155 réponses à ce sujet

[jlb524]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I really like Skyrim's conversations.  They allow tremendous freedom of character development for the player character.

I felt like a 'yes I'll accept the quest/no I won't accept the quest' bot when conversing in Skyrim.

My character felt quite bland just going on conversations.

[Atakuma]

jlb524 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I really like Skyrim's conversations.  They allow tremendous freedom of character development for the player character.

I felt like a 'yes I'll accept the quest/no I won't accept the quest' bot when conversing in Skyrim.

My character felt quite bland just going on conversations.

The dialogue in skyrim is paper thin and mostly devoid of any substance, which is great for someone like sylvius who prefers to make that stuff up in his head.

[Crimson_Crio]

Nope I don't want this. Why do they have to experiment? By the end of DA5 it will probably be a MMO. Seriously, if they want to make a Skyrim game, then make one, not fuse your ideas with an already awesome game such as DA who got a wonderful start... but it seems it will go average from here. And you people are blind if you think that by making it a sandbox some good things that made DA good won't be sacrificed. I value character depth and conversations more then looting and opening every house.

[jlb524]

Atakuma wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I really like Skyrim's conversations.  They allow tremendous freedom of character development for the player character.

I felt like a 'yes I'll accept the quest/no I won't accept the quest' bot when conversing in Skyrim.

My character felt quite bland just going on conversations.

The dialogue in skyrim is paper thin and mostly devoid of any substance, which is great for someone like sylvius who prefers to make that stuff up in his head.

As in, mentally changing the dialog from 'Yes, I'll do your quest' to something more colorful?

The only issue I take with such things is that the NPC you are currently speaking to doesn't react appropriately to your 'head' reply...unless you make that up as well.

Modifié par jlb524, 21 décembre 2011 - 08:51 .

[byzantine horse]

Maybe they just draw ideas, such as, you know "a more open world feel" (keyword: feel) and not outright copy them. Looking at other games is how great games are made, you cherrypick the good and fix the bad.

[Merchant2006]

"'[The next Dragon Age] is gonna have the best of features from the prior Dragon Age games, but it’s also gonna have a lot of things I think players are gonna find compelling from some of the games that are out now that are doing really well with more of an open world feel,' said BioWare's Ray Muzyka in a new interview with Wired.

'We’re checking [Skyrim] out aggressively. We like it. We’re big admirers of [Bethesda] and the product,” he said. “We think we can do some wonderful things,' he added.'

(Source)

*Snorts*

[CroGamer002]

You know what would be the best?

EA/Bioware purchase Creation Engine and just make a game out of it.

This time we won' have shallow story and very lack of PC dialogue choices that hurt role playing in Skyrim and Oblivion for me.

[Realmzmaster]

Developers playing other companies games is not anything new. Developers have been borrowing each others ideas for years and implementing those ideas their way. Developers play games to check out the competition and just like us have fun.

Developers over at Bethesda played DA2. I sure some of them will be playing ME3. Some of them are probably playing SWTOR.

You can learn from other people's games. Unfortunately Bethesda still has not learned to write a decent story or plot since Morrowind.

[Belhawk]

in DA, u fast travel to every area, but in skyrim, u have to slow travel around until u find a place (town, farm, fort, etc.). If they pull stuff from Skyrim, then they will hand craft each dungeon, cave, etc., no cookie cutter caves with sections blocked off.

[artifact]

No one has addressed the Multiplayer comment. Now I'm sure most of us are screaming 'Nooo!' in our heads but I think if they go the White Knight Chronicles route it could work. For those who haven't played it, in WKC you have your main single player with a party story and the multiplayer is totally unconnected. You take your character to the online zone and form up cooperative parties with other players and go kill stuff. Its coopertive and has a good community where people were still actively playing WKC1 quests after WKC2 was released. If EA wants a cash-cow they could charge for adding more quests. There is 0 story but having other live people sort of makes up for that.

WKC also has player-made villages for the online portion which many people find fun to design and manage and you can recruit characters throughout the single player game to live in your town. Its also a long term income source as Level-5 has DLC for the extra snazzy building or planter which makes no impact on the single player experience at all. (I'm still hurting from thinking Warden's Keep would a TES like keep I would get to decorate.)


