174 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

I think Ego Draconis is a better example of how Bioware might expand maps but still keep narrative focus.  It's something that game did very well.

Modifié par slimgrin, 24 décembre 2011 - 07:57 .

[Il Divo]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Chuck_Vu wrote...

The Player decides the Player Character does, and who he/she is that makes it role playing, not the Devs or GMs.  In order to make a good RPG software devs or GM (for those of us who play pen and paper RPGs)  are supposed to provide the backdrop and enviroment and allow us to interact with it.  The more choices you take away, the less it becomes an RPG and the more it becomes like a Quick Time Event Game (with a premade character that we had no choice over, and there is only one path/corrider to advance - Dragon's Lair anyone?)  When you remove all choices it is a movie or tv show where we are watching and not participating at all.

 

The issue I have with games such as Skyrim is the lack of choices and the constant feeling that my character is a spectator instead of actively participating in the game world. Choices didn't have any real impact which is a shame because it would be quite easy to implement. For example:

The Companions are the warrior guild, they favor melee and dislike magic, yet you can complete their entire quest line as a pure mage who never uses a melee weapon. That, imho, almost completely defeats the purpose of "role-playing". Someone without any magical capabilities can also melee-fight their way through the College of Winterhold quest line. That ain't right. It would be much better, "role-playing"-wise, to force the player to "act" like one of those guilds > joining the Companions would force you to fight and behave like one (i.e. using melee in combat; too much magic or frequent sneak-attacks would get you expelled - that ain't the way of the Companions

Why not have the option to betray the Companions and side with the Silver Hand and wipe out those werewolves?

Simple stuff like that would greatly enhance my RP experience and it would be a great way to improve replayability. In my Skyim playthrough my character became a Jack of All Trades Who Mastered Them All (a common issue with Bethesda games). I never had to chose whether I wanted to create a Thief, Assassin, Paladin, Battle Mage or whatever. A second playthrough offers little value since everything will go exactly like the first time.

Agreed. Much as I love 'em, lack of reactivity in TES games can become frustrating.

[Elhanan]

Ringo12 wrote...

It's stupid that Hawke doesn't have any problems using magic even at the beginning of DA2 infront of Templars. If the story wasn't all about the Templar and Mage situation and how it escalates I could forgive it but it's much worse than anything Oblivion or Skyrim failed to acknowledge.

Being elected as the Archmage of the College of Magic with little knowlefge of spells comes to mind. At least DA2 had some IG reasoning for this Fog of War. My archer kept looking around thinking, "Me wabba who?"....

[Addai]

Il Divo wrote...

No, you're not getting it. Dragon Age 2 specifically deals with these various conflicts in the city of Kirkwall. That comprises the central narrative. The Qunariy, Chantry, Mages, Templars, Viscount, etc, occupy various political and military factions which the player has encounters with as they fight for power. Choosing to join a faction doesn't make a storyline political. There is actual political development in Dragon Age II. The narrative has focus, because the player is generally expected to complete the main quest, which requires dealing with these various factions.

Skyrim's faction quests are purely military; the player doesn't deal with the political aspect. A political plot requires political plot development. Skyrim doesn't have this, hence why it's a political setting.
 

I can agree with this if you weren't positively comparing it to DA2.

My first Skyrim PC I had intended to be a politically engaged Stormcloak, and I was disappointed that she did not get to do some of the political objectives I had in mind- things like improving the Grey Quarter in Windhelm to recruit Dunmer as Stormcloaks, or brokering a peace with the Forsworn, or helping to sway neutral jarls into turning on the empire.  There was also no political reward for her position.  I had been hoping you would be appointed jarl of Solitude, or at least given an advisory position in Ulfric's court.

However, Hawke also had NO political engagement at all.  The Viscount appointment was meaningless.  You couldn't go in and wipe out the mage underground, or join them and infiltrate the templars.  Hawke is a messenger boy and thug, and that's all.  And the setting is so much better in Skyrim than DA2 that at least I felt engaged in the events.  I really could have cared less if all Kirkwall burned- it was entirely populated by freaks and there wasn't a single competent person in charge, nor any meaningful reason except plot constraint for them to do what they do.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 décembre 2011 - 12:49 .

