85 réponses à ce sujet

[Thothistox]

First of all, I'll admit that I'm one of those people who liked DAO but not DA2. In DA2 I think the characters were a misfire, the story didn't make sense, and a lot of other things that have already been said many times, but.... BUT... I also don't like Skyrim. And the reason I don't like it is because of all the things that DAO and DA2 do better than Skyrim.

Now, before some people get their passions flaring hear me out, please. If you've played Skyrim you probably would have noticed a few things.

1) Skyrim has no choreographed dialogue sequences. The camera doesn't zoom in when people speak. There are no montages. This has an alienating effect on the player as (s)he ends up not caring about the speaker and sometimes not even knowing who's talking.

Both DA2 and DAO had excellent dialogue sequences, and they were used to convey emotion, surprise and forge relationships between the player and the NPCs. DAO is unparalled among 3D games in this respect.

2) You have a lot of stuff to do, but no reason to do any of it. This is the same flaw as in DA2. I want there to be a major challenge for my character to face, whether it's "epic" or "personal" or somewhere in between. You need to build up tension and suspense, like a good thriller movie. DAO had this, and Skyrim does not.

3) There is no moral ambiguity in Skyrim. One of my favourite things about DAO was the realistic damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't situations. Every character's perspective made some sense from their particular point of view. The Witcher 2 does best in this regard, and they got the idea from DAO. DA2 tried to do this but it fell flat for a number of reasons.

4) In Skyrim, the different races don't have a meaningful political relationship with each other. One of the coolest things about DAO was how humans repressed the elves, or how the mages were kept in a cult-like seclusion. These political situations resonated strongly with me, and they helped motivate the characters. Think of how Morrigan responded with disgust at the self-righteousness of the forest elves. Nothing in Skyrim touches that -- and from a developer's point of view doing it is easy!

5) Skyrim's dialogue and story are mediocre at best. Your main character is a wonder child and his/her discussions with people rarely go beyond a list of questions he/she can ask at any time. The dialogue has almost no wit. It's like listening to an English as a Second Language textbook.

DAO and DA2 both had well-written dialogue. DAO was better because it was more consistent, but the quality of the writing was much higher in the case of either game. DA2 fell apart because lore clashed with gameplay (you can be a blood mage who sides with the templars), but the way the story was told was still good.

6) Skyrim's voice acting is quite awful. There are only about 6 actors and quite often they seem to have no idea of the context of the line they're saying.

DAO and DA2 both had more voice actors and they nearly always seemed to know their motivation when they read their lines.

7) Skyrim has no innuendo. Sometimes it feels like watching a Three's Company episode where the villain propositions the innocent beauty. It's sickening.

DAO was excellent with relationships. The power struggle between Morrigan and the Warden was really well-written, and the sort of thing you could only really do in a video game because of the interactivity. It was brilliant. The same goes for the female Warden romancing Alistair, which was really funny.

8) Skyrim isn't funny, and has no irony either. This is probably an effect of how shallow the characters are. Each is little more than a talking interface that tells you about how you may use it.

DAO was a very funny game. It set up expectations and allowed you to dash them. Alistair's reduced mental capacity. Oghren's facetious boorishness. All of it worked because of how it contrasted with genuine tensions that the game set up.

9) Skyrim allows you to be both mage and rogue and warrior and anything in between. Oddly enough, this has a way of killing replayability and making the gameplay shallow.

classes were an excellent idea in DAO/DA2. Keep them! Keep (or expand on) DAO's races too, please!


So, Bioware, if you're listening and you're looking towards Skyrim for a model on how to make an RPG, please do this: make DA3 as big as Skyrim, but with DAO's storytelling and writing quality. The reason so many people bought Skyrim is because they were starved for a big RPG with lots of exploration, which Skyrim gives them and DA2 definitely does not. My suggestion, don't make an open world, but give people options about which town/area to do next and make the order in which you do them have some consequences later. You more or less already did this in DAO where it was possible to do the elf part of the story before the urn of sacred ashes (the only trouble is that it was hard to do in that order).

