanks for taking the time to set some things straight about how a product needs to be developed and marketed, in order to be profitable, and just generally putting to rest some of the misconceptions about the relationship between Bioware and EA.

Modifié par schalafi, 15 octobre 2011 - 03:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

And sorry for the wall of text.

I like walls of text.

I play in the same way as yours. I pause the game every second. It's still painfull to click those creatures because of the targeting system: that's the main cause of the lack of twitch gameplay in PC. It would not be confortable because of the sensivity of the mouse.

The PC version does allow an automatic targetting of the nearest enemy with a single keystroke.  In the demo, that key even triggered an attack, so spamming the targetting button caused Hawke to attack faster.

I suspect that originally was an attempt to create direct input action gameplay.  But they removed it.

I don't care how the game was intended to work, or even how the game was designed to work.  I evaluate only how the game actually works.  I've done this extensively in my discussions of dialogue systems.

But I rarely use movement commands. My standard party is composed by me (mage), Isabela, Varric and Aveline. Me and Varric are ranged. Aveline just need one movement at the beginning of the battle, then aggro will do the rest for her. At the end there is only one class that need to be constantly moving (imho) wich is the DW rogue, in my case Isabela (maybe even the 2H but I never played that class because I hate those silly anime swords of theirs).

Friendly Fire.  Movement commands are necessary when playing with friendly fire enabled, or if playing as if friendly fire is enabled, which I would have done if I hadn't been able to enable friendly fire.

Also, the future waves of enemies warrant movement control to prevent your party from being surrounded.

And skills are just much better and more confortable to move your DW rogue around the battlefiled. Imho, they are meant to be used that way and it's one of the smartest thing of DA2. Generally, giving moving commands in DA2 is painfull because of the lack of an isometric camera. Party based game should allways have an isometric view. Without one, I refuse to give too many movement commands and I prefer to rely on skills.

I use point-and-click movement commands even when exploring.  Given how far out DA2's camera will zoom, I find that works pretty well, though I really dislike how the camera angle changes automatically to point downward during movement, so I have to keep moving it back.

BioWare has done a better character-focused camera before.  The NWN camera wasn't free-roam, and it wasn't really isometric, either, but it had far better controls than the DA2 camera.  Ideally I'd prefer a free-roaming camera, but if the camera has to be focussed on just one character then the NWN camera is the model they should follow.

And the difficulty does not change the intended style of play?

No, it changes the possible styles of play.  The lower difficulty levels still permit full party control, after all.

Playing tactically with your party at normal is a waste of time from what I've experienced, except boss battles maybe (but that's because of other reasons that I won't touch since I'm allready OT).

What do you mean by "waste of time"?  For you to be able to determine that you would need to assume what the player's objective is when playing the game, or even just engaging in combat.  Yes, if the player's goal is simply to overcome the obstracles and beat the game, then I'll grant the "waste of time" finding.  But you can't justify that assumption.

I control the whole party for three reasons.  First, I enjoy having the party members work together.  Second, if a signficant number of enemies are killed without my input (as would be the case if I controleld just one character) then I feel like the game is playing itself and I'm not necessary.  Third, I think combat is a good platform for roleplaying, and since I'm the one who selected even the companions' abilities at level-up I must therefore be playing them, so letting them act on their own is passing up a roleplaying opportunity.

These are roleplaying games.  Roleplaying is the whole point.  Of course I roleplay whereever I can, and that includes combat.  So even when playing on Normal (which, with FF enabled in DA2, is still remarkably challenging), I contorl the whole party.

Do you really just let the rest of the party go and have the net wave of enemies drop in behind you?  In-character, I can't imagine ever doing that.  Not unless Hawke had a deathwish.

Finally, you and I clearly have different definitions of the word "proof".

Oh, wait.  One more thing.

So, imho, the game was meant to be played as an action hack & slash rpg on normal and casual. While on hard and nightmare was meant to be played tactically, just like a classical party based RPG, while not being that good in both areas overall (DA2 is too statdriven to be an interesting action RPG and too action driven to feel like a good party based RPG). While DA:O was meant to be played as a party based RPG at every level of difficulty.

That's one other reason why DA2 is more of an action game than DA:O: but I know better than think that I could change your mind on the subject.

My comment about DA2 being more like a turn-based game than anything else BioWare had done was based on how DA2's actions exist as discrete packets of action, entirely unlike DAO.  I'm not claiming that DA2 is less actiony.  I'm claiming that it is more turn-based.

No, I do not concede those are the same thing.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 octobre 2011 - 11:26 .

[Stanley Woo]

schalafi wrote...

Stanley, I've been a member of Bioware fourms since 2003, and this is the longest, and most comprehensive explanation of how things are in the gaming industry I have ever heard from you, or any other Bioware employee. Thanks for taking the time to set some things straight about how a product needs to be developed and marketed, in order to be profitable, and just generally putting to rest some of the misconceptions about the relationship between Bioware and EA.

I recognize your screen name. Good to see you again, schalafi, and thank you.

[fritzywiggins]

Wow...I'm just amazed at how involved Stanley and other BioWare developers are in these forums, and how much time they must spend reading our comments. It speaks of a clear passion for their work and their fans.

[Ronnel]

They should learn to From Software studios principle "We make games based on what we value instead of chasing after what is popular".

[seraphymon]

Versago wrote...

fritzywiggins wrote...

Wow...I'm just amazed at how involved Stanley and other BioWare developers are in these forums, and how much time they must spend reading our comments. It speaks of a clear passion for their work and their fans.

BioWare should make every video game from now on.

Other companies make better games, even RPGs. It depends on what your looking for as Bioware is not the king of gaming and at this rate they are getting to the bottom of the barrel with RPGs.

[eroeru]

Stanley Woo wrote...
Like with one lesser-selling game, a new Star Trek reboot, a poorly-grossing Firefly movie, or a polarizing Star Wars direction does not signal the death of a franchise or mass desrtion of the franchise by the fanbase. So folks should not start spouting doom and gloom for a company or franchise based on a single product that they didn't like, didn't sell well, or went in a different direction than they'd like.

But they will. And it's mostly understandable if these nay-sayers really feel like it (and if in moderation, these negative opinions can be well-argued and -rationalized).

Anyway, thank you for your neatly explained reasoning, this is one thread that's actually worthwhile reading.

[CARL_DF90]

Despite some of the same things that bugged me about DA2 that has been discussed from here to infinity, I still enjoyed it and my hope for the future has done nothing but grow positively since DLCs "Legacy" and the more recent "Mark of the Assassin". With all things in life all you learn from past experiences to improve the future, and it is more than safe to assume that those lessons are being used to make the needed improvements. I am not worried in the slightest. Now I'm just chopping at the bit in anticipation for the next DLC to be released. Had a few thoughts on that but that is another thread for another time. Cheers!