85 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

Also orcs can join strongholds without doing any of the radiant quests to be accepted. So ding.

[Darth Death]

I'll never understand why BioWare would look in skyrim's direction. They're both two completely different rpg experiences. Bringing skyrim's elements into DA isn't going to remedy the issue. Why can't BioWare see that? Why are they so reluctant to listen to us?

[Frybread76]

Thothistox wrote...

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.

I just have to say the Witcher 2 did not get its moral ambiguity from DA:O, LOL!  The Witcher had a lot of moral ambiguity and if you've ever read any of the books you'd know that shades of grey permeate the series.

[Atakuma]

Darth Death wrote...

I'll never understand why BioWare would look in skyrim's direction. They're both two completely different rpg experiences. Bringing skyrim's elements into DA isn't going to remedy the issue. Why can't BioWare see that? Why are they so reluctant to listen to us?

Why are people so reluctant to actually read what was said instead of posting kneejerk reactions to secondhand information?

[Uzzy]

The lessen to learn from Skyrim is that there's still a market for WRPG's, and it's a bloody huge one. You don't need to be ashamed of making WRPG's, Bioware.

[staindgrey]

Atakuma wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

I'll never understand why BioWare would look in skyrim's direction. They're both two completely different rpg experiences. Bringing skyrim's elements into DA isn't going to remedy the issue. Why can't BioWare see that? Why are they so reluctant to listen to us?

Why are people so reluctant to actually read what was said instead of posting kneejerk reactions to secondhand information?

Just wanted to bump this response because it's so perfect. +10respect

Uzzy wrote...

The lessen to learn from Skyrim is that there's still a market for WRPG's, and it's a bloody huge one. You don't need to be ashamed of making WRPG's, Bioware.

I don't think it's Bioware. It's EA. I know it's the popular thing to do to hate on EA, but everything DAII suffered I can honestly attribute to the rushed schedule and EA's hand in "broadening its fanbase". The Old Republic does single player, story-driven RPGs more justice than DAII did, and it's supposed to be an MMO.

Bioware's still got it, but EA is milking them clean. Case in point: slapping the "Bioware" logo onto a failing C&C studio to try and attract ignorant consumers. That's just... no. Just no, EA. Stop it.

[Darth Death]

Atakuma wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

I'll never understand why BioWare would look in skyrim's direction. They're both two completely different rpg experiences. Bringing skyrim's elements into DA isn't going to remedy the issue. Why can't BioWare see that? Why are they so reluctant to listen to us?

Why are people so reluctant to actually read what was said instead of posting kneejerk reactions to secondhand information?

My post wasn't dedicated to the op, but the overall situation if that's what you're getting at. Also had to laugh at the 'kneejerk' bit.

[staindgrey]

Darth Death wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

I'll never understand why BioWare would look in skyrim's direction. They're both two completely different rpg experiences. Bringing skyrim's elements into DA isn't going to remedy the issue. Why can't BioWare see that? Why are they so reluctant to listen to us?

Why are people so reluctant to actually read what was said instead of posting kneejerk reactions to secondhand information?

My post wasn't dedicated to the op, but the overall situation if that's what you're getting at. Also had to laugh at the 'kneejerk' bit.

At whom else would it be directed? There's no quote and no reference. We're assuming you're speaking to, you know, the OP. And at that point, it sounds completely ignorant of what the OP actually said. Thus "kneejerk" applies. 

People do this all the time without contributing anything to the specific topic at hand. Especially regarding things they don't like, so we see a LOT of it regarding DAII (and ME3 multiplayer...). So, yeah. It gets annoying. If you'd like to make a credible point, I'd suggest referencing something specific next time.

For the record, even though Skyrim and DA are totally different franchises, they DO share a lot of similarities and are fully capable of adopting one another's attributes to varying degrees of success. Much like how ME (a TPS) adopted the controller layout and cover system of Gears of War (a TPS). Two barely comparable games share something now because it works. There's no shame in adopting what works. Games do it all the time. You think Mario was the first one to come up with the idea of jumping on stuff while running to the right edge of the screen?