[Addai]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

The issue I have with games such as Skyrim is the lack of choices and the constant feeling that my character is a spectator instead of actively participating in the game world. Choices didn't have any real impact which is a shame because it would be quite easy to implement. For example:

The Companions are the warrior guild, they favor melee and dislike magic, yet you can complete their entire quest line as a pure mage who never uses a melee weapon. That, imho, almost completely defeats the purpose of "role-playing". Someone without any magical capabilities can also melee-fight their way through the College of Winterhold quest line. That ain't right. It would be much better, "role-playing"-wise, to force the player to "act" like one of those guilds > joining the Companions would force you to fight and behave like one (i.e. using melee in combat; too much magic or frequent sneak-attacks would get you expelled - that ain't the way of the Companions

No, no, no... what you are asking for is for Bethesda to restrict players into rigid classes and that is what everyone else is doing.  You aren't told to hit the road by the Companions because you should be able to have the freedom to make a spellsword character.  You can become archmage by muscle and clout even if you aren't a powerful spellcaster.  If those things break your game, then it's up to the player to restrict himself for roleplay purposes.

[HoonDing]

Elhanan wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

It's stupid that Hawke doesn't have any problems using magic even at the beginning of DA2 infront of Templars. If the story wasn't all about the Templar and Mage situation and how it escalates I could forgive it but it's much worse than anything Oblivion or Skyrim failed to acknowledge.

Being elected as the Archmage of the College of Magic with little knowlefge of spells comes to mind. At least DA2 had some IG reasoning for this Fog of War. My archer kept looking around thinking, "Me wabba who?"....

It's a suitable reward for saving the world. Also, being Archmage doesn't necessarily imply skill. In Morrowind, for instance, the ruling Archmage was a dunce.

[Brockololly]

Addai67 wrote...
No, no, no... what you are asking for is for Bethesda to restrict players into rigid classes and that is what everyone else is doing.  You aren't told to hit the road by the Companions because you should be able to have the freedom to make a spellsword character.  You can become archmage by muscle and clout even if you aren't a powerful spellcaster.  If those things break your game, then it's up to the player to restrict himself for roleplay purposes.

While I pretty much agree with what you said (put some RP limitations on yourself if the freedom bugs you that much) I wish you didn't become THE top guy in all of these guilds. I mean, it feels a little goofy how in each instance you end up as Archmage/ leader of the Companions/ Listener of the Dark Brotherhood. And then you're running around Skyrim in charge of all these organizations.

You can obviously limit yourself for RP reasons, but I think I might have liked it if you could only become the top guy if you had certain stats at certain levels maybe, like only being able to be Archmage if you had actually invested in magic to some minimal level. Otherwise, you can maybe suggest an NPC to lead the organization instead of your PC becoming the leader. Hell, I'd have liked the option to nominate an NPC to be the leader anyway.

[Tommy6860]

Elhanan wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

It's stupid that Hawke doesn't have any problems using magic even at the beginning of DA2 infront of Templars. If the story wasn't all about the Templar and Mage situation and how it escalates I could forgive it but it's much worse than anything Oblivion or Skyrim failed to acknowledge.

Being elected as the Archmage of the College of Magic with little knowlefge of spells comes to mind. At least DA2 had some IG reasoning for this Fog of War. My archer kept looking around thinking, "Me wabba who?"....

What reasoning was that? Didn't the the city guard all but say to Hawke and her/his crew before entering the gallows for the first time to find Gamlen, they (the Templars) lock up mages (the new Circle of the Magi?)? Yet, when trying to bribe the other guard to get into the city proper, another group of desperate entrants gets pissed that Hawke gets consideration to get in whie they get no consideration,  and a fight ensues. My Hawke (IIRC) was a mage, and I wasn't carted off. There is no FoW, just bad scritping and reaction input. Hell even the guard, after saving his butt, didn't comment to me about my class or even offer a warning to be careful.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 25 décembre 2011 - 01:35 .

[Tommy6860]

Brockololly wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
No, no, no... what you are asking for is for Bethesda to restrict players into rigid classes and that is what everyone else is doing.  You aren't told to hit the road by the Companions because you should be able to have the freedom to make a spellsword character.  You can become archmage by muscle and clout even if you aren't a powerful spellcaster.  If those things break your game, then it's up to the player to restrict himself for roleplay purposes.

