300 réponses à ce sujet

[Melca36]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Talking about dress up... All this reminds me of level 20 armor in Guild Wars in which each class has several variations. There is elite armor as well and again each class has its own varitions. All standard level 20 armors of a class have the same stats. The elite armors have the same stats as the standard ones. The fun part is that one can only buy elite armor for a silly amount of gold and resources at hard to reach locations and are often only available in the end quest of a campaign. I had lots of them. It wasn't primarily about status or looking different. To me it was about the "route" to get them. I had to plan how to get that money and those resources. When I finally got one I felt like I had accomplished something in the game. It gave those armors a little background story. They were mine.

Another Guild Wars 2 player here    

And you are 100% right. It was a challenge to get the elite armor but it was fun as well as challenging to accomplish the goal of getting enough gold and resources to get them. And I did have a background story for each set too.

[Everwarden]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

Emulation not ripping off. Emulation is a concept used widely in the game,movie or music industry. Everyone is so negative at bioware it is ridiculous.

Heya, hater here! Just throwing in my two cents. 

I don't think this is actually a bad thing. Sure, it shows that Bioware can't do anything creatively original, but that's not a big deal for me. They haven't for ten years, so why should I start caring now? Dragon Age: Origins wasn't original, but it was cliche done extremely well, and that's more than good enough for me. Honestly, the only 'original' game I've seen in recent memory is Catherine, which was original only due to being from a stale genre in another culture. 

Back on topic: If Bioware can take Thedas and make it into an open-world sandbox game, I.. actually think that sounds pretty awesome. I hope it happens. Dragon Age: Origins writing in a huge sandbox like Skyrim is actually my dream game. 

So Bioware attempting to hop onto Bethesda's coat-tails is something that has my full support. Anything but another Dragon Age 2, please.

[FirstWarden]

Yes, I agree DA should be an open-world sandbox game.

[LinksOcarina]

billy the squid wrote...

Sidney wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
As such why do such choices only extend to the above and not to others, which you have stated to be fluff? For if I play the role then what decision I take to equip myself with is the logical conclusion of decision making. In as much that those games which contain elements you have described as well as customization of equipment are not considered RPGs, then an RPG is not determined by the playing of a role predefined or not, if those games have this sole requirement which you asserted, but are still not considered RPGs such as Deus Ex HR.

Does it matter if you have a sword or mace? Does it change the game? There are a lot of weapons not even modeled in these games - where is my $%^& Halberd? Heck, to do a really good "dark ages fantasy" they could set up an age where you basically had spears, throwing axes and swords and you lose your "choice" becuase the world doesn't have other options.

In the end CoD lets you choose your weapons and that doesn't make it an RPG anymore than a few choices and character development makes Bioshock an RPG -although I think it is easy to tell which one (or DX) are closer to being RPG's.

Put another way you have:
1. Assasins Creed with full character customization, weapon selection but no character development or choice in the world.
2. DAO with no magic items and thus no reaosn to loot or change armor but everything else intact.

Which one is an RPG? Put on those tap shoes because you know #1 aint (because #1 is actually basically what AC is with the outfits and such) despite all those "RPG" elements you love while #2 clearly is an RPg depsite the loss of those same elements. It clairifies what is and isn't essential.

So is DA2 considered an RPG when the choices are rather superficial and generally irrelevant? Paticularly if choice is what is considered essential. When games like Deus EX HR are not, despite the character customisation and choices albeit more limited than something like TW2.

Nor have you addressed the point, that customisation being a logical conclusion to the premise of choice and character customisation, rather rendering things down to what is essential to allow it to function, which ignores the issue of it simply limiting characterisation along arbitrary lines.

I await your tap dancing as you avoided the question.

Ok, explain Borderlands and Dead Island then.

Both of the are RPGs due to skill progression, quest grinding, exploration and having a weak (see, WEAK) but some sort of tied story arc. Ironically enough, it is the weapons and upgrades that you need to collect to survive, making them both one of the few examples what you are talking about. 

Deus Ex is most definitly an RPG as well, because of the same mechanics; choosing how to deal with combat, choosing conversations with characters, skill progression, fighting tactics, etc. All of this is part and parcel with what an Role-Playing Game is. They are basically variants on what a console RPG is, just like Dragon Age II, just like other games like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest.