[TEWR]

I lol'd at DAO being morally ambiguous. DAO had no moral ambiguity.

Seriously, I can save all the mages in the Circle only for.... jack **** to happen as a result. No consequence to the so called "risk" of maleficarum being spared or Abominations possibly in disguise.

Whereas in Skyrim I was immediately torn upon whom I should side with at the very beginning. The Imperial citizens or the Stormcloaks. And hell, I still don't know if I made the right decision.

Moral complexity shouldn't end once the quest is over. It should continue onwards. Whatever moral complexity was within Broken Circle eventually became a clear cut case of "There's no point in doing A, so I'll now always do B".

Metagaming? Sure, but it's nevertheless the happy ending. And some people might say "You're just not roleplaying!". Frankly, I can still roleplay while making a metagaming decision. My characters may make the same choices, but they do it for vastly different reasons.  

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 décembre 2011 - 09:23 .

[Darth Death]

staindgrey wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

I'll never understand why BioWare would look in skyrim's direction. They're both two completely different rpg experiences. Bringing skyrim's elements into DA isn't going to remedy the issue. Why can't BioWare see that? Why are they so reluctant to listen to us?

Why are people so reluctant to actually read what was said instead of posting kneejerk reactions to secondhand information?

My post wasn't dedicated to the op, but the overall situation if that's what you're getting at. Also had to laugh at the 'kneejerk' bit.

At whom else would it be directed? There's no quote and no reference. We're assuming you're speaking to, you know, the OP. And at that point, it sounds completely ignorant of what the OP actually said. Thus "kneejerk" applies. 

People do this all the time without contributing anything to the specific topic at hand. Especially regarding things they don't like, so we see a LOT of it regarding DAII (and ME3 multiplayer...). So, yeah. It gets annoying. If you'd like to make a credible point, I'd suggest referencing something specific next time.

For the record, even though Skyrim and DA are totally different franchises, they DO share a lot of similarities and are fully capable of adopting one another's attributes to varying degrees of success. Much like how ME (a TPS) adopted the controller layout and cover system of Gears of War (a TPS). Two barely comparable games share something now because it works. There's no shame in adopting what works. Games do it all the time. You think Mario was the first one to come up with the idea of jumping on stuff while running to the right edge of the screen?

Like I said, the overall situation from which this very topic originated from. I already read the op and understand what he's saying. I disagree on both counts. And for the record, you & Atakuma sounded ignorant replying to me with false assumptions. You can disagree with me, but your self righteous attitude wasn't needed. Good day.

[Zanallen]

All we know about DA3 and Skyrim is that the guys at Bioware are looking at Skyrim "aggressively". This means jack squat. As such, people are getting worked up about absolutely no information on a game that hasn't even been announced yet.

[Darth Death]

Zanallen wrote...

All we know about DA3 and Skyrim is that the guys at Bioware are looking at Skyrim "aggressively". This means jack squat. As such, people are getting worked up about absolutely no information on a game that hasn't even been announced yet.

'Aggressively' is a strong word & it does mean something (if not many things). The question is more of 'why?' Why skyrim? Why can't BioWare look aggressively at their spiritual successor Baldur's Gate or even DA:O & expanded upon it? After all, those games are what put BioWare on the map for success.
Oh, and before I get any rude, half witted replies, this is merely what I believe. Nothing more. 

[alex90c]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I lol'd at DAO being morally ambiguous. DAO had no moral ambiguity.

Seriously, I can save all the mages in the Circle only for.... jack **** to happen as a result. No consequence to the so called "risk" of maleficarum being spared or Abominations possibly in disguise.

Whereas in Skyrim I was immediately torn upon whom I should side with at the very beginning. The Imperial citizens or the Stormcloaks. And hell, I still don't know if I made the right decision.

