384 réponses à ce sujet

[Gileadan]

Persephone wrote...
Er, no. Coercion and Intimidation are still there, they are not active skills however and the success of either now depends on Hawke's personality. (Seeing Intimidation failing is loads of fun in DAII IMO). And attributes & skills do matter, certainly. Same way as in DAO? No. Do I miss part of that? Yes. But I'd rather use the DAII mechanics than go back to the ludicrous Approval system and skill dots allowing me to "persuade" characters into 180% personality flips. But that's just me.

They're still there? Could you give me an example where Hawke's personality leads to a different conversation outcome? I admit, I played the game only twice, but I never noticed Hawke's personality having any effect on conversation results. Sure, Hawke might say different things based on personality, but that looked merely like fluff to me and the end result seemed always the same. Was there, for example, ever an opportunity to scare a potential enemy into not fighting you and just giving up instead? NPCs telling you something that they normally wouldn't? Never saw anything like that.

[Morroian]

Gileadan wrote...

They're still there? Could you give me an example where Hawke's personality leads to a different conversation outcome?

Act of Mercy, a witty Hawke can talk Karras down, as could Varric if he's in the party
Blackpowder promise aggressive Hawke can convince Meraas to fight with Hawke against the rest of the Tal Vashoth
Wayward son rogue Hawke can kill the slaver leader outright making the fight easier.
All That Remains diplomatic Hawke can persuade Gascard to fight with you.

and thats just some of the options. 

[Elthurien]

Compared to DA:O I found the sequel to be very mediocre. When I initially found out they were removing the tactical view I held off buying at launch. I waited for it to hit the bargain bins before I finally gave it a whirl. I found the combat to be too action-packed to the point of every fight becoming a painful evolution that just interrupted the story. The story, while giving you the freedom to go about the city and landscape in any order you wanted, still felt as though it was leading you by the nose to where it wanted you to go. Seeing the world map in Origins gave you a feeling of distance and made the choices feel more important because you had to choose to travel for weeks to get somewhere. The map in DA2 doesn't feel like that at all, it feels claustrophobic and restricted, oh look a mountain there, a coastline, and several suburbs of the city all in the one convenient location... tedious.

[Wozearly]

Anomaly- wrote...

Besides that, I don't think we agree on what dumbed down means. My definition is anything that requires less thought and/or effort from the player. For example, dialogue options with icons indicating outcomes. If you want to romance someone, just pick the options with the heart next to them. You don't actually have to think it over beyond that. Clumping everything useful to your character into 2 attributes, with one being predominant. Again, takes much of the thought away from choosing your attributes. 1-2 item sets per act, being easy to find and clearly superior than everything else. You don't have to think much about choosing your equipment, just collect the sets. Companion armor can't be changed at all, so that actually requires no thought or input from you. If you see an upgrade, you buy it. Simple as that.

Just to pick up on this point, I think you'd struggle to draw a distinction between what you define as dumbing down and 'simplification'. Less effort and thought from the player is not inherantly a bad thing - many changes to improve UI and information clarity are designed to achieve this.

IMO, where it becomes 'dumbing down' is where the player is immunised from the consequences of their decisions - particularly negative ones. Adding dialogue icons simplifies the previous complexity of trying to psychically predict what your character would say in full, particularly the tone, and how this might impact the other character. Making it so that it doesn't really matter what you say, it just adds flavour and doesn't have further consequences, would be dumbing down.

Equally, making item sets more clearly useful and/or bound to certain careers is simplification, since this already existed to a fair extent within Origins. Making it so that its an absolute no-brainer which armour to pick, or removing choice entirely to negate the need for player input (companion armour took a step in that direction) is dumbing down.

2 cents.

Modifié par Wozearly, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:50 .

[Demon Velsper]

Rather simple isn't it? It's an RPG made for people who hate RPGs made by a man who hates RPGs. That it even managed to be mediocre is surprising.

[Gunderic]

Persephone wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Jade Empire was even more streamlined and dumbed down than Dragon Age 2 ever was.

How could JE have been streamlined or dumbed down given that it was the first of its kind made by Bioware? Streamlined and dumbed down based on what? Games that have nothing to do with it?

Um, RPG's? 

[Gunderic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Jade Empire was even more streamlined and dumbed down than Dragon Age 2 ever was.

This is nonsense.  If Jade Empire's gameplay can be compared to any other, it's The Witcher 2.  Except it has a better learning curve.