In addition, please don't do the "rivalry" thing again. It's stupid when people who don't like you fight with you anyway. Your comrades should be your friends, like they are in DAO.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

I've been playing TES since Arena and a huge fan of all sandbox games be it simulation like the Sims series and The Guild or strategy like Europa Universalis. Even if the game provide main quest, I rather player my own custom campaign like Microsoft's Ages of Empires and Grand Thief Auto. The same goes to BioWare's games like Neverwinter Nights and BioWare/Obsidian Nevrwinter Nights 2. If you are not a fan of sandbox/open world games then Skyrim is definitely not for you. The main gameplay behind The Elder Scroll never change ever since TES: Arena. Bethesda provide the world while you set your own story, whatever that is. 

Although they do provide main quest, it is never intented that you must complete it unlike story driven RPG like  BioWare games. Like the Greybeards said, "They can only show you the path but it's up to you to walk your own destiny." To some this seem like wandering around aimless driven by weak motivation. It IS weak if you strictly think about completing the main quest. But that's not the point why people still prefer playing sandbox game. The Elder Scrolls since Arena was meant for you to journey the world, live in that world, be anything you want, do anything you want and you set your own goal according to whatever feature provided by the world. The goal is not set by Bethesda but by you yourself.  And that's the strength of it because it's allow limitless interaction, choices and replayability since you are not confined of doing the same objective set by linear quest line as in any story driven RPG. 

The same concept can be applied to any sandbox or open world games but if you are not keen on setting your own objective and own story then Skyrim and any other sandbox games is definitely not for you.  

As for BioWare checking out Skyrim aggressively, I don't think BioWare want to make Skyrim clone. They are not Bethesda and they don't share Bethesda's gaming view. For Bethesda it's about providing the platform/world for the player with the emphasis of freedom. But for BioWare it's about providing story and limiting player freedom to make the story stronger. This two different mindsets won't work well with each other. It's like oil and water.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 25 décembre 2011 - 06:28 .

[Cyne]

Bioware excels in characterization, plot and voice acting, and dragon age is a fine example of this.

Skyrim does some things really well though, better than dragon age. The open detailed landscape for one. The freedom of choice. I guess sandbox games can be a little underwhelming in terms of suspense buildup and overarching main quest, but they're also more re-playable and fun long term. I recall trying to reply origins and was put off by the very linear story. I could even tell what loot items were placed where, it destroyed any lingering sense of discovery. Skyrim's advantage is that every play through is different.

Skyrim's got nothing on dragon age's voice acting though. Even DA2, for all its supposed flaws, had great voice acting. Every character's voice is distinctive, has a lot of emotion, and compliments the actual character well. In Skyrim, half the male warriors sound like Farkas. The guards sound like Arnie. It's bizarre.

I like them both though. Good thing about video games is that you're not limited to just one 

[Terraforming]

Aw, I actually thought that Skyrim's writing and storyline was pretty good - stronger than in Oblivion (though the voice acting in that game may have unfairly swayed my opinion).

Personally, if Bioware is looking at Skyrim for anything - I would like them to consider the dungeon design. Dungeons, caves, and tombs are the things I like most about Skyrim. I liked that most of them had insular stories to go with them (I don't want to spoil anything, but Chillwind Depths and Fort Snowhawk are two that stick out in my mind). I also like how you can also create or think about back stories of what happened in these places because of how the locations are designed. I don't know if it could work in Dragon Age, but I would welcome it nonetheless. I would just like more thought put in areas like that. It makes them feel more alive.

[bleetman]

Skyrim's storyline isn't bad, but it largely serves to get in the way of running off and doing whatever I want for hundreds of hours. It's certainly not the core of the experience however you look at it. I would argue that moral ambiguity is something Skyrim does have, though: deciding between the Empire and the Stormcloaks in the civil war is entirely that. Neither is objectively 'the good guys'. It's unfortunately the only real instance of ambiguity that springs to mind (besides the odd moment during the main quest regarding the fate of certain characters), but it's there.