Lack of choice and customization means little for most console RPGs though because the focus is more on the storyline and progression through it, side quests and characterization. You know what you people call JRPGS (a really stupid term that needs to stop being used),basically this is what Dragon Age II is. Just like what Deus Ex , Dead Island, Borderlands and Mass Effect are, they are an RPG with a story followed in a linear progression by design. Your characters level up, you gain new skills and items, you learn new moves to progress through the said story, and you enjoy the experience. The only difference betweem them all is not just setting and mechanics, but also dynamics that make them different via design, such as drop-in/out multiplayer or cover-based shooting as the combat mechanics.

Now to the main point. Customization is a part of the experience because you can customize things to move forward, yes. It does give a degree of freedom and progress sometimes. But is it essential? The Wizardry games, and for that matter any Dungeon Crawler, followed the item customization tactic of equipping specific armor and weapons for your party depending on their strengths and classes and what not. If you have an elven rogue, you cant use a battle axe. Does that make it a bad RPG, losing that customization?

Or how about Chrono Trigger, one of the greast Console RPGS of all time. Only Crono can carry katanas and use very few magical spells, whereas Frog had the best sword in the game and weilded powerful magic to boot. Where is the customization there, other than moving a few equipment options around? It is not even necessary to do so at times; once you get the Masamune, no need to equip frog in anything else, hes done other than the godly armor you put on every character anyway.

And if you want to be blunt about it, there was little choices in what you did in these console RPGS anyway, other than how you go about it. Dragon Age II shines here; you can be a dick to people, but people will be dicks back. A give and take thanks to friendship/rivalry points and honestly,a better way of dealing with relationship dynamics than any "light/dark" side meter.  That tailors the characters to react to what you do, which we saw a bit in the dialogue progression in both Deus Ex, and Alpha Protocol. This is something sorely lacking in other games, especially if you want to play a role through how you act; in fact, this is more akin to computer RPGS than anything else.

So, yeah. They are all RPGs, but they are all different RPGs for different reasons. Trying to pidgeon-hole one aspect that makes them one is foolish, because a lot of games from the past have the same limitations, yet we have no qualms in calling them an RPG. It turns it into a straw mans argument then.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 29 décembre 2011 - 03:41 .

[Get Magna Carter]

I consider true RPGs to be the paper-and-pencil (and dice) version

videogame RPGs are defined by their similarity to these.
This can be done according to 2 core definitions

1) the characters ability is defined by the character's stats (enhanced by levelling up) rather than the player's ability to manipulate the controls

2) a significant part of the game is choices (either selected or freeform) which the player makes according to the personality of the character played (irrespective of the amount of effect the decisions have).
[Bioware games tend to have selected choices to different outcomes while Bethsheda mix selected with freeform choices which are more about players finding their own method of resolving a problem]

(It would take significant change from their normal design for Bioware to introduce freeform choice)

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 29 décembre 2011 - 07:38 .

[billy the squid]

LinksOcarina wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Sidney wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
As such why do such choices only extend to the above and not to others, which you have stated to be fluff? For if I play the role then what decision I take to equip myself with is the logical conclusion of decision making. In as much that those games which contain elements you have described as well as customization of equipment are not considered RPGs, then an RPG is not determined by the playing of a role predefined or not, if those games have this sole requirement which you asserted, but are still not considered RPGs such as Deus Ex HR.

Does it matter if you have a sword or mace? Does it change the game? There are a lot of weapons not even modeled in these games - where is my $%^& Halberd? Heck, to do a really good "dark ages fantasy" they could set up an age where you basically had spears, throwing axes and swords and you lose your "choice" becuase the world doesn't have other options.

In the end CoD lets you choose your weapons and that doesn't make it an RPG anymore than a few choices and character development makes Bioshock an RPG -although I think it is easy to tell which one (or DX) are closer to being RPG's.

Put another way you have:
1. Assasins Creed with full character customization, weapon selection but no character development or choice in the world.
2. DAO with no magic items and thus no reaosn to loot or change armor but everything else intact.