Edit...
Nevermind, just noticed there is a whole 18 page long thread all about the multiplayer..

Modifié par artifact, 21 décembre 2011 - 10:27 .

[Realmzmaster]

Belhawk wrote...

in DA, u fast travel to every area, but in skyrim, u have to slow travel around until u find a place (town, farm, fort, etc.). If they pull stuff from Skyrim, then they will hand craft each dungeon, cave, etc., no cookie cutter caves with sections blocked off.

So you think that Bethesda handcraft all the dungeons and caves. If you look closely you will notice that the caves and dungeon layouts are the same . There are more layouts but they do repeat. The point is to make it look like they are not repeating. Sort of like what Bioware did with the dungeon under Harrimann's estate in the Exiled Prince. The dungeon has the same layout as one of the re-cycled dungeons. It is simply skinned better. I sorry you have cookie cutter caves in Skyrim also, just better disguised.

[Ramus Quaritch]

I really hope in DA3 you can choose what your party wears, what weapons they wield, and/or have fewer restrictions on their abilities (i.e. Carver being only two-handed weapons). DA2's lack of customization for your party struck me as cutting out features to meet a deadline that should have been set for much later. I guess the biggest thing DA3 should take (but probably won't given EA's business model) is that Bioware should take more time to develop it and release a finished product.

[Ramus Quaritch]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Belhawk wrote...

in DA, u fast travel to every area, but in skyrim, u have to slow travel around until u find a place (town, farm, fort, etc.). If they pull stuff from Skyrim, then they will hand craft each dungeon, cave, etc., no cookie cutter caves with sections blocked off.

So you think that Bethesda handcraft all the dungeons and caves. If you look closely you will notice that the caves and dungeon layouts are the same . There are more layouts but they do repeat. The point is to make it look like they are not repeating. Sort of like what Bioware did with the dungeon under Harrimann's estate in the Exiled Prince. The dungeon has the same layout as one of the re-cycled dungeons. It is simply skinned better. I sorry you have cookie cutter caves in Skyrim also, just better disguised.

They reuse textures, but in Skyrim there's so much more variety in terms of the actual map of the dungeon, traps, random objects lying about, and quests that take place in the dungeons.  In DA2, if you look at the minimap, it was the exact same map.  The parts that were "cut off" were still on the dungeon map. 

[Brockololly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The main option in most of the quests is whether to do them.  That's an important option, and one that's too often  missing in modern games.  Try to avoid completing a quest you've already started in Fable, for example.

Totally, completely agree there. Not just the option to turn down a quest but it would be interesting if more games made that a more viable option by having someone turn down a quest in turn lead to something happening. I think many people playing RPGs end up accepting most quests for the hell of it cause they don't want to miss out on content. But if devs made it such that turning down a quest for a certain reason led to a new quest opening up, that would be a welcome change.

[lobi]

I always thought turning down a quest can lead to another faction being more accepting. This helps to open their quest line where as accepting the previous quest from the other faction would have all but closed it. Make a choice and stick to it or NPC view you as untrustworthy, and rightly so.

Modifié par lobi, 22 décembre 2011 - 12:16 .

[Zjarcal]

Brockololly wrote...
I think many people playing RPGs end up accepting most quests for the hell of it cause they don't want to miss out on content. But if devs made it such that turning down a quest for a certain reason led to a new quest opening up, that would be a welcome change. 

That is true. I hate missing out on content so I'll usually do any quest that comes up even if it isn't really something I'd want to do per se. Having something happen as a result of not doing it would certainly make the choice of not doing it more appealing.

Well there's also the missing out on XP factor to deal with though.

[Zanallen]

Meris wrote...

Claiming that the party-based combat in RPGs is dead is not only denying the continued sucess of DA:O, but also boldly blinding oneself of the RTS genre.

Claiming that only a bunch of disgruntled old timers bought DA:O is denying not only my existance, but also adding more legitimacy to the party-based combat, since these 'old timers' are a market of their own.