I'd agree with you on point four, however. I can (and have) played some of the more exotic races in Skyrim, but beyond passing guards occasionally addressing me differently, I never really felt like the world was reacting to the fact I was a disgusting wood elf with the hostility I'd come to expect. Nobody cared. In fact, people seemed to treat me as if I was a Nord, which got a little bothersome when I arrived at Windhelm and was asked if I was one of those "Skyrim is only for the Nords" types. Buddy, I'm not even human.

[Zanallen]

Sareth Cousland wrote...
2. DA:O was far less complex and unfriendly to newcomers than Skyrim, but still the latter sold many more copies.

What? Skyrim is complex and unfriendly to newcomers? That...Wha...Huh?

[Addai]

Thothistox wrote...

1) Skyrim has no choreographed dialogue sequences. The camera doesn't zoom in when people speak. There are no montages. This has an alienating effect on the player as (s)he ends up not caring about the speaker and sometimes not even knowing who's talking.

You can move the camera.

3) There is no moral ambiguity in Skyrim. One of my favourite things about DAO was the realistic damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't situations. Every character's perspective made some sense from their particular point of view. The Witcher 2 does best in this regard, and they got the idea from DAO. DA2 tried to do this but it fell flat for a number of reasons.

*choke*  No moral ambiguity?  Did we play the same game?

TW2 got its story line from DAO?  News to me.

4) In Skyrim, the different races don't have a meaningful political relationship with each other. One of the coolest things about DAO was how humans repressed the elves, or how the mages were kept in a cult-like seclusion. These political situations resonated strongly with me, and they helped motivate the characters. Think of how Morrigan responded with disgust at the self-righteousness of the forest elves. Nothing in Skyrim touches that -- and from a developer's point of view doing it is easy!

I... Okay, you're trolling, right?  You must be.  You cannot have missed the whole elves vs. humanity meta-plot and how all the races look down on each other and how certain races are forced to the margins of society in Skyrim because of the Nords' insularity.

DAO and DA2 both had well-written dialogue. DAO was better because it was more consistent, but the quality of the writing was much higher in the case of either game. DA2 fell apart because lore clashed with gameplay (you can be a blood mage who sides with the templars), but the way the story was told was still good.

6) Skyrim's voice acting is quite awful. There are only about 6 actors and quite often they seem to have no idea of the context of the line they're saying.

There are 70-some voice actors in the cast, and I found the dialogue very good.

It's fine if you preferred Origins, but you're not supporting your points very well.

[WhiteKnyght]

Wow, even on Christmas the crappy complaining about DAII never ends.

Give it a rest, guys.

[DragonRageGT]

Addai67 wrote...

Thothistox wrote...

1) Skyrim has no choreographed dialogue sequences. The camera doesn't zoom in when people speak. There are no montages. This has an alienating effect on the player as (s)he ends up not caring about the speaker and sometimes not even knowing who's talking.

You can move the camera.

3) There is no moral ambiguity in Skyrim. One of my favourite things about DAO was the realistic damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't situations. Every character's perspective made some sense from their particular point of view. The Witcher 2 does best in this regard, and they got the idea from DAO. DA2 tried to do this but it fell flat for a number of reasons.

*choke*  No moral ambiguity?  Did we play the same game?

TW2 got its story line from DAO?  News to me.

4) In Skyrim, the different races don't have a meaningful political relationship with each other. One of the coolest things about DAO was how humans repressed the elves, or how the mages were kept in a cult-like seclusion. These political situations resonated strongly with me, and they helped motivate the characters. Think of how Morrigan responded with disgust at the self-righteousness of the forest elves. Nothing in Skyrim touches that -- and from a developer's point of view doing it is easy!

I... Okay, you're trolling, right?  You must be.  You cannot have missed the whole elves vs. humanity meta-plot and how all the races look down on each other and how certain races are forced to the margins of society in Skyrim because of the Nords' insularity.

DAO and DA2 both had well-written dialogue. DAO was better because it was more consistent, but the quality of the writing was much higher in the case of either game. DA2 fell apart because lore clashed with gameplay (you can be a blood mage who sides with the templars), but the way the story was told was still good.

6) Skyrim's voice acting is quite awful. There are only about 6 actors and quite often they seem to have no idea of the context of the line they're saying.

There are 70-some voice actors in the cast, and I found the dialogue very good.