While I pretty much agree with what you said (put some RP limitations on yourself if the freedom bugs you that much) I wish you didn't become THE top guy in all of these guilds. I mean, it feels a little goofy how in each instance you end up as Archmage/ leader of the Companions/ Listener of the Dark Brotherhood. And then you're running around Skyrim in charge of all these organizations.

You can obviously limit yourself for RP reasons, but I think I might have liked it if you could only become the top guy if you had certain stats at certain levels maybe, like only being able to be Archmage if you had actually invested in magic to some minimal level. Otherwise, you can maybe suggest an NPC to lead the organization instead of your PC becoming the leader. Hell, I'd have liked the option to nominate an NPC to be the leader anyway.

This I really agree with. I've only started and completed one of the guild quests,  the DB. I really was disappointed in the plot(s) involved in the quest, though the quest wasn't bad to do. Even without having taken a side in the civil war aspect, I get attacked for being the Listener now for the transgressions I committed in completing the quest. I should be at least able to talk my way out of attacks, considring how high my speech level is, but oh well. Reading what other have experienced in playing out the guild quests, I am waiting for the CK to come out, as I don't want to play too much more.

[Elhanan]

Tommy6860 wrote...

What reasoning was that? Didn't the the city guard all but say to Hawke and her/his crew before entering the gallows for the first time to find Gamlen, state they lock up mages (the new Circle of the Magi?)? Yet, when trying to bribe the other guard to get into the city proper, another group of desperate entrants gets pissed that Hawke gets consideration to get in, while they don't and a fight ensues. My Hawke (IIRC) was a mage, and I wasn't carted off. There is no FoW, just bad scritping and reaction input. Hell even the guard, after saving his butt, didn't comment to me about my class or even offer a warning to be careful.

Thru the course of DA2, one sees evidence of the shroud of the Veil clouding the eyes and senses of those in the area of Kirkwall concerning Magic. In Kirkwall, Sundermount, and the Wounded Coast there are references and dialogue indicating that powerful forces help mask those with close ties to the Fade.

One such example is when going to deliver the artifact for Flemeth, and meeting Merrill for the first time. Hawke and perhaps Bethany are both taken by surprise when Merrill uses magic initially. And things continue to become more obscure over the remainder of the game. This was not the case when escaping Lothering, and the weakened Veil in Kirwall made such manipulations possible.

Play it again and look for yourselves; just do not expect to be clubbed over the head with any one entry from the Codex or like anything.

[Russalka]

That seems like a bit of a stretch to me, Elhanan. It was probably more of a plot hole to save time and resources.

I did enjoy the slightly different storyline as a mage and the special moves and some dialogue to go with magehood in Dragon Age 2. It was not all bad.

[Kabanya101]

Time to get everything straight:

1. The developers of Dragon Age were checking out Skyrim. That does not mean they will steal any ideas or copy anything.

2. There will not be multiplayer.
           A. When EA sees the disaster that will come with ME3, they will stop it
           B. How are you going to add MP/Co-op? Only possibility would  be to play as companion

3. The sequel will be mainly copied off of Origins and not DA2.


DA2 was a complete disaster. The only thing that was improved in DA2 was the battle animations for the mage and the updated graphics. Some characters were good, but mostly missing depth.

[Chuck_Vu]

Brockololly wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
No, no, no... what you are asking for is for Bethesda to restrict players into rigid classes and that is what everyone else is doing.  You aren't told to hit the road by the Companions because you should be able to have the freedom to make a spellsword character.  You can become archmage by muscle and clout even if you aren't a powerful spellcaster.  If those things break your game, then it's up to the player to restrict himself for roleplay purposes.

While I pretty much agree with what you said (put some RP limitations on yourself if the freedom bugs you that much) I wish you didn't become THE top guy in all of these guilds. I mean, it feels a little goofy how in each instance you end up as Archmage/ leader of the Companions/ Listener of the Dark Brotherhood. And then you're running around Skyrim in charge of all these organizations.