Moral complexity shouldn't end once the quest is over. It should continue onwards. Whatever moral complexity was within Broken Circle eventually became a clear cut case of "There's no point in doing A, so I'll now always do B".

Metagaming? Sure, but it's nevertheless the happy ending. And some people might say "You're just not roleplaying!". Frankly, I can still roleplay while making a metagaming decision. My characters may make the same choices, but they do it for vastly different reasons.  

save the anvil of the void or destroy it?

harrowmont or bhelen? (herderp not xanthos herpderp)

sorry, that last bit was cruel of me 

[staindgrey]

Darth Death wrote...

Like I said, the overall situation from which this very topic originated from. I already read the op and understand what he's saying. I disagree on both counts. And for the record, you & Atakuma sounded ignorant replying to me with false assumptions. You can disagree with me, but your self righteous attitude wasn't needed. Good day.

Lmfao! You call others self-righteous, then end your post with "Good day." 

My points still stand, because regardless of what you intended, I stated what I saw. You gave no indication of toward whom you were directing your comment. I never even said outright that I disagree with you, either; I was arguing against the delivery of your comment, because it caused confusion, thus bringing up more questions caused by ignorance on readers' part than anything else. What else am I supposed to think besides "he didn't read the OP" when you respond to a thread and don't even acknowledge what was written originally?

I kindly ask you, again, to at least tell us to what and to whom you're referencing when making a post with a broad point that only somewhat has to do with the specific topic in which you're posting. Way too many people online do exactly what you did, and derail topics (like this) while people are just trying to figure out what the hell other people are saying.

A simple, "this isn't to the OP, but to the argument in general" precursor would have avoided this entire fiasco regarding your post. You'd be smart to take the advice and not disregard it as self-righteous and disagreeing with you.

[TEWR]

alex90c wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I lol'd at DAO being morally ambiguous. DAO had no moral ambiguity.

Seriously, I can save all the mages in the Circle only for.... jack **** to happen as a result. No consequence to the so called "risk" of maleficarum being spared or Abominations possibly in disguise.

Whereas in Skyrim I was immediately torn upon whom I should side with at the very beginning. The Imperial citizens or the Stormcloaks. And hell, I still don't know if I made the right decision.

Moral complexity shouldn't end once the quest is over. It should continue onwards. Whatever moral complexity was within Broken Circle eventually became a clear cut case of "There's no point in doing A, so I'll now always do B".

Metagaming? Sure, but it's nevertheless the happy ending. And some people might say "You're just not roleplaying!". Frankly, I can still roleplay while making a metagaming decision. My characters may make the same choices, but they do it for vastly different reasons.  

save the anvil of the void or destroy it?

harrowmont or bhelen? (herderp not xanthos herpderp)

sorry, that last bit was cruel of me 

Don't you be dissing Xanthos Aeducan!

But they seem pretty black and white to me. The Golems are a crucial element in driving back the Darkspawn, especially for the Dwarves themselves. While the Dwarves could and should rely on the Casteless, eventually those numbers will dwindle just like the Warrior Caste did.

To that end, preserving the Anvil is necessary for the Dwarves to keep on existing and by extension for all of Thedas to keep on existing. If the Darkspawn take over Orzammar, they'll begin to ravage the surface. The Dwarves are the only thing keeping them back.

And whlie some people may think the Dwarven Kingdom will kidnap people in an attempt to create Golems, Dwarves have no interest in the topsiders or their lands. They're more interested in their own way of life from way back when, and they see going topside as a disgrace to the Ancestors.

And I would never put Harrowmont on the throne, especially not when Zevran comments on how weak of a king he is. Harrowmont is so focused on traditionalism and isolationism that it's rendered him blind to the grave reality of the situation. Traditionalism is all well and good, but to hold to it and ignore everything else sentences the Dwarves to extinction even sooner. Some rules were meant to be broken after all.

[Meris]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

I play games primarily for the story. This is the reason i cannot play skyrim. It has a very weak plot. Just my opinion

I do agree that BioWare games have better and more cohesive story, but Skyrim's story is left to the player to write. If its not engaging, it may be due to a lack of engagement on your own part.