It's fine if you preferred Origins, but you're not supporting your points very well.

Amazing. You said everything I was going to! So QFT.

But the TW2 story line inspired by DAO and No Racial Conflict in Skyrim might count among the best prank/jokes of 2011! Well done OP!

[eroeru]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Wow, even on Christmas the crappy complaining about DAII never ends.

Give it a rest, guys.

Well, it's more like complaining about Bioware, but eh, if the company's so near one's heart, it's sweet.

Or rather not.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Thothistox wrote...


1) Skyrim has no choreographed dialogue sequences. The camera doesn't zoom in when people speak. There are no montages. This has an alienating effect on the player as (s)he ends up not caring about the speaker and sometimes not even knowing who's talking.

Use first person view camera. In Skyrim or any other TES game, the gameplay is primarily designed for first person view with the option to toggle to third person view camera. Notice that you can aim and shoot better in first person view? As first person character, you don't zoom your camera. There is no need for it. First person camera view is already clear enough for you to focus your attention to the speaker. It just a matter of moving your neck. 

Thothistox wrote...

2) You have a lot of stuff to do, but no reason to do any of it.

Why would you want to do something without reason? I have a lot of stuff to do and every single one of them have purpose. It's not like you have to collect junks. I collect herbs to make potion especially cure disease potion. You don't want to get caught by vampirism now do you? I could be a blacksmith or miner or farmer or fisherman or woodcutter or even be a skooma dealer conspiring with Maven Black-Briar to topple the Jarl to suit my own story and still I have plenty of reasons to do whatever I want to.

Thothistox wrote...


3) There is no moral ambiguity in Skyrim.

Hmmm  I'm not sure I can understand this. As far as I concern, there are many times I have to evaluate my character morality regarding murdering an orphanage caretaker or taking part in cannibalism or betraying my own companions to please the deadra lords or responsible for misdeeds that cause innocent people to be imprisoned etc... .All this this decision is not light for me and far outweight any decisions I've made for  two goody shoes Hawke in DA 2.

Thothistox wrote...



4) In Skyrim, the different races don't have a meaningful political relationship with each other.

Go to Windhelm to check how the Stormcloaks treated the Dark Elves and Argonian. Then talk to the Khajiit caravan and learn how they are not welcomed to trade in any city in Skyrim. 

Thothistox wrote...


9) Skyrim allows you to be both mage and rogue and warrior and anything in between. Oddly enough, this has a way of killing replayability and making the gameplay shallow.

Doesn't mean you have to be both mage and rogue and warrior and anything in between. You can focus solely on being a mage if you are too keen to be restricted by class based character. It's all optional and solely depend on how you want to play it. It's not like the game force you to do so.


You know what's your problem is? You are too confined to completing the main quest that everything else the world has to offer is meaningless to you. Are sure you are playing the right game? You do aware the concept of open world? In open world there is only the journey of life and discovery. It's a neverending experience. The world continue to elvove wheter you complete the main story or not. People will continue to spread rumor about some monsters, the darkbrotherhood still have contracts for you etc...  even if you already finish the main story. Your life in Skyrim is not about completing the main story only. It's more than that.  And because your story is far larger than saving the world from the dragon, you need to be imiginative and creative on how to live in such a vast world. Otherwise you can't enjoy living in that world.  

Seriously, you sound critical of story element in open world game is misplaced. You do aware that Bethesda's games like TES Skyrim is open world RPG and not story driven RPG?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 25 décembre 2011 - 11:16 .

[revstate]

Umm... Sacred_Fantasy 

Seriously... you have to admit the plot in Skyrim sucks compared to most well written fantasy books, series or movies.  There is zero character development in Skyrim as with all Bethsoft games.  I played pretty much everything you possibly can in Skyrim (145 hours at least, not counting the multiple shutdowns and re-boots) and I only found interest in the Brotherhood and The Thieves Guild.  The main plot was weak, the Companion plot was weak, the Mage College was weak, the civil war was weak, and most if not all side quests (and I did a lot) had no emotional movement.  I didn't care who lived or died in the game.  If I don't get emotional in any piece of media, I find it boring.  This is my opinion... but a common one amongst most fantasy and role playing game enthusiasts.  

