85 réponses à ce sujet

[alex90c]

I think with Skyrim, while yes Bethseda streamlined it, the game is an example of good streamlining whereas DA2 may have removed features it simply didn't need to, such as armour penetration (now maces and mauls are no different to greatswords) just to throw one out there.

[Zanallen]

alex90c wrote...

I think with Skyrim, while yes Bethseda streamlined it, the game is an example of good streamlining whereas DA2 may have removed features it simply didn't need to, such as armour penetration (now maces and mauls are no different to greatswords) just to throw one out there.

I agree. Its just silly to see people claiming Skyrim is complicated or even more complicated than DAO. It was streamlined, but for the most part that streamlining worked really well.

[byzantine horse]

 I sincerely doubt that Dragon Age 3 will, in any shape or form, be a Skyrim-clone, that is a point I believe can't be stressed enough and here's why:

Bioware takes great pride in their dialogue-sequences and the relationships you can form with characters in game, just like Bethesda takes pride in their open worlds or Blizzard takes prid ein polishing their games until you can look yourself in them like a mirror

That is what Bioware is all about, whether you like Sci-Fi Shooters (ME) or tactical medieval high fantasy combat (DA:O) or MMOs (SW:ToR). This has been a staple of Bioware's games for years and I don't see it going away just because Skyrim was a hit.

Feature that I do see and believe Bioware can and should take pointers from Skyrim for in future games are these:

1: Exploration. There wasn't much of it in Dragon Age 2 and neither did Origins. This isn't the Skyrim-exploration of "you walk down a road on your way to an epic quest but get sidetracked for 12 hours", but the "ooh here is a secret quest I didn't find my last playthrough!". That just increases the longevity of the game.

2: Talent Tree freedom and other things. If freedom in the storyline can't be achieved (and it can't being a Bioware game) then there should be greater freedom in customizing your character. More classes, more skills, more spells. DA2 dumbed this down and while I don't care much for not handling crafting on my own others do and they do care alot. I see merit in that, I was never bothered with the crafting in Skyrim and it should make a return in DA3.

3: Dungeon diversity. Sure, most dungeons in Skyrim are Norse-themed filled with Draugr. But their layout was if not always then at least mostly very different, which I liked. This adds to point 1 above and is very important.

Things Bioware should take note on from other games:

The Witcher 2: Non-linear story-telling. I know that this is much to ask of Bioware who as said above take pride in their storytelling which thus far has pretty much required a linear storyline. But if Dragon Age 3 is given enough time that could be remedied, just look at Witcher 2 (I even quote this game for doing something well despite hating it, I'm not that biased ) which had a gigantic change in player experience depending on your choice in the middle. Not even Dragon Age 2 with its limited scope had that.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution: A story that really puts your ass in the fire and dialogue bosses. The story in HR was engaging and really put your mind into motion (at least mine) and it made me care and think about characters that I hadn't seen that much of or heard much about. And the dialogue bosses really showed that sometimes dialogue, one area that Bioware takes great pride in, can be so much more entertaining than traditional "kill him!" bosses. That is something I would like to see Bioware try at least once in DA3, but for that a very new engine would be needed which will lead to the point below:

A new engine. The DA2 engine might have looked nice (I didn't think the graphics were "worst piece of filth I have ever seen" as some put it about 8 months ago) but character animations were either jumpy or looked forced, especially face animations. Eyebrows go down too far, only the sides of the mouth go up or down when glad/sad, etc. Heck, maybe you should try doing DA3 in effin' Frostbite 2, that would be a sight to see and then no TW2 fanboys can complain about the graphical quality either. Obviously the engine would need lots and lots of additions to work in a RPG, but the same goes for the new C&C game which will be a rts. A new engine that can deliver a game with very modern graphics, just like TW2 (though hopefully optimized better), and can handle all the thing snecesary to create a truly immersive experience. For reference, just look at Wayne Haas' facial expressions throughout this conversation:  That is what I want from DA3.

And last but not least: Either make a return of the tactical combat in Dragon Age: Origins, or add different options to pick for the player how the game can be played, much like in Mass Effect 3. It won't harm anyone who likes the hardcore and will broaden the game's spectrum to the masses who may just enjoy the dialogue or killing stuff in the setting.