[Meris]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

Meris wrote...

FemaleMageFan wrote...

I play games primarily for the story. This is the reason i cannot play skyrim. It has a very weak plot. Just my opinion

I do agree that BioWare games have better and more cohesive story, but Skyrim's story is left to the player to write. If its not engaging, it may be due to a lack of engagement on your own part.

I think that is where i miss out merris. Btw did not mean to offend anyone who likes the game.

Yeah, well: different games strike different cords. Roleplaying is not just a personal experience, it requires engagement that may or may not happen because of the way the game allows for roleplaying.

Anyway, there's no need for any more political correctness: no one has the right to explode on you because they felt offended by the post.

[Gunderic]

Darth Death wrote...

I'll never understand why BioWare would look in skyrim's direction. They're both two completely different rpg experiences. Bringing skyrim's elements into DA isn't going to remedy the issue. Why can't BioWare see that? Why are they so reluctant to listen to us?

If BioWare would manage to do a semi-sandbox, story-driven RPG that would be great in concept. Their games desperately need some open, less static environments too.

And I actually think bringing 'Skyrim elements' would solve a lot of issues DA 2 had, incidentally. BioWare's never gonna sacrifice story elements for them anyway (whether it's a good or bad story).

[Nozybidaj]

The OP and many other folks in the thread here seem to be missing the point.  You can't approach a Bethesda game the same way you approach a Bioware game.  Bethesda games are meant to provide a framework for role playing.  The stories and dialogues are meant to allow the player to inject their own feelings, motivations, and stories into the existing framework and create their own story as they play.  Hence the role playing.  A Bethesda story or conversation isn't going to provide you with everything right down to the tone of voice in a response, it requires the player's participation in crafting the story, that is the genius of it.

If you approach Skyrim expecting a Bioware style story where all the characters motivations, emotions, responses, etc are all already predetermined and all you need to do is click the button and sit back and watch the movie, I can see why those folks would be disappointed.  Bioware games are meant to be watched where the story the creators envisioned is told to you where as a Bethesda game is meant to be experienced and created by you.

Neither is right or wrong, just different, and as such require different expectations and level of player involvement.  If you don't enjoy the role playing aspects of determining your characters own motivations and emotions, you would be better off sticking to Bioware games.

[Zanallen]

Nozybidaj wrote...

The OP and many other folks in the thread here seem to be missing the point.  You can't approach a Bethesda game the same way you approach a Bioware game.  Bethesda games are meant to provide a framework for role playing.  The stories and dialogues are meant to allow the player to inject their own feelings, motivations, and stories into the existing framework and create their own story as they play.  Hence the role playing.  A Bethesda story or conversation isn't going to provide you with everything right down to the tone of voice in a response, it requires the player's participation in crafting the story, that is the genius of it.

If you approach Skyrim expecting a Bioware style story where all the characters motivations, emotions, responses, etc are all already predetermined and all you need to do is click the button and sit back and watch the movie, I can see why those folks would be disappointed.  Bioware games are meant to be watched where the story the creators envisioned is told to you where as a Bethesda game is meant to be experienced and created by you.

Neither is right or wrong, just different, and as such require different expectations and level of player involvement.  If you don't enjoy the role playing aspects of determining your characters own motivations and emotions, you would be better off sticking to Bioware games.

Pretty much.

Bioware games are basically Choose Your Own Adventure novels while Bethesda games are like creative writing exercises from a series of prompts.

[alex90c]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

alex90c wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I lol'd at DAO being morally ambiguous. DAO had no moral ambiguity.

Seriously, I can save all the mages in the Circle only for.... jack **** to happen as a result. No consequence to the so called "risk" of maleficarum being spared or Abominations possibly in disguise.

Whereas in Skyrim I was immediately torn upon whom I should side with at the very beginning. The Imperial citizens or the Stormcloaks. And hell, I still don't know if I made the right decision.