You can obviously limit yourself for RP reasons, but I think I might have liked it if you could only become the top guy if you had certain stats at certain levels maybe, like only being able to be Archmage if you had actually invested in magic to some minimal level. Otherwise, you can maybe suggest an NPC to lead the organization instead of your PC becoming the leader. Hell, I'd have liked the option to nominate an NPC to be the leader anyway.

That's kinda my point, role playing is not what you as the player can do, but what your character would do.  If you feel your character wouldn't do something because it would be out of character, then don't do it. 

And as far as the doing the Companions/Mages College storyline contrary to that factions style, it's kinda ok with me, because in Oblivion, there was this chick who was the leader of the local mages guild chapter/charter house in Bruma (I think it was Bruma), her subordinates disrespected her because she couldn't cast her way out of a paper bag.  And in real life, there are numerous occasions where someone is appointed to an important position through nepotism/the good old boy network, and is obviously not qualified for it.  It happens.  It would be nice for the npc of either faction to call your character out on this if this happens to him/her. 

I think what we are all asking for is a greater sense of in game world continuity, for all games.

BTW Rainbow Six Vegas 2, has a limited character creator, various weapons and armor (with stats), and a leveling system.  Does it qualify as an RPG?

[Elhanan]

Russalka wrote...

That seems like a bit of a stretch to me, Elhanan. It was probably more of a plot hole to save time and resources.

I did enjoy the slightly different storyline as a mage and the special moves and some dialogue to go with magehood in Dragon Age 2. It was not all bad.

While it has been a little while since playing, I believe after arriving at Kirkwall, Anders may be the only one to sense magic with some accuracy.

* Hawke is surprised by Merrill.

* Fenris is surprised he did not notice that Hawke or Bethany were mages.

* Bethany does not detect magic initially on the Blood Mage in The Blooming Rose.

* NPC's mention surprise, or Hawke must announce having magic.

* Etc.

May be Codex and other like entries too; uncertain as I do not usually read these.

[LobselVith8]

Brockololly,

Almost all Elder Scroll games have provided the opportunity for the protagonist to earn some position of authority in a guild. It's part of the structure of the games - the protagonist can rise to power within the world of Nirn and his (or her) respective guild. Also, the Companions have no leader, only an advisor - not since the original Companions over five thousand years prior has there been a proper leader for the Companions.

[Tommy6860]

Chuck_Vu wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
No, no, no... what you are asking for is for Bethesda to restrict players into rigid classes and that is what everyone else is doing.  You aren't told to hit the road by the Companions because you should be able to have the freedom to make a spellsword character.  You can become archmage by muscle and clout even if you aren't a powerful spellcaster.  If those things break your game, then it's up to the player to restrict himself for roleplay purposes.

While I pretty much agree with what you said (put some RP limitations on yourself if the freedom bugs you that much) I wish you didn't become THE top guy in all of these guilds. I mean, it feels a little goofy how in each instance you end up as Archmage/ leader of the Companions/ Listener of the Dark Brotherhood. And then you're running around Skyrim in charge of all these organizations.

You can obviously limit yourself for RP reasons, but I think I might have liked it if you could only become the top guy if you had certain stats at certain levels maybe, like only being able to be Archmage if you had actually invested in magic to some minimal level. Otherwise, you can maybe suggest an NPC to lead the organization instead of your PC becoming the leader. Hell, I'd have liked the option to nominate an NPC to be the leader anyway.

That's kinda my point, role playing is not what you as the player can do, but what your character would do.  If you feel your character wouldn't do something because it would be out of character, then don't do it. 

And as far as the doing the Companions/Mages College storyline contrary to that factions style, it's kinda ok with me, because in Oblivion, there was this chick who was the leader of the local mages guild chapter/charter house in Bruma (I think it was Bruma), her subordinates disrespected her because she couldn't cast her way out of a paper bag.  And in real life, there are numerous occasions where someone is appointed to an important position through nepotism/the good old boy network, and is obviously not qualified for it.  It happens.  It would be nice for the npc of either faction to call your character out on this if this happens to him/her. 

I think what we are all asking for is a greater sense of in game world continuity, for all games.