Edit: And one more thing: Make cities feel ALIVE, Kirkwall was dead as a rock compared to Clocktown in Majora's Mask, a game from -99 or something, heck it felt dead compared to Castle Town in the predecessor, Ocarina of Time which came out in -96 or -97 I think. That could and should have been handled much better. Day and night cycles are not necesary, but make the cities feel alive and bustling with people. You don't even need to be able to interact with everyone, just have people walk around as if performing some routines, stand around completely crowded merchant stands, fill up a Chantry with devout people participating in the chant, I don't know, just make it feel ALIVE:

Modifié par byzantine horse, 25 décembre 2011 - 11:45 .

[Meris]

alex90c wrote...

I think with Skyrim, while yes Bethseda streamlined it, the game is an example of good streamlining whereas DA2 may have removed features it simply didn't need to, such as armour penetration (now maces and mauls are no different to greatswords) just to throw one out there.

Perhaps a better wording would be needed streamlining. I do mourn the death of stats in Skyrim, but the Oblivion levelling and attribute allocation were obnoxious to the point that I almost didn't play the game.

[Guldor]

Skyrim and DA shouldnt even be compared. This thread is ridiculous, go back to exploring Kirkwall.

[Asch Lavigne]

As good as Skyrim is, please don't turn DA into the ES games.

[Lux]

Games have always weaker features. Great games makes the player pay more attention to the better parts. DA:O, TW2 and Skyrim are like that. DA: Kirkwall isn't. At least it is as such for me.

Skyrim has great quests and NPC interaction. By the sheer size of the game, I wouldn't expect all to be as good. I think Skyrim has a great balance between visually stunning stuff and other parts where you can use your mind to put "paint" the whole picture. There's always a hint of a story to notice even in the most lowly of dungeons. This reminds me a bit of the experience I had in Baldur's Gate.

Then there's the difference in sales. Could it be that the emphasis BW gives to character interaction - to the detriment of other features - is a flawed concept in need of innovation? I would think so. And the fans who desire nothing more than companion interaction would be in the minority, IMO.

Then there's the marketing. Skyrim had a set of awesome trailers combined with awesome music - all consistent to what the game had to offer. BW has been putting out lukewarm to inconsistent stuff since DA:O.

Finally, VISION consistency versus emphasis on reading and analyzing player statistics. Sticking with your vision, making it as plausible and as detailed within the game world, and not trying to cater to a minimum common denominator is the most important insight BW could take from Skyrim.

[The dead fish]

Mr.House wrote...

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?

This ?

I think the Op didn't play Skyrim, maybe he just read something on the internet. Because, wow. Just wow.  Or maybe he is just saying, " Skyrim is the worst game evaaar " to make his point valid.
And no moral ambiguity ? Really ? So which side is moral ? Who's easily right ?  Stormcloak or Imperials ?

Also, I read the article, and I do not know why some people are overreacting like that. We look pretty stupid from a distant perspective. Nobody said that the next DA will be like a Besthesda game. Chillax. 

Anyways for me, it's a good new. A bigger world  ? Hell yes.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 26 décembre 2011 - 06:21 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Merkar wrote...

Games have always weaker features. Great games makes the player pay more attention to the better parts. DA:O, TW2 and Skyrim are like that. DA: Kirkwall isn't. At least it is as such for me.

Skyrim has great quests and NPC interaction. By the sheer size of the game, I wouldn't expect all to be as good. I think Skyrim has a great balance between visually stunning stuff and other parts where you can use your mind to put "paint" the whole picture. There's always a hint of a story to notice even in the most lowly of dungeons. This reminds me a bit of the experience I had in Baldur's Gate.

Then there's the difference in sales. Could it be that the emphasis BW gives to character interaction - to the detriment of other features - is a flawed concept in need of innovation? I would think so. And the fans who desire nothing more than companion interaction would be in the minority, IMO.

Then there's the marketing. Skyrim had a set of awesome trailers combined with awesome music - all consistent to what the game had to offer. BW has been putting out lukewarm to inconsistent stuff since DA:O.

Finally, VISION consistency versus emphasis on reading and analyzing player statistics. Sticking with your vision, making it as plausible and as detailed within the game world, and not trying to cater to a minimum common denominator is the most important insight BW could take from Skyrim.

Good post.