Which one is an RPG? Put on those tap shoes because you know #1 aint (because #1 is actually basically what AC is with the outfits and such) despite all those "RPG" elements you love while #2 clearly is an RPg depsite the loss of those same elements. It clairifies what is and isn't essential.

So is DA2 considered an RPG when the choices are rather superficial and generally irrelevant? Paticularly if choice is what is considered essential. When games like Deus EX HR are not, despite the character customisation and choices albeit more limited than something like TW2.

Nor have you addressed the point, that customisation being a logical conclusion to the premise of choice and character customisation, rather rendering things down to what is essential to allow it to function, which ignores the issue of it simply limiting characterisation along arbitrary lines.

I await your tap dancing as you avoided the question.

Ok, explain Borderlands and Dead Island then.

Both of the are RPGs due to skill progression, quest grinding, exploration and having a weak (see, WEAK) but some sort of tied story arc. Ironically enough, it is the weapons and upgrades that you need to collect to survive, making them both one of the few examples what you are talking about. 

Deus Ex is most definitly an RPG as well, because of the same mechanics; choosing how to deal with combat, choosing conversations with characters, skill progression, fighting tactics, etc. All of this is part and parcel with what an Role-Playing Game is. They are basically variants on what a console RPG is, just like Dragon Age II, just like other games like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest.

Lack of choice and customization means little for most console RPGs though because the focus is more on the storyline and progression through it, side quests and characterization. You know what you people call JRPGS (a really stupid term that needs to stop being used),basically this is what Dragon Age II is. Just like what Deus Ex , Dead Island, Borderlands and Mass Effect are, they are an RPG with a story followed in a linear progression by design. Your characters level up, you gain new skills and items, you learn new moves to progress through the said story, and you enjoy the experience. The only difference betweem them all is not just setting and mechanics, but also dynamics that make them different via design, such as drop-in/out multiplayer or cover-based shooting as the combat mechanics.

Now to the main point. Customization is a part of the experience because you can customize things to move forward, yes. It does give a degree of freedom and progress sometimes. But is it essential? The Wizardry games, and for that matter any Dungeon Crawler, followed the item customization tactic of equipping specific armor and weapons for your party depending on their strengths and classes and what not. If you have an elven rogue, you cant use a battle axe. Does that make it a bad RPG, losing that customization?

Or how about Chrono Trigger, one of the greast Console RPGS of all time. Only Crono can carry katanas and use very few magical spells, whereas Frog had the best sword in the game and weilded powerful magic to boot. Where is the customization there, other than moving a few equipment options around? It is not even necessary to do so at times; once you get the Masamune, no need to equip frog in anything else, hes done other than the godly armor you put on every character anyway.

And if you want to be blunt about it, there was little choices in what you did in these console RPGS anyway, other than how you go about it. Dragon Age II shines here; you can be a dick to people, but people will be dicks back. A give and take thanks to friendship/rivalry points and honestly,a better way of dealing with relationship dynamics than any "light/dark" side meter.  That tailors the characters to react to what you do, which we saw a bit in the dialogue progression in both Deus Ex, and Alpha Protocol. This is something sorely lacking in other games, especially if you want to play a role through how you act; in fact, this is more akin to computer RPGS than anything else.

So, yeah. They are all RPGs, but they are all different RPGs for different reasons. Trying to pidgeon-hole one aspect that makes them one is foolish, because a lot of games from the past have the same limitations, yet we have no qualms in calling them an RPG. It turns it into a straw mans argument then.

Missing the point.
 
The inital assertion by others has been that an RPG requires a choice and consequence determined by a player whether that character is customised or prdefined is unimportant. All other aspects are superfluous and "fluff". As I have stated Deus EX HR is termed as an FPS, but has many of the same aspects as an RPG, whilst as you have stated Borderlands is an RPG, but contains nothing in the form of choice and consequence, nor do many JRPGs.

Ipso facto following the line of logic that other posters established, not me, JRPGs and other games such as Borderlands are not RPGs, despite your assertion that they are, because they do not contain choice and consequence.

If they are RPGs as you assert then the inital postulation made by posters in my first paragraph is entirely irrelevant and further as I stated RPGs are determined by a myriad of features not an arbitrary determination as stated by Sidney. As such his point is unfounded and irrelevant as his reasoning is arbitrary.