That's a pretty funny analogy regarding the Bruma Mages Gulld leader, as she really couldn't cast her way out of a paper bag. The whole Guild except for one was wiped out by the fiends of Mannimarco in The Order of the Black Worm..

BTW Rainbow Six Vegas 2, has a limited character creator, various weapons and armor (with stats), and a leveling system.  Does it qualify as an RPG?

You missed the point. Even when you build your class in RSV2 (or any customizable shooter character development), you don't get to set the game plots and convos up to match who you are set up in class. In RSV, it just is what it is. If you could be a janitor in the customization room, the game would still play the same, that's to be expected when you select a setup in a typical shooter. But in RPGs, like Skyrim, they are suppsoed to reflect that in the game plots and with NPC/ambient conversations. For the most part in Skyrim, it does reflect that, though poorly at times.

[Tommy6860]

Elhanan wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

What reasoning was that? Didn't the the city guard all but say to Hawke and her/his crew before entering the gallows for the first time to find Gamlen, state they lock up mages (the new Circle of the Magi?)? Yet, when trying to bribe the other guard to get into the city proper, another group of desperate entrants gets pissed that Hawke gets consideration to get in, while they don't and a fight ensues. My Hawke (IIRC) was a mage, and I wasn't carted off. There is no FoW, just bad scritping and reaction input. Hell even the guard, after saving his butt, didn't comment to me about my class or even offer a warning to be careful.

Thru the course of DA2, one sees evidence of the shroud of the Veil clouding the eyes and senses of those in the area of Kirkwall concerning Magic. In Kirkwall, Sundermount, and the Wounded Coast there are references and dialogue indicating that powerful forces help mask those with close ties to the Fade.

One such example is when going to deliver the artifact for Flemeth, and meeting Merrill for the first time. Hawke and perhaps Bethany are both taken by surprise when Merrill uses magic initially. And things continue to become more obscure over the remainder of the game. This was not the case when escaping Lothering, and the weakened Veil in Kirwall made such manipulations possible.

Play it again and look for yourselves; just do not expect to be clubbed over the head with any one entry from the Codex or like anything.

Well, you can make up anything you want using that thinking, in spite of the fact of my previous point. Even then I was comparing to Skyrim. I don't want to get into yet another war of words with the DA2 Defense Force.

[Zanallen]

Kabanya101 wrote...

Time to get everything straight:

1. The developers of Dragon Age were checking out Skyrim. That does not mean they will steal any ideas or copy anything.

2. There will not be multiplayer.
           A. When EA sees the disaster that will come with ME3, they will stop it
           B. How are you going to add MP/Co-op? Only possibility would  be to play as companion

3. The sequel will be mainly copied off of Origins and not DA2.


DA2 was a complete disaster. The only thing that was improved in DA2 was the battle animations for the mage and the updated graphics. Some characters were good, but mostly missing depth.

1. I agree.

2. If ME3 performs poorly, it won't be because the the MP. Thus, there is a good chance DA3 will have MP. I would prefer a Gauntlet style MP mode, but it will probably be some sort of arena mode.

3. Everything we know about DA3, which admitedly isn't much, points to the opposite. The PC will most likely still be voiced, the art style won't be changing, the companions will still have iconic outfits, the combat will probably be the same with slight tweak and we might get less or at least better presented waves.

[Chuck_Vu]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Chuck_Vu wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
No, no, no... what you are asking for is for Bethesda to restrict players into rigid classes and that is what everyone else is doing.  You aren't told to hit the road by the Companions because you should be able to have the freedom to make a spellsword character.  You can become archmage by muscle and clout even if you aren't a powerful spellcaster.  If those things break your game, then it's up to the player to restrict himself for roleplay purposes.

While I pretty much agree with what you said (put some RP limitations on yourself if the freedom bugs you that much) I wish you didn't become THE top guy in all of these guilds. I mean, it feels a little goofy how in each instance you end up as Archmage/ leader of the Companions/ Listener of the Dark Brotherhood. And then you're running around Skyrim in charge of all these organizations.

You can obviously limit yourself for RP reasons, but I think I might have liked it if you could only become the top guy if you had certain stats at certain levels maybe, like only being able to be Archmage if you had actually invested in magic to some minimal level. Otherwise, you can maybe suggest an NPC to lead the organization instead of your PC becoming the leader. Hell, I'd have liked the option to nominate an NPC to be the leader anyway.