If you think Skyrim's success is because of the TES combat, which TES fans complain about almost as much as BioWare fans on DA2, or even its character customization, than you've missed the game's point.

.....You realise that what you quoted has nothing to do with your response, right? Party-based combat =/= attribute-based characters.

[Meris]

Zanallen wrote...

Meris wrote...

Claiming that the party-based combat in RPGs is dead is not only denying the continued sucess of DA:O, but also boldly blinding oneself of the RTS genre.

Claiming that only a bunch of disgruntled old timers bought DA:O is denying not only my existance, but also adding more legitimacy to the party-based combat, since these 'old timers' are a market of their own.

If you think Skyrim's success is because of the TES combat, which TES fans complain about almost as much as BioWare fans on DA2, or even its character customization, than you've missed the game's point.

.....You realise that what you quoted has nothing to do with your response, right? Party-based combat =/= attribute-based characters.

The current and over a decade old iteration of party-based combat (in BioWare games) has its foundations on attributes, proposing an abstraction of the actual combat, in order to keep an RTS gameplay.

So yes, I do realize what I quoted.

Atakuma wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I really like Skyrim's conversations.  They allow tremendous freedom of character development for the player character.

I felt like a 'yes I'll accept the quest/no I won't accept the quest' bot when conversing in Skyrim.

My character felt quite bland just going on conversations.

The dialogue in skyrim is paper thin and mostly devoid of any substance, which is great for someone like sylvius who prefers to make that stuff up in his head.

Its obviously true that Skyrim dialogue is leagues behind DA:O, or even DA2's, when it comes to substance. But still like DA:O, and for those of us who like to 'make stuff up' in our heads, it still allows for a certain degree of liberty.

In other words, as long as the protagonist is Silent, part of the my experience with the game is abstract and I can choose to shape it however I will, though within the constraints imposed by the concrete portion of the experience, the game itself. Thus, I become co-author of the story, which, therefore, becomes truly mine, in a more diverse way than any studio will ever be able to allow me with a Voiced protagonist.

Modifié par Meris, 22 décembre 2011 - 01:11 .

[Zanallen]

Meris wrote...

The current and over a decade old iteration of party-based combat has its foundations on attributes, in order to propose an abstraction from the actual combat while keeping the RTS gameplay.

So yes, I do realize what I quoted.

It is perfectly possible to have party-based combat in a game without the need for adjustable stats (Strength, dexterity, intelligence, etc). Saying that stat-based combat is dying or old fashioned (while wrong) is not the same as saying that party-based combat is dying or old fashioned.

But whatever. Its not worth arguing about. I just felt that your response was a little odd given the statement that you quoted.

[Meris]

Zanallen wrote...

Meris wrote...

The current and over a decade old iteration of party-based combat has its foundations on attributes, in order to propose an abstraction from the actual combat while keeping the RTS gameplay.

So yes, I do realize what I quoted.

It is perfectly possible to have party-based combat in a game without the need for adjustable stats (Strength, dexterity, intelligence, etc). Saying that stat-based combat is dying or old fashioned (while wrong) is not the same as saying that party-based combat is dying or old fashioned.

But whatever. Its not worth arguing about. I just felt that your response was a little odd given the statement that you quoted.

The thing is, you're talking of a single aspect of Dragon Age's combat, that its party-based, I'm talking about that an the real-time strategy disposition of the mechanics.

Yes, its possible to have a party-based combat without attributes, but without fundamenting the mechanics on attributes you'll have an action game, like Skyrim and Kingdom Hearts, as opposed to a blend of RTS and RPG, like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and both Dragon Ages.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
That is true. I hate missing out on content so I'll usually do any quest that comes up even if it isn't really something I'd want to do per se. Having something happen as a result of not doing it would certainly make the choice of not doing it more appealing.

Well there's also the missing out on XP factor to deal with though.

I believe that a small level limit (say 20 or 25) and the ability to max-out without farming or that many sidequests can do the trick. If the main plot on its own almost maxes your level, you do not have much incentive, XP wise, to do sidequests.