So either choice and consequence is a requirement, but then it removes games such as Borderlands and calls into question things like DA2 due to its low level of choice and consequence points, despite it being called an RPG. Or as I have said, requirements are indeterminable, thus games such as Deus EX HR and DA2 are termed RPGs, yet then customisation and equipment cannot be termed as "fluff" as there is no determining factor in what takes presidence as a core aspect of RPGs.

So, we either adhere to the arbitrary line as some have claimed, which rules out games which you have said are RPGs. Or, as I stated aspects do not take presidence over one another, as such the arguemnt of an aspect being "fluff" is rendered pointless and the games you stated to be RPGs are now included.

Modifié par billy the squid, 29 décembre 2011 - 10:13 .

[macrocarl]

'BioWare co-founder Greg Zeschuk did promise that Dragon Age III will have "[t]he most realistic beards ever in videogames." <- OH YEAH!

[EpicBoot2daFace]

BioWare SHOULD be looking at Skyrim and hanging their heads in shame. Dragon age 2 was a ****ing disaster. After that, they need to bounce back and prove that the franhchise is still relevant with Dragon Age 3. They proved they could do it with Origins, so it's not a matter of them lacking talent or skill.

That said, BioWare really needs to stop being so ****ing pretentious and admit, at least to themselves, that they made a bad game. They care more about the Mass Effect franchise, and if that's the same attitude going into Dragon Age 3, it's going to fall flat on it's face again.

They have to commit to this franchise in order for it to be successful, and they seriously need to stop trying to be something they aren't. Nobody wants Dragon Effect, they want Dragon Age. Quit trying to be so ****ing hip and just make a game that kicks ass.

Skyrim has beem a huge success because the people behind the game love it so much, and that comes across when you play it. You can feel it. The game oozes with all the passion that was put into it during it's creation. That's something I felt when I played Origins. I didn't feel anything but a shallow husk of a game when I played Dragon Age 2. I could tell that the passion was gone and that the team just stopped loving the product somewhere along the line.

You're only as good as your last game.

[LarryFat]

Less trying to copy others.
More actual personality in the games.

Stop trying to make money and make good games instead.

[LinksOcarina]

billy the squid wrote....

Missing the point.
 
The inital assertion by others has been that an RPG requires a choice and consequence determined by a player whether that character is customised or prdefined is unimportant. All other aspects are superfluous and "fluff". As I have stated Deus EX HR is termed as an FPS, but has many of the same aspects as an RPG, whilst as you have stated Borderlands is an RPG, but contains nothing in the form of choice and consequence, nor do many JRPGs.

Ipso facto following the line of logic that other posters established, not me, JRPGs and other games such as Borderlands are not RPGs, despite your assertion that they are, because they do not contain choice and consequence.

If they are RPGs as you assert then the inital postulation made by posters in my first paragraph is entirely irrelevant and further as I stated RPGs are determined by a myriad of features not an arbitrary determination as stated by Sidney. As such his point is unfounded and irrelevant as his reasoning is arbitrary.

So either choice and consequence is a requirement, but then it removes games such as Borderlands and calls into question things like DA2 due to its low level of choice and consequence points, despite it being called an RPG. Or as I have said, requirements are indeterminable, thus games such as Deus EX HR and DA2 are termed RPGs, yet then customisation and equipment cannot be termed as "fluff" as there is no determining factor in what takes presidence as a core aspect of RPGs.

So, we either adhere to the arbitrary line as some have claimed, which rules out games which you have said are RPGs. Or, as I stated aspects do not take presidence over one another, as such the arguemnt of an aspect being "fluff" is rendered pointless and the games you stated to be RPGs are now included.

We have the same point, why are you arguing with me? 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

macrocarl wrote...

'BioWare co-founder Greg Zeschuk did promise that Dragon Age III will have "[t]he most realistic beards ever in videogames." <- OH YEAH!

I don't think realistic beards will make a **** game any better. It certainly wouldn't have saved DA2 from the firing squad.

[HiroVoid]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

'BioWare co-founder Greg Zeschuk did promise that Dragon Age III will have "[t]he most realistic beards ever in videogames." <- OH YEAH!

I don't think realistic beards will make a **** game any better. It certainly wouldn't have saved DA2 from the firing squad.