That's kinda my point, role playing is not what you as the player can do, but what your character would do.  If you feel your character wouldn't do something because it would be out of character, then don't do it. 

And as far as the doing the Companions/Mages College storyline contrary to that factions style, it's kinda ok with me, because in Oblivion, there was this chick who was the leader of the local mages guild chapter/charter house in Bruma (I think it was Bruma), her subordinates disrespected her because she couldn't cast her way out of a paper bag.  And in real life, there are numerous occasions where someone is appointed to an important position through nepotism/the good old boy network, and is obviously not qualified for it.  It happens.  It would be nice for the npc of either faction to call your character out on this if this happens to him/her. 

I think what we are all asking for is a greater sense of in game world continuity, for all games.

That's a pretty funny analogy regarding the Bruma Mages Gulld leader, as she really couldn't cast her way out of a paper bag. The whole Guild except for one was wiped out by the fiends of Mannimarco in The Order of the Black Worm..

BTW Rainbow Six Vegas 2, has a limited character creator, various weapons and armor (with stats), and a leveling system.  Does it qualify as an RPG?

You missed the point. Even when you build your class in RSV2 (or any customizable shooter character development), you don't get to set the game plots and convos up to match who you are set up in class. In RSV, it just is what it is. If you could be a janitor in the customization room, the game would still play the same, that's to be expected when you select a setup in a typical shooter. But in RPGs, like Skyrim, they are suppsoed to reflect that in the game plots and with NPC/ambient conversations. For the most part in Skyrim, it does reflect that, though poorly at times.

The comment about RSV2, was me being silly and a slight stab at those who believe character creation, leveling, stats and equipment/loot is what makes an RPG.  The thing I hate about these forums, it sometimes doesn't convey my humorous attempt at sarcasm.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Zanallen wrote...

If ME3 performs poorly, it won't be because the the MP.

You can repeat that as often as you like, but that does not make it true. If they gave full attention to the SP instead and it still does not perform then the team is really in bad shape. However, given the trend we see in the industry, chances are that MP will draw away attention from SP and thus SP may suffer. Including MP does not always result in the game being more successful. Skyrim is a good example. Despite not having MP or even despite not having a voiced PC, did not make it a commercial failure. It even sold much more than its predecessors, so it even drew more fans than the franchise already had. Given those facts, encouraging BW not to go the MP route makes sense. See the the difference?

Have a great X-mas, BTW.

[DreamwareStudio]

Zanallen wrote...

Kabanya101 wrote...

Time to get everything straight:

1. The developers of Dragon Age were checking out Skyrim. That does not mean they will steal any ideas or copy anything.

2. There will not be multiplayer.
           A. When EA sees the disaster that will come with ME3, they will stop it
           B. How are you going to add MP/Co-op? Only possibility would  be to play as companion

3. The sequel will be mainly copied off of Origins and not DA2.


DA2 was a complete disaster. The only thing that was improved in DA2 was the battle animations for the mage and the updated graphics. Some characters were good, but mostly missing depth.

1. I agree.

2. If ME3 performs poorly, it won't be because the the MP. Thus, there is a good chance DA3 will have MP. I would prefer a Gauntlet style MP mode, but it will probably be some sort of arena mode.

3. Everything we know about DA3, which admitedly isn't much, points to the opposite. The PC will most likely still be voiced, the art style won't be changing, the companions will still have iconic outfits, the combat will probably be the same with slight tweak and we might get less or at least better presented waves.

3. If that holds true, I unfortunately will be passing on DA 3.  I played some of DA 2 while doing my first play-through of Origins just for a better and less biased comparison.  I got so bored with DA 2 I cannot get myself to finish it.  The game as a whole -- gameplay, art, storyline, characters -- does noting to interest me.  On the other hand, I find Origins is an absolute stellar game despite the subpar graphics.

Modifié par google_calasade, 25 décembre 2011 - 10:47 .

[Elhanan]

If one has not seen/ read the story of DA2 to the the end of Act II, then they are doing themselves a disservice, IMO. This would be like watching the old Mission Impossible team assemble a team w/o seeing them actually perform the mission. Plus the battles of Kirkwall and the Qunari are real game highlights for me.