It doesn't matter how open a world is if it feels emotionally MT.  
 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

revstate wrote...

Umm... Sacred_Fantasy 

Seriously... you have to admit the plot in Skyrim sucks compared to most well written fantasy books, series or movies.  There is zero character development in Skyrim as with all Bethsoft games.  I played pretty much everything you possibly can in Skyrim (145 hours at least, not counting the multiple shutdowns and re-boots) and I only found interest in the Brotherhood and The Thieves Guild.  The main plot was weak, the Companion plot was weak, the Mage College was weak, the civil war was weak, and most if not all side quests (and I did a lot) had no emotional movement.  I didn't care who lived or died in the game.  If I don't get emotional in any piece of media, I find it boring.  This is my opinion... but a common one amongst most fantasy and role playing game enthusiasts.  

It doesn't matter how open a world is if it feels emotionally MT.  
 

I never claim Skyrim story is good. My first post in this thread already address that skyrim story is weak and I agree with everything you said. Lack character development, the companion has no personality, weak responsive from people regarding their daily lifes, poor marrige concept, no romance etc... I wish Skyrim has the story and character depth like Origins but considering the vast world and diversity of people who live in it, I don't know how Bethesda ever going to make their story as deep as BioWare story. Even with lack of character and story depth, Skyrim is already too heavy for most machine to handle considering the loading time, the graphic bugs, the drop in FPS, memory issue  etc...  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 25 décembre 2011 - 11:53 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

I don't class Skyrim and Dragon Age as being even in the same genre. Skyrim is not about characters or storyline, it's about running around and doing whatever you want. That's why there are never any strong characters or stories in a TES game.

Dragon Age is a more linear game and far more focused. That is why characters are far more complex and the story has depth (At least in DAO). Honestly i would class skyrim in the same genre as Grand Theft Auto.

[OdanUrr]

I was going to reply to the OP, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

Okay, a bit more serious now. I read through the entire post and was left wondering whether the OP actually played Skyrim.

Thothistox wrote...

1) Skyrim has no choreographed dialogue sequences. The camera doesn't zoom in when people speak. There are no montages. This has an alienating effect on the player as (s)he ends up not caring about the speaker and sometimes not even knowing who's talking.

Both DA2 and DAO had excellent dialogue sequences, and they were used to convey emotion, surprise and forge relationships between the player and the NPCs. DAO is unparalled among 3D games in this respect.

True, it doesn't have montages in the style of DAO or DA2. As far as that alienating players, that's rather personal, isn't it? But I agree those would only serve to strengthen TES so fair point.

Thothistox wrote...


2) You have a lot of stuff to do, but no reason to do any of it. This is the same flaw as in DA2. I want there to be a major challenge for my character to face, whether it's "epic" or "personal" or somewhere in between. You need to build up tension and suspense, like a good thriller movie. DAO had this, and Skyrim does not.

I'm sorry but the side quests in Skyrim have a lot more depth and thought than the ones in DA2. I believe you're talking here about quest montages or similar but you've already mentioned that in point 1. There is tension and suspense every time you enter a cave, a fort, or a tomb. The buildup may be of a different nature: reading the journal of a fallen adventurer, interacting with ghosts, finding some ancient relic. But there's always a story around your adventures, and they have a lot more depth than anything DA2 ever had.

Thothistox wrote...


3) There is no moral ambiguity in Skyrim. One of my favourite things about DAO was the realistic damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't situations. Every character's perspective made some sense from their particular point of view. The Witcher 2 does best in this regard, and they got the idea from DAO. DA2 tried to do this but it fell flat for a number of reasons.

Moral ambiguity? How about tricking a Daedric Prince by serving another? Or cleansing a cave full of Draugr but knowing that in doing so you're merely a tool for another Daedric Prince? Join the Empire of the Stormcloaks? They both raise fine points, and I found it much more difficult to choose between them than between Mages and Templars.

Thothistox wrote...