Heck yes!  We'll have beards flowing in the breeze with crumbs in it after eating!

[Addai]

Plaintiff wrote...
Skyrim is just as restrictive as DA2. In order to access specific perks within a skill tree, it requires you to be sufficiently "skilled" in that area (ie; to get the next perk in one-handed weapons, you have to use a one-handed weapon for a specific number of times, to access the next perk in the Block tree, you have to successfully block a certain number of attacks and so on).

Functionally, this is no different from DA2 requiring you to conciously spend skill points in a specific skill tree in order to access higher-tier abilities. The only difference is that DA2 requires you to think about what abilities you will use prior to selecting them, while Skyrim effectively makes the choice for you by tailoring your options specifically to your individual playstyle.

Arguably, DA2 could be considered the less restrictive of the two, because it allows you to purchase abilities you might never use, and further, allows you to choose whether or not to activate specific abilities, while perks in Skyrim are either automatic or occur based on a factor of random chance, with no input from the player at all.

*squints*  That's... completely backwards.  Skyrim does not limit you arbitrarily, it allows you complete freedom to choose what weapons and crafting skills you want to use, then levels you up on that basis, allowing you to improve them even more through the perks.  You're never asked at the beginning of the game what class you want to be, and then restricted to one or two weapons and perk trees.  If by chance you get tired of archery and want to use sword and shield instead, you're completely free to do that and the game responds immediately.  It's complete freedom of character building.  Even your racials don't limit your class.  I'm thinking of making an orc mage.  Guess what?  I can do that and no one can stop me.

The example I used earlier- and i don't think anyone addressed it, or else I missed it- was the fact that my preferred playstyle is a spellsword.  Tell me how I could build a spellsword in DA2.

Modifié par Addai67, 30 décembre 2011 - 12:07 .

[AlexXIV]

Addai67 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Skyrim is just as restrictive as DA2. In order to access specific perks within a skill tree, it requires you to be sufficiently "skilled" in that area (ie; to get the next perk in one-handed weapons, you have to use a one-handed weapon for a specific number of times, to access the next perk in the Block tree, you have to successfully block a certain number of attacks and so on).

Functionally, this is no different from DA2 requiring you to conciously spend skill points in a specific skill tree in order to access higher-tier abilities. The only difference is that DA2 requires you to think about what abilities you will use prior to selecting them, while Skyrim effectively makes the choice for you by tailoring your options specifically to your individual playstyle.

Arguably, DA2 could be considered the less restrictive of the two, because it allows you to purchase abilities you might never use, and further, allows you to choose whether or not to activate specific abilities, while perks in Skyrim are either automatic or occur based on a factor of random chance, with no input from the player at all.

*squints*  That's... completely backwards.  Skyrim does not limit you arbitrarily, it allows you complete freedom to choose what weapons and crafting skills you want to use, then levels you up on that basis, allowing you to improve them even more through the perks.  You're never asked at the beginning of the game what class you want to be, and then restricted to one or two weapons and perk trees.  If by chance you get tired of archery and want to use sword and shield instead, you're completely free to do that and the game responds immediately.  It's complete freedom of character building.  Even your racials don't limit your class.  I'm thinking of making an orc mage.  Guess what?  I can do that and no one can stop me.

The example I used earlier- and i don't think anyone addressed it, or else I missed it- was the fact that my preferred playstyle is a spellsword.  Tell me how I could build a spellsword in DA2.

Arcane Warrior! No wait ...

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Addai67 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Skyrim is just as restrictive as DA2. In order to access specific perks within a skill tree, it requires you to be sufficiently "skilled" in that area (ie; to get the next perk in one-handed weapons, you have to use a one-handed weapon for a specific number of times, to access the next perk in the Block tree, you have to successfully block a certain number of attacks and so on).

Functionally, this is no different from DA2 requiring you to conciously spend skill points in a specific skill tree in order to access higher-tier abilities. The only difference is that DA2 requires you to think about what abilities you will use prior to selecting them, while Skyrim effectively makes the choice for you by tailoring your options specifically to your individual playstyle.