And I love the graphics of DAO, as I must have taken dozens of screenies over the course of a year; many at Ostagar before and after the blankets of snow.This includes one facet of DAO I do prefer; the prior Death moves, as these screenshot moments became etched into memory, too.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Kabanya101 wrote...

Time to get everything straight:

1. The developers of Dragon Age were checking out Skyrim. That does not mean they will steal any ideas or copy anything.

2. There will not be multiplayer.
           A. When EA sees the disaster that will come with ME3, they will stop it
           B. How are you going to add MP/Co-op? Only possibility would  be to play as companion

3. The sequel will be mainly copied off of Origins and not DA2.


DA2 was a complete disaster. The only thing that was improved in DA2 was the battle animations for the mage and the updated graphics. Some characters were good, but mostly missing depth.

Yeah I wouldnt count on it, are those supposed to be facts or blind hopes that are about to be crushed come the release of DA3? Odds are Origins wont make a return, the protagonist will still be voiced and the dialogue wheel will return, hell at this point I think you can count yourself if Hawke doesnt return as the Protagonist and that is a major IF.

But I do need to ask why you people are so afraid of an OPTIONAL multiplayer mode? How exactly will Mass Effect 3 flop because of the added OPTIONAL multiplayer modes?

[CenturyCrow]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
But I do need to ask why you people are so afraid of an OPTIONAL multiplayer mode? How exactly will Mass Effect 3 flop because of the added OPTIONAL multiplayer modes?

I think you're missing the complaint. Nobody is afraid of an optional multiplayer mode; nor is it certain that ME 3 will succeed or fail based on the inclusion of multiplayer. There are people who favor single player games, people who favor multiplayer games and some who like both. Certainly the lines are blurring in games and some games have mini-games within them.

ME and ME 2 are single player games and I'd like to finish the series with a single player game. DA 2 is as far as I'll go with that series and I'm sorry I got it.

To use your term 'optional.' Just because BW includes an OPTIONAL Spreadsheet and WordProcessor in their games doesn't mean I'd be interested in using them. The fact that BW is looking at Skyrim for DA and is adding multiplayer, sounds like they are trying to make the next installment into an absurd multifunction game that does a lot of everything but nothing well. There's a risk of BW diluting the type of game they're known for creating, namely single player story driven games. Not saying they don't/can't do multiplayer, just that a lot of fans are into single player. If anything, Skyrim is a good example of staying with the single player format instead of diluting it with multiplayer.

Do you really think that Activision is going to mess with the COD formula because Skyrim is so successful?

Modifié par CenturyCrow, 25 décembre 2011 - 04:11 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

CenturyCrow wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
But I do need to ask why you people are so afraid of an OPTIONAL multiplayer mode? How exactly will Mass Effect 3 flop because of the added OPTIONAL multiplayer modes?

I think you're missing the complaint. Nobody is afraid of an optional multiplayer mode; nor is it certain that ME 3 will succeed or fail based on the inclusion of multiplayer. There's people who favor single player games, people who favor multiplayer games and some who like both. Certainly the lines are blurring in games and some games have mini-games within them.

ME and ME 2 are single player games and I'd like to finish the series with a single player game. DA 2 is as far as I'll go with that series.

To use your term 'optional.' Just because BW includes an OPTIONAL Spreadsheet and WordProcessor in their games doesn't mean I'd be interested in using them. The fact that BW is looking at Skyrim for DA and is adding multiplayer, sounds like they are trying to make the next installment into an absurd multifunction game that does a lot of everything but nothing well. There's a risk of BW diluting the type of game they're known for creating, namely single player story driven games. If anything, Skyrim is a good example of staying with the single player format instead of diluting it with multiplayer.

Do you really think that Activision is going to mess with the COD formula because Skyrim is so successful?

Are you not still getting a single player game in ME3, I mean to my knowledge Bioware havent cut the single player aspect of Mass Effect in favor of Multiplayer so what is the problem? How does adding multiplayer somehow "taint" the single player experience? You still get the single player experience you know and love and Bioware gets to try something new in the Multiplayer department.