4) In Skyrim, the different races don't have a meaningful political relationship with each other. One of the coolest things about DAO was how humans repressed the elves, or how the mages were kept in a cult-like seclusion. These political situations resonated strongly with me, and they helped motivate the characters. Think of how Morrigan responded with disgust at the self-righteousness of the forest elves. Nothing in Skyrim touches that -- and from a developer's point of view doing it is easy!

Really? How about the Khajiit, who are widely regarded as thieves and therefore prevented from entering the major cities? Or the Elves, distrusted by most Nords and resented (especially the Thalmor) for their alliance with the Empire and their ancient oppression? Have you even been to Windhelm? Would I like to see more of this centered around my character? Definitely, but that doesn't mean it's absent. It's simply that, to my mind, DA2 is full of it, to the point it stretches credulity.

Thothistox wrote...

5) Skyrim's dialogue and story are mediocre at best. Your main character is a wonder child and his/her discussions with people rarely go beyond a list of questions he/she can ask at any time. The dialogue has almost no wit. It's like listening to an English as a Second Language textbook.

DAO and DA2 both had well-written dialogue. DAO was better because it was more consistent, but the quality of the writing was much higher in the case of either game. DA2 fell apart because lore clashed with gameplay (you can be a blood mage who sides with the templars), but the way the story was told was still good.

Mediocre? No. Short? Possibly, but that's a different thing entirely. In Skyrim you can talk to mostly everyone. In DA2 you can only talk to certain characters that advance the story. Does DAO/DA2 have more personal dialogues? Yes, because Bioware has always been better with companions whereas TES' companions are a hindrance (I always play solo, companions be damned). Bioware's games are structured around your relationship with your companions, Bethesda's games are not. And story? I think Skyrim's ending was bittersweet (those who have finished the main story may share my ache at not being able to join a certain group that bids farewell) and I loved it. DAO's ending (mine) was inspiring and I loved it too. There is story to both games. Granted, Skyrim could do better in certain aspects (Empire vs. Stormcloaks!!!!) but that's a long shot from saying it's mediocre.

Thothistox wrote...

6) Skyrim's voice acting is quite awful. There are only about 6 actors and quite often they seem to have no idea of the context of the line they're saying.

DAO and DA2 both had more voice actors and they nearly always seemed to know their motivation when they read their lines.

I met Fenris several times over! I think he was with the Legion, the Stormcloaks, a guard, etc. Yes, VO actors tend to get used a lot and it shows, and there are certain characters that are more believable than others. But there are also a lot of memorable characters (Barrabas and Clavicus!). Any game that's so vast will have good and bad voice acting. Since DAO and DA2 are story-driven they have an edge over their open-world counterpart, which is knowing at all times what your motivations are.

Thothistox wrote...

7) Skyrim has no innuendo. Sometimes it feels like watching a Three's Company episode where the villain propositions the innocent beauty. It's sickening.

DAO was excellent with relationships. The power struggle between Morrigan and the Warden was really well-written, and the sort of thing you could only really do in a video game because of the interactivity. It was brilliant. The same goes for the female Warden romancing Alistair, which was really funny.

That's unfair. TES doesn't have companions, certainly not in the way DAO or DA2 have. A blind man can tell Bioware trumps Bethesda in this respect. When TES starts incorporating companions with unique backgrounds and stories we can discuss this again.

Thothistox wrote...

8) Skyrim isn't funny, and has no irony either. This is probably an effect of how shallow the characters are. Each is little more than a talking interface that tells you about how you may use it.

DAO was a very funny game. It set up expectations and allowed you to dash them. Alistair's reduced mental capacity. Oghren's facetious boorishness. All of it worked because of how it contrasted with genuine tensions that the game set up.

I was going to say something, then I took an arrow to the knee. Again, you're using companions as an example of how DAO is a funny game and Skyrim is not. Beyond that, Skyrim has a vast array of funny NPCs (Sheogorath, Clavicus Vile, Sanguine, random NPCs that ask you to Wabbajack them, etc.).

Thothistox wrote...

9) Skyrim allows you to be both mage and rogue and warrior and anything in between. Oddly enough, this has a way of killing replayability and making the gameplay shallow.

classes were an excellent idea in DAO/DA2. Keep them! Keep (or expand on) DAO's races too, please!