Arguably, DA2 could be considered the less restrictive of the two, because it allows you to purchase abilities you might never use, and further, allows you to choose whether or not to activate specific abilities, while perks in Skyrim are either automatic or occur based on a factor of random chance, with no input from the player at all.

*squints*  That's... completely backwards.  Skyrim does not limit you arbitrarily, it allows you complete freedom to choose what weapons and crafting skills you want to use, then levels you up on that basis, allowing you to improve them even more through the perks.  You're never asked at the beginning of the game what class you want to be, and then restricted to one or two weapons and perk trees.  If by chance you get tired of archery and want to use sword and shield instead, you're completely free to do that and the game responds immediately.  It's complete freedom of character building.  Even your racials don't limit your class.  I'm thinking of making an orc mage.  Guess what?  I can do that and no one can stop me.

The example I used earlier- and i don't think anyone addressed it, or else I missed it- was the fact that my preferred playstyle is a spellsword.  Tell me how I could build a spellsword in DA2.

+10 approval.
I can be a commoner who earn my living as an honest woodcutter and progressively become a noble knight and a thane riding my black horse through the glorious evening. At the same time, I can be a dangerous assassin walking in shadow and stealthy hunting my unsuspicious prey, Victoria Vicci during her wedding night with my left hand prepare to cast invisibility spell. It's such a marvellous sight as I struck her heart with my own crafted poisoned arrows, completely shocked everyone else. The same noble knight hurriedly creeps into the shadow completely invisible as the night fade with tears and screams. 

Ah! nothing beats the freedom of open world and free build character.

 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 30 décembre 2011 - 02:16 .

[kiiwaan]

 i think dragon age should have a bigger world but if ur going to take things from skyrim dont take the mini map the mini map in the the da series is my personal favorite map type tunnels are easyer to navigate and lets u know where the enemy is. very important. i love skyrim too i watched g4's xplay do the game of the year special at the edge of my seat watching for skyrim to win and when it did i went insane

[Sidney]

Addai67 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Skyrim is just as restrictive as DA2. In order to access specific perks within a skill tree, it requires you to be sufficiently "skilled" in that area (ie; to get the next perk in one-handed weapons, you have to use a one-handed weapon for a specific number of times, to access the next perk in the Block tree, you have to successfully block a certain number of attacks and so on).

Functionally, this is no different from DA2 requiring you to conciously spend skill points in a specific skill tree in order to access higher-tier abilities. The only difference is that DA2 requires you to think about what abilities you will use prior to selecting them, while Skyrim effectively makes the choice for you by tailoring your options specifically to your individual playstyle.

Arguably, DA2 could be considered the less restrictive of the two, because it allows you to purchase abilities you might never use, and further, allows you to choose whether or not to activate specific abilities, while perks in Skyrim are either automatic or occur based on a factor of random chance, with no input from the player at all.

*squints*  That's... completely backwards.  Skyrim does not limit you arbitrarily, it allows you complete freedom to choose what weapons and crafting skills you want to use, then levels you up on that basis, allowing you to improve them even more through the perks.  You're never asked at the beginning of the game what class you want to be, and then restricted to one or two weapons and perk trees.  If by chance you get tired of archery and want to use sword and shield instead, you're completely free to do that and the game responds immediately.  It's complete freedom of character building.  Even your racials don't limit your class.  I'm thinking of making an orc mage.  Guess what?  I can do that and no one can stop me.

The example I used earlier- and i don't think anyone addressed it, or else I missed it- was the fact that my preferred playstyle is a spellsword.  Tell me how I could build a spellsword in DA2.

Skyrim's problem isn't that you can't build things it is the WAY you have to build that sucks. Crafting skills all require metagaming. There is no way to level up smithing or enchanting in game based on crafting what you need - you just won't ever craft enough items. You have to go all assembly line to pump them up so you can build that ebony sword or dragon armor. There are entire schools of magic (Restoration/ Alteration) that really can't be leveled properly w/o cheese. Even Conjuration requires the stupidity of levelling by casting your summons AFTER you enter combat as opposed to before it. - well you can cast before but leveling is epically slower.

Plus, to get back on topic for all the whining about Sword Saints and Spell Sword you poeple really do role play job descriptions and not characters.