You reference the word "consistency" several times.  That, I believe, is the single largest denominator in successful sales.  Throughout the life of the Elder Scrolls series, Bethesda has remained consistent in their vision.  Customers know what to expect (that every release holds true to its core values while improving on its predecessor).  Because of that, they do not hesitate to recommend Elder Scrolls games.  Word-of-mouth advertising backed by accurate advertising from the studio are huge factors in obtaining new customers and maintaining growth.

CD Projekt has started establishing consistency with the Witcher 2.  I expect the Witcher 3 to be no different, and will not hesitate to purchase it.  The same cannot be said for my willingness towards the Dragon Age series.

Lack of consistency in value and production are why Dragon Age is now considered an endangered series.

By the way, I think if Dragon Age 2 had been called Dragon Age : Kirkwall and more accurately marketed (a mini/experimental release), Dragon Age 2 might not have had the customer backlash it did.  That would not have changed the subpar quality of Dragon Age 2, of course, but it would have at least let customers know what to expect.  When Dragon Age 2 failed like it did, Bioware/EA would have had some wiggle room to help promote the next Dragon Age installment.  You wouldn't have customers still bombarding the forums and net with their disappointment.  They would have said, "this sucks" and moved on, expecting the next Dragon Age installment to better reflect the core RPG elements they enjoy.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 décembre 2011 - 08:00 .

[Lux]

google_calasade wrote...

By the way, I think if Dragon Age 2 had been called Dragon Age : Kirkwall and more accurately marketed (a mini/experimental release), Dragon Age 2 might not have had the customer backlash it did.  That would not have changed the subpar quality of Dragon Age 2, of course, but it would have at least let customers know what to expect.  When Dragon Age 2 failed like it did, Bioware/EA would have had some wiggle room to help promote the next Dragon Age installment.  You wouldn't have customers still bombarding the forums and net with their disappointment.  They would have said, "this sucks" and moved on, expecting the next Dragon Age installment to better reflect the core RPG elements they enjoy.

Absolutely. One can hope that hindsight has been a good teacher and their marketing team fir... err ... improved.

[Gunderic]

Guldor wrote...

Skyrim and DA shouldnt even be compared. This thread is ridiculous, go back to exploring Kirkwall.

>exploring
>>Kirkwall

lol! 

[TEWR]

alex90c wrote...


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.

I imagine Harrowmont would do the same thing -- forcing people to become casteless -- to preserve his power on the throne.

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).

I just don't really see it as a dilemma once you take into account the Darkspawn as a variable. Putting a weak man on the throne of the only place keeping the Darkspawn from pouring out of the mountain just doesn't really do much to help make it grey for me.

Sure Bhelen's a tool. I hate his guts. As I've said on numerous other threads where the Dwarven King choice comes up I wish I could've taken the throne. I wish I could've killed Bhelen without having to put Harrowmont on the throne.

But... Bhelen is going to be the only thing keeping the Dwarves -- and by extension Ferelden/Orlais -- from falling to the Darkspawn.

To me, that renders the choice painfully obvious. People will suffer, but it's a war against the Darkspawn. One that will -- at least as far as they can see -- will never end.

Also, I'm biased because Xanthos Aeducan is a politically savvy reformist Dwarf intent on pushing the Darkspawn back and forging alliances with other nations. Bhelen's a hack compared to him

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

Eh, DA2's final decision was never grey for me. There wasn't really anything in the game to point at the Annulment being a grey issue.

[Gunderic]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

alex90c wrote...


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.

I imagine Harrowmont would do the same thing -- forcing people to become casteless -- to preserve his power on the throne.

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).

I just don't really see it as a dilemma once you take into account the Darkspawn as a variable. Putting a weak man on the throne of the only place keeping the Darkspawn from pouring out of the mountain just doesn't really do much to help make it grey for me.

Sure Bhelen's a tool. I hate his guts. As I've said on numerous other threads where the Dwarven King choice comes up I wish I could've taken the throne. I wish I could've killed Bhelen without having to put Harrowmont on the throne.

But... Bhelen is going to be the only thing keeping the Dwarves -- and by extension Ferelden/Orlais -- from falling to the Darkspawn.

To me, that renders the choice painfully obvious. People will suffer, but it's a war against the Darkspawn. One that will -- at least as far as they can see -- will never end.

Also, I'm biased because Xanthos Aeducan is a politically savvy reformist Dwarf intent on pushing the Darkspawn back and forging alliances with other nations. Bhelen's a