What? Are you serious? Restricting character builds adds replayability? Well, maybe, but how about the fact it also pisses people off? Skyrim allows you to build your character the way you see fit. The more you use a single blade, the more proficient you become with single blades. Fancy yourself a smithy? Work at it a bit and you can end up creating your very own Daedric armor. Again, it's the same flawed argument that was given on the BSN for removing character customization for DA2, namely that people ended up equipping their characters with the same armors. Ergo, more character build freedom would result in the same builds. To that I have to ask, SO WHAT? It's supposed to be an RPG, people are supposed to build their characters the way they see fit. So what if they want to have everyone look the same? I bet you anything there are a lot of someones out there who make sure each companion is unique in armor/clothing/skills. DA2 forces you to play again if you want to try another class. Modded-DAO or Skyrim give you, the player, the freedom to choose.

Thothistox wrote...

So, Bioware, if you're listening and you're looking towards Skyrim for a model on how to make an RPG, please do this: make DA3 as big as Skyrim, but with DAO's storytelling and writing quality. The reason so many people bought Skyrim is because they were starved for a big RPG with lots of exploration, which Skyrim gives them and DA2 definitely does not. My suggestion, don't make an open world, but give people options about which town/area to do next and make the order in which you do them have some consequences later. You more or less already did this in DAO where it was possible to do the elf part of the story before the urn of sacred ashes (the only trouble is that it was hard to do in that order).

In addition, please don't do the "rivalry" thing again. It's stupid when people who don't like you fight with you anyway. Your comrades should be your friends, like they are in DAO.

I'm all for this. Dragon Age doesn't have to be Skyrim, or any of The Elder Scrolls games for that matter. It doesn't need to be open-world but it does have to be bigger, not restricted to a single city that doesn't change over time (no matter how many times someone tells you otherwise). Keep companions, storytelling and writing quality (but not DA2's). Make choices matter and have a larger array of consequences, both big and small. Oh, yes, and remove the fetch quests.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 25 décembre 2011 - 02:17 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I think every single response to the OP's post did not even read what he said.

He didn't say there was no racial tension in Skyrim. That's obvious.

He said that REGARDLESS OF WHICH RACE HE CHOSE no one treated him different. Sure, Khajit are viewed as thieves, and Argonians as little more than servants, and Bosmer as untrustworthy, and Dunmer as second class, and Altmer as evil... but regardless of which race YOU chose, the game doesn't react differently. As a person who has played over 100 hours as an Argonian and Khajit, while the world treats the different races differently, everyone treats YOU the same, aside from the occassional guard comment, as the OP said.

Geez people, read before over reacting.

[LinksOcarina]

You know...these complaints sound familiar....oh yeah, I wrote about them a month ago.

And they are all correct, there is no tension, no pacing and no reason to give a damn about the stormcloak/imperial conflict, the dragonborn quests, the faction quests or the 50 plus companions you can recruit.

You are basically an empty hero.

[OdanUrr]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think every single response to the OP's post did not even read what he said.

He didn't say there was no racial tension in Skyrim. That's obvious.

He said that REGARDLESS OF WHICH RACE HE CHOSE no one treated him different. Sure, Khajit are viewed as thieves, and Argonians as little more than servants, and Bosmer as untrustworthy, and Dunmer as second class, and Altmer as evil... but regardless of which race YOU chose, the game doesn't react differently. As a person who has played over 100 hours as an Argonian and Khajit, while the world treats the different races differently, everyone treats YOU the same, aside from the occassional guard comment, as the OP said.

Geez people, read before over reacting.

I did read and, had you read my response in its entirety, you'd see I admitted I would prefer more of this racial tension centered around my character, for instance, seeing how the world treats a Redguard Dragonborn as opposed to a Khajiit Dragonborn. Furthermore, the OP's post on this issue made no specific allusion as to how the game treats you, the player, depending on your chosen race, but it is certainly a valid interpretation. And if we really want to delve into this issue, there's not really that much reactivity in DAO to your chosen race, and class-reactivity in DA2 is borderline meaningless.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 25 décembre 2011 - 04:18 .