[Sidney]

kiiwaan wrote...

 i think dragon age should have a bigger world but if ur going to take things from skyrim dont take the mini map the mini map in the the da series is my personal favorite map type tunnels are easyer to navigate and lets u know where the enemy is. very important. i love skyrim too i watched g4's xplay do the game of the year special at the edge of my seat watching for skyrim to win and when it did i went insane

The local map is awful. It is marginally better than the FO/NV pip boy nightmare but basically in a building it shows you have a square blob and you are in that blob somewhere. 

The world map is flipping gorgeous but for pure functionally I wish it would show roads on it.

[Meris]

FirstWarden wrote...

Yes, I agree DA should be an open-world sandbox game.

I prefer the Baldur's Gate way of doing it (open world, though not a sandbox), though one sorely needed upgrade would be not to explore 20 areas of green meadows. Imagine Ferelden if there were many more areas of note to visit.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sidney wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Skyrim is just as restrictive as DA2. In order to access specific perks within a skill tree, it requires you to be sufficiently "skilled" in that area (ie; to get the next perk in one-handed weapons, you have to use a one-handed weapon for a specific number of times, to access the next perk in the Block tree, you have to successfully block a certain number of attacks and so on).

Functionally, this is no different from DA2 requiring you to conciously spend skill points in a specific skill tree in order to access higher-tier abilities. The only difference is that DA2 requires you to think about what abilities you will use prior to selecting them, while Skyrim effectively makes the choice for you by tailoring your options specifically to your individual playstyle.

Arguably, DA2 could be considered the less restrictive of the two, because it allows you to purchase abilities you might never use, and further, allows you to choose whether or not to activate specific abilities, while perks in Skyrim are either automatic or occur based on a factor of random chance, with no input from the player at all.

*squints*  That's... completely backwards.  Skyrim does not limit you arbitrarily, it allows you complete freedom to choose what weapons and crafting skills you want to use, then levels you up on that basis, allowing you to improve them even more through the perks.  You're never asked at the beginning of the game what class you want to be, and then restricted to one or two weapons and perk trees.  If by chance you get tired of archery and want to use sword and shield instead, you're completely free to do that and the game responds immediately.  It's complete freedom of character building.  Even your racials don't limit your class.  I'm thinking of making an orc mage.  Guess what?  I can do that and no one can stop me.

The example I used earlier- and i don't think anyone addressed it, or else I missed it- was the fact that my preferred playstyle is a spellsword.  Tell me how I could build a spellsword in DA2.

Skyrim's problem isn't that you can't build things it is the WAY you have to build that sucks. Crafting skills all require metagaming. There is no way to level up smithing or enchanting in game based on crafting what you need - you just won't ever craft enough items.

And you expect to become a master  smithing by just crafting what you need? Where's the fun in it? A master blacksmith never craft what he needs only either. He craft to sell for living and with patient and time he earns his skill. So how is it metagaming? If you don't enjoy crafting anything beyond your need, you just can buy your equipment. or am I missing anything? 

Sidney wrote...

You have to go all assembly line to pump them up so you can build that ebony sword or dragon armor.

I think Skyrim's assembly line is already way too easy. I prefer more detail in manufacturing process to craft completely flexible new design armor and weapon. But that just me. I miss Diablo's complex crafting process.

Sidney wrote...

Plus, to get back on topic for all the whining about Sword Saints and Spell Sword you poeple really do role play job descriptions and not characters.

Would you care to elaborate? I'm not sure I can understand? So you are saying Spellsword's character shouldn't be able to cast spell and carrying swords at the same time? Because of what?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 30 décembre 2011 - 03:36 .

[Sidney]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I think Skyrim's assembly line is already way too easy. I prefer more detail in manufacturing process to craft completely flexible new design armor and weapon. But that just me. I miss Diablo's complex crafting process.

Would you care to elaborate? I'm not sure I can understand? So you are saying Spellsword's character shouldn't be able to cast spell and carrying swords at the same time? Because of what?

Assembly line is easy...boring is the bigger problem and the fact that it isn't really part of the game world. Not sure why the guy trying to save the world spendings all his time pumping out iron daggers but, well, he does. In a world of games filled with side quests that border on insane given the "main" threat crafting is off the charts.