Moral complexity shouldn't end once the quest is over. It should continue onwards. Whatever moral complexity was within Broken Circle eventually became a clear cut case of "There's no point in doing A, so I'll now always do B".

Metagaming? Sure, but it's nevertheless the happy ending. And some people might say "You're just not roleplaying!". Frankly, I can still roleplay while making a metagaming decision. My characters may make the same choices, but they do it for vastly different reasons.  

save the anvil of the void or destroy it?

harrowmont or bhelen? (herderp not xanthos herpderp)

sorry, that last bit was cruel of me 

Don't you be dissing Xanthos Aeducan!

And whlie some people may think the Dwarven Kingdom will kidnap people in an attempt to create Golems, Dwarves have no interest in the topsiders or their lands. They're more interested in their own way of life from way back when, and they see going topside as a disgrace to the Ancestors.

And I would never put Harrowmont on the throne, especially not when Zevran comments on how weak of a king he is. Harrowmont is so focused on traditionalism and isolationism that it's rendered him blind to the grave reality of the situation. Traditionalism is all well and good, but to hold to it and ignore everything else sentences the Dwarves to extinction even sooner. Some rules were meant to be broken after all.

wait, how does the fact they're interested in their own way of life mean that they won't force casteless to become golems? I mean as we know, bhelen is one ruthless mofo, he's gonna wanna get sh*t done and perhaps to reclaim a few thaigs and he's got a "whatever it takes" mentality so im pretty sure he would start forcing people to submit to the forge

the dilemma for me, is that bhelen is an absolute tool, ruthless and as he's much younger than harrowmont, immature. the plus side is that he is a progressive man and wants to shake up the caste system a bit and to rule without having to put everything through the assembly which is always deadlocked, but on the other hand harrowmont is more of a traditionalist, however he is a far more kinder ruler (in his mentality, not his actual rule, preserving the caste system in its current state is quite cruel to the lower strata of society) and a bit more willing to listen to others' views (like how he preserves the assembly, but of course eventually he becomes ill).

that is the dilemma for me, and that is a morally grey decision for me. while DA2's final decision was fairly grey, it sucked regardless because absolutely everyone was insane, with harvestino (why? moar boss fights!!!) and meredith w/lyriumsabre and 1500ft jump in the air and animated statues an all that crap

it really needed a "screw you guys im outta here" option

URGH, KIRKWALL

[taine]

Sareth Cousland wrote...

There should be two learnings from this:
1. Cutting down on the complexity was wrong. DA3 needs DA:O or Skyrim complexity (crafting/equipment etc.). More complexity makes for a living, breathing world - unlike Kirkwall and environs, which many reviewers described as "lifeless".
2. Adress your target market. The design needs to be crafted for a WRPG audience - i.e. no over-the-top combat, no manga-influenced elves, no stylization of the art design. Ever since I read "hot-rod samurai" by Matt Goldman to describe DA2's art style, I have thought it's a perfect fit. It was fine for DA2, but please scrap it for DA3 and give people what they want. You'll get their money in return.

I don't really care about Skyrim, but I did want to say that I hope Bioware does the things you suggest. If nothing else, Skyrim proved that a game doesn't need to be dumbed down to be popular, and that there's a large audience for RPGs (even if Skyrim isn't a traditional RPG as such, it's sort of its own genre). 

[Zanallen]

taine wrote...

I don't really care about Skyrim, but I did want to say that I hope Bioware does the things you suggest. If nothing else, Skyrim proved that a game doesn't need to be dumbed down to be popular, and that there's a large audience for RPGs (even if Skyrim isn't a traditional RPG as such, it's sort of its own genre). 

But Skyrim was streamlined (Or dumbed down as the BSN likes to say) from the previous TES games. They removed the attributes and made it so all skills contribute toward level up instead of just major skills. At level up you pick one of three stats to increase and then pick one perk. That's as simple as it can be without removing level ups all together. Skyrim is far less complicated than Oblivion or Morrowind.