[LinksOcarina]

I know, but there is no excuse for it in Skyrim. It's a flaw in all three games you just mentioned OdanUrr.

[Meris]

LinksOcarina wrote...

And they are all correct, there is no tension, no pacing and no reason to give a damn about the stormcloak/imperial conflict, the dragonborn quests, the faction quests or the 50 plus companions you can recruit.

I disagree, my character cared very much for the dragonborn quests and the College's.

[AlexXIV]

OdanUrr wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think every single response to the OP's post did not even read what he said.

He didn't say there was no racial tension in Skyrim. That's obvious.

He said that REGARDLESS OF WHICH RACE HE CHOSE no one treated him different. Sure, Khajit are viewed as thieves, and Argonians as little more than servants, and Bosmer as untrustworthy, and Dunmer as second class, and Altmer as evil... but regardless of which race YOU chose, the game doesn't react differently. As a person who has played over 100 hours as an Argonian and Khajit, while the world treats the different races differently, everyone treats YOU the same, aside from the occassional guard comment, as the OP said.

Geez people, read before over reacting.

I did read and, had you read my response in its entirety, you'd see I admitted I would prefer more of this racial tension centered around my character, for instance, seeing how the world treats a Redguard Dragonborn as opposed to a Khajiit Dragonborn. Furthermore, the OP's post on this issue made no specific allusion as to how the game treats you, the player, depending on your chosen race, but it is certainly a valid interpretation. And if we really want to delve into this issue, there's not really that much reactivity in DAO to your chosen race, and class-reactivity in DA2 is borderline meaningless.

This. We all know the protagonist is not treated differently according to race/class in either DA:O or DA2. So Skyrim isn't really doing worse. Also in DA:O/DA2 you as protagonist you can't do much or anything about the racial bias which makes it pointless to be there. Only point of having factions who are 'at war' with each other is to choose a side or try to mediate or something. Interact with them. In DA you can only acknowledge the tensions but they don't really help or hinder you in any way.

If I wanted something from Bethesda in Bioware games it would be the classes and how you have to choose a guild to advance in your class. And if Bioware should look at any game of Bethesda it should be Fallout3/NV or Morrowind. It was somehow a very disappointing year in respect of RPGs. Skyrim was the least disappointing, but that's it.

[Mr.House]

I can't even take the OP serous. There is opinions and then there is stupidity. The OP is wrong on many account and also writes out right laws. I don't care if people don't like Skyrim, I have friends who don't like it and they have good reasons, but this post just hurts my poor brain.

Plus only 6 voice actors? Really?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think every single response to the OP's post did not even read what he said.

He didn't say there was no racial tension in Skyrim. That's obvious.

He said that REGARDLESS OF WHICH RACE HE CHOSE no one treated him different. Sure, Khajit are viewed as thieves, and Argonians as little more than servants, and Bosmer as untrustworthy, and Dunmer as second class, and Altmer as evil... but regardless of which race YOU chose, the game doesn't react differently. As a person who has played over 100 hours as an Argonian and Khajit, while the world treats the different races differently, everyone treats YOU the same, aside from the occassional guard comment, as the OP said.

Geez people, read before over reacting.

Actually there some minor diffrences. Barely noticed but it's there, at least I think:

1.  Playing as Imperial - Whiterun's guard will says, "Stay out of trouble, imperial." I assume they meant the PC not to interfere with Whiterun politic as Whiterun is still considered neutral in Imperial-Stormcloaks civil war.

2. Playing as Wood Elves - Bandit Thugs, "You should stay in the wood where you belong elf!"

3. Playing as any race other than Nords - Bandit Thugs, "Skyrim belong to the Nords!"

I don't give much attention to how people in Skyrim react according to your race selection before mainly because in Origins and Neverwinter Nights, people react little to your race selection either. I am more pleased to find out that people in Skyrim doesn't threat you like the chosen one even though some knows that you are dragonborn.  Some people still speak rudely to you regardless you are a Thane or not.  But it's interesting and I would like to see how this played out as I haven't play as Orcs, Khajiit or Argonian.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 25 décembre 2011 - 06:31 .