I don't really care about character classes per se. This fascination with job titles bores me. I don't care if I can't be a Sword Saint or Spell Sword or Mace Sneaker or Fireball Picker or whatever because those are functions. I want to develop a character and that isn't about assigning points to skills it is about having a character that is more than the sum of his skill points.  I can tell you, for example, a lot about my Skyrim characters skills I can't tell you much of anything about what sort of person he is.

[Meris]

Sidney wrote...
Not sure why the guy trying to save the world spendings all his time pumping out iron daggers but, well, he does.

One of the provinces of roleplaying is, at times (especially in games with less guided story cohesion, like open world sandboxes), to specify the drive behind the actions of your character.

[snfonseka]

Let's hope BW won't take the following from Skyrim to DA3

1. Below average level AI for NPC (including companions and emphasis on companions).
2. Emotionless NPCs.
3. Below average, main quest storyline.

Definitely hope for the following from Skyrim to DA3.

1. Open ended huge world.
2. Ability to craft our own armor and weapons.
3. Guild/ Faction base quests and separate storylines for them.
4. Ability to buy houses and decorate them.
5. Mini sidequests.

[Meris]

snfonseka wrote...

Let's hope BW won't take the following from Skyrim to DA3

1. Below average level AI for NPC (including companions and emphasis on companions).
2. Emotionless NPCs.
3. Below average, main quest storyline.

Definitely hope for the following from Skyrim to DA3.

1. Open ended huge world.
2. Ability to craft our own armor and weapons.
3. Guild/ Faction base quests and separate storylines for them.
4. Ability to buy houses and decorate them.
5. Mini sidequests.

May I add a long development cycle to the list of desirables?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

[quote]Sidney wrote...


Assembly line is easy...boring is the bigger problem and the fact that it isn't really part of the game world. Not sure why the guy trying to save the world spendings all his time pumping out iron daggers but, well, he does. In a world of games filled with side quests that border on insane given the "main" threat crafting is off the charts.

 I don't really care about character classes per se. This fascination with job titles bores me. I don't care if I can't be a Sword Saint or Spell Sword or Mace Sneaker or Fireball Picker or whatever because those are functions. I want to develop a character and that isn't about assigning points to skills it is about having a character that is more than the sum of his skill points.  I can tell you, for example, a lot about my Skyrim characters skills I can't tell you much of anything about what sort of person he is.[/quote] 
[/quote]
Ah... I see. Thank you. You are right about wasting time trying to make ebony or dragon armor while you have the urgency to save the world. It does make no sense.

Well for me... my character story in Skyrim is not about saving the world. In my first playthrough as Imperial, yes I complete all main and all guild quest be Bard, Mage, Thieves, Dark Brotherhood or Companions quest. Due to urgency to save the world from Aduin, I didn't pay much attention to developing skill I don't need which is essential to main quest, just like you did. I mainly used equipment I loot and rarely bother about enchanting or crafting. Sometimes I just bought my potions from shops. All this is to get myself familiar with the world, to understand how the world works. More like a tutorial with saving the world as primary guide. But that's about it. If you gather your role-playing experience solely from this "tutorial", yes a lot of thing have no reason and motivation to do. You are correct in that sense.

But that's about it. The real fun is when you start making your own story without having to rely on main quest anymore. Think of what kind of story you want to make starting from Helgen.  Stop thinking about saving the world. You already did that in your "tutorial". You don't need it anymore. Just take your time to live in that world. Ask yourself how do you live in that world? What are you going to do? What kind of person your character would be?

I just give you example of my basic story and character. My character is a woodcutter who work his way to nobility by doing side quest from city to city. His motivation is to own a house and to be recognized by Skyrim's people. His main story is about his life as a righteous noble knight riding black horse with sword and shield, a typical classic knight at day but a deadly assassin archer at night. Think about Peter Parker in Spiderman or Bruce Wayne in Batman. That's my character. 

In your encounters you will see dragons attacking towns and Greybeards calling for you, "Dovahkiin!" But ignore that. You already did in that your "tutorial" Just take your time and learn everything that you could possibly miss in your "tutorial" If you do this you will find all the reasons to do what you want to  do including crafting useless equipment.

Everything is solely up to you. That's why it's open world.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 30 décembre 2011 - 04:37 .