I personally prefer subplots to isolated sidequests. Subplots with choices and such that could accomodate many personalities and playing styles. While it wouldn't fix the problem entirely, it would allow for more variety and would have more gravity than silly sidequests that you have little reason to care about.

EDIT: of course would they be willing to put a lot of effort and money into optional subplots? Probably not.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 décembre 2011 - 01:24 .

[Zanallen]

Meris wrote...

The thing is, you're talking of a single aspect of Dragon Age's combat, that its party-based, I'm talking about that an the real-time strategy disposition of the mechanics.

Yes, its possible to have a party-based combat without attributes, but without fundamenting the mechanics on attributes you'll have an action game, like Skyrim and Kingdom Hearts, as opposed to a blend of RTS and RPG, like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and both Dragon Ages.

Er, no. I wasn't talking about any of that at all. I was talking about your response to that other guy's post. You seemed to take a rather simple quote and made it seem like he was insulting you personally as a "disgruntled old timer" or whatever. It just seemed odd.

And you keep bringing up RTS games...All the RTS games that I have played used attributes in the loosest sense of the word. At best the units have a set HP and attack power that might be upgradable through other buildings and one or two abilities.

[Morroian]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Belhawk wrote...

in DA, u fast travel to every area, but in skyrim, u have to slow travel around until u find a place (town, farm, fort, etc.). If they pull stuff from Skyrim, then they will hand craft each dungeon, cave, etc., no cookie cutter caves with sections blocked off.

So you think that Bethesda handcraft all the dungeons and caves. If you look closely you will notice that the caves and dungeon layouts are the same . There are more layouts but they do repeat. The point is to make it look like they are not repeating. Sort of like what Bioware did with the dungeon under Harrimann's estate in the Exiled Prince. The dungeon has the same layout as one of the re-cycled dungeons. It is simply skinned better. I sorry you have cookie cutter caves in Skyrim also, just better disguised.

I disagree, they had something like 50 people working on dungeon design with each person working on only a few dungeons. Its possible that the dungeons done by the same person may be similar but its nothing like DA2 and I don't think anyone can reasonably expect anything more from Bethesda.

[Meris]

Zanallen wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

It is perfectly possible to have party-based combat in a game without the need for adjustable stats (Strength, dexterity, intelligence, etc). Saying that stat-based combat is dying or old fashioned (while wrong) is not the same as saying that party-based combat is dying or old fashioned. 

Meris wrote...

The thing is, you're talking of a single aspect of Dragon Age's combat, that its party-based, I'm talking about that an the real-time strategy disposition of the mechanics.

Yes, its possible to have a party-based combat without attributes, but without fundamenting the mechanics on attributes you'll have an action game, like Skyrim and Kingdom Hearts, as opposed to a blend of RTS and RPG, like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and both Dragon Ages.

Er, no. I wasn't talking about any of that at all. I was talking about your response to that other guy's post. You seemed to take a rather simple quote and made it seem like he was insulting you personally as a "disgruntled old timer" or whatever. It just seemed odd.

And you keep bringing up RTS games...All the RTS games that I have played used attributes in the loosest sense of the word. At best the units have a set HP and attack power that might be upgradable through other buildings and one or two abilities.

Yes, I think you were talking about the combat system (see the bolded part).

And no, being a teenager I can't be considered a 'disgruntled old timer', term used in the post I first quoted, since I'm a teenager. So I'm not personally insulted by anything, though since this is a purely written medium, I misunderstandings reign supreme.

And lastly, I should clarify that by 'attribute' I mean any form of modifier that interferes in the performance of a given object and/or person in a purely mathematical manner. That out of the way, i'll just talk about the RTSs I've played: Warcraft 3 has RPG-like attributes for its hero units and Armor/Attack Type/Projectile type modifiers for all; Age of Empires 3 has modifiers linked to the type of units, Light and Heavy Cavalry, Artillery, Ships, Light and Heavy Infantry, Civillians and maybe more that I can't remember, which are linked differently to each unit; Empire and Napoleon Total Wars have a gamut of attributes for all of its units, covering defense, charge power, accuracy, ammunition, and so on. I also assume Starcraft is not unlike Warcraft.