I think I've seen you post that a few times before. I question the relevance of the Witcher 2 in this discussion, but, anyway, I'd say they have nothing in common short of both being more action-oriented titles.

Jade Empire never should've existed, however. While Jade Empire can hardly be called a RPG, I consider Dragon Age 2 one, albeit a bad one.

[Gunderic]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Well obviously Mike Laidlaw should stick to writing then!

I rest my case.

I hope not. I couldn't finish Jade Empire. Would've played on strictly for the story, if it was a good one. I kept hoping to get hooked, but man, this is one of the most cliched BioWare stories I've ever witnessed, and in an Asian-themed setting.

/critique off 

[Joy Divison]

Persephone wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

So DA2 without mods is simplified then?

Same way as DAO is, I suppose. Except DAO required mod fixes for me to finish (The last third of the vanilla game is seriously bugged to oblivion, as are Leliana & Zevran)

It's ok to like or prefer DA2 to DA:O.  However, that does not mean DA2 has the same level of complexity or wasn't simplfied.

[Gunderic]

Persephone wrote...

Gileadan wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
So DA2 without mods is simplified then?

DA2 scrapped all this for a simpler dialogue system where your character's attributes and skills no longer mattered, and an icon told you whether you were being nice, snarky, mean or flirty. I'd call that simplified alright.

and skill dots allowing me to "persuade" characters into 180% personality flips. But that's just me.

... that's how RPG's always worked...

And yes, the skills have been removed. How can you call them skills if you can't invest points in them? If you can't see checks, can't make rolls etc. they're just a roleplaying fancy, not RPG skills. 

And how do you 'fail' a conversation check in DA 2? I thought extra options only appeared if you've been favouring one personality enough.

[Il Divo]

Gunderic wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

Well obviously Mike Laidlaw should stick to writing then!

I rest my case.

I hope not. I couldn't finish Jade Empire. Would've played on strictly for the story, if it was a good one. I kept hoping to get hooked, but man, this is one of the most cliched BioWare stories I've ever witnessed, and in an Asian-themed setting.

/critique off 

Jade Empire's story was cliched? Compared to.. what Bioware games, exactly? KotOR, Mass Effect, and Origins were the very definition of cliches.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 octobre 2011 - 05:49 .

[Persephone]

Demon Velsper wrote...

Rather simple isn't it? It's an RPG made for people who hate RPGs made by a man who hates RPGs. That it even managed to be mediocre is surprising.

Simple? Untrue, more like.

[Persephone]

Gunderic wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Gileadan wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
So DA2 without mods is simplified then?

DA2 scrapped all this for a simpler dialogue system where your character's attributes and skills no longer mattered, and an icon told you whether you were being nice, snarky, mean or flirty. I'd call that simplified alright.

and skill dots allowing me to "persuade" characters into 180% personality flips. But that's just me.

... that's how RPG's always worked...

The ENTIRE Might and Magic series begs to differ. But true, these classics aren't "true" RPGs, I suppose. :innocent:

[Persephone]

Joy Divison wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

So DA2 without mods is simplified then?

Same way as DAO is, I suppose. Except DAO required mod fixes for me to finish (The last third of the vanilla game is seriously bugged to oblivion, as are Leliana & Zevran)

It's ok to like or prefer DA2 to DA:O.  However, that does not mean DA2 has the same level of complexity or wasn't simplfied.

Depends on your definition of the word complexity. DAO's plot is as complex as a Philippa Gregory novel to my eyes. (And I do enjoy DAO. But complex? PULEAAAAZE!)

[hoorayforicecream]

Joy Divison wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

So DA2 without mods is simplified then?

Same way as DAO is, I suppose. Except DAO required mod fixes for me to finish (The last third of the vanilla game is seriously bugged to oblivion, as are Leliana & Zevran)

It's ok to like or prefer DA2 to DA:O.  However, that does not mean DA2 has the same level of complexity or wasn't simplfied.

I always preferred my games to be more fun, and not more complex. Solving fourier transforms is also more complex than DA2, but I don't think I'd play a game dedicated to doing so.

[tmp7704]

Persephone wrote...

Er, no. Coercion and Intimidation are still there, they are not active skills however and the success of either now depends on Hawke's personality.

That's not coercion and intimidation, but a bonus dialogue option for sticking mainly to one personality in your dialogues throughout the game act.

(Seeing Intimidation failing is loads of fun in DAII IMO).

Where do you ever see intimidation failing in DA2? You either simply get extra option which succeeds, or you don't get that option, period. Other, available by default dialogue is as far as i know hard-coded to provide a single outcome.

Modifié par tmp7704, 12 octobre 2011 - 07:24 .

[hoorayforicecream]

tmp7704 wrote...

(Seeing Intimidation failing is loads of fun in DAII IMO).

Where do you ever see intimidation failing in DA2? You either simply get extra option which succeeds, or you don't get that option, period. Other, available by default dialogue is as far as i know hard-coded to provide a single outcome.

Hawke will fail at intimidating the dockmaster during Finders Keepers in act 1 unless Hawke is aggressive.

[Sylvianus]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

(Seeing Intimidation failing is loads of fun in DAII IMO).

Where do you ever see intimidation failing in DA2? You either simply get extra option which succeeds, or you don't get that option, period. Other, available by default dialogue is as far as i know hard-coded to provide a single outcome.

Hawke will fail at intimidating the dockmaster during Finders Keepers in act 1 unless Hawke is aggressive.

The same with the templar under the order of Petrice. You can't convince him unless Hawk is agressive.

[tmp7704]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Hawke will fail at intimidating the dockmaster during Finders Keepers in act 1 unless Hawke is aggressive.

Do you mean the predominantly aggressive Hawke gets a * dialogue option that other Hawkes don't and which allows such thing, or that the standard red dialogue option has two different outcomes, depending on what the dominant tone happens to be?

[hoorayforicecream]

tmp7704 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Hawke will fail at intimidating the dockmaster during Finders Keepers in act 1 unless Hawke is aggressive.

Do you mean the predominantly aggressive Hawke gets a * dialogue option that other Hawkes don't and which allows such thing, or that the standard red dialogue option has two different outcomes, depending on what the dominant tone happens to be?

I'm pretty sure it's neither (going from memory here). It's a dialogue menu with a few choices (the triple squiggly arrows), one of which has a different outcome depending on whether Hawke is aggressive or not. There are no dialogue colors involved in the menu choices.

[tmp7704]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm pretty sure it's neither (going from memory here). It's a dialogue menu with a few choices (the triple squiggly arrows), one of which has a different outcome depending on whether Hawke is aggressive or not. There are no dialogue colors involved in the menu choices.

That... ugh, that sounds dumb. Srsly, the last thing i want from the game is to be completely opaque about presenting actual fork in a story, giving me no clue that "hey, maybe if your character had different personality, things would went different here". At least in DAO you could see in advance that character's attribute was going to be used to determine the outcome, and if the check failed you knew why.  :|

Modifié par tmp7704, 12 octobre 2011 - 07:46 .

[Addai]

Another example is recruiting the Tal Vashoth to help you shank his former crew. Only aggroHawke can recruit him, for the others he refuses.  It just looks like any other dialogue option.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 octobre 2011 - 07:50 .

[hoorayforicecream]

tmp7704 wrote...

That... ugh, that sounds dumb. Srsly, the last thing i want from the game is to be completely opaque about presenting actual fork in a story, giving me no clue that "hey, maybe if your character had different personality, things would went different here". At least in DAO you could see in advance that character's attribute was going to be used to determine the outcome, and if the check failed you knew why.  :|

Um... what? 

In DAO, they didn't tell you what coercion actually did. I just knew it "helped" persuade or intimidate. The systems in DAO were very opaque; most of them were only explained via wiki and external sources (such as poking through the toolset). I found stats like 'armor penetration' and 'death blow' on my weapons, but hadn't any idea what they did because the game never told me. I had to look them up to figure out what they did or how they worked, and I found that extremely annoying because I didn't know that bows used both strength and dexterity to determine damage for the longest time.

I didn't see it as necessarily a good or bad thing, really. I made role-playing choices, and I was pleasantly surprised by the effect my Hawke's personality had. I wish they were a little more transparent about the personality's effects, but I wish DAO was a lot more transparent about their gameplay mechanics too.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 12 octobre 2011 - 07:54 .

[Ariella]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Well obviously Mike Laidlaw should stick to writing then!

I rest my case.

Mike was lead designer on Jade Empire.

[Morroian]

tmp7704 wrote...

That's not coercion and intimidation, but a bonus dialogue option for sticking mainly to one personality in your dialogues throughout the game act.

And a coercion skill as in DAO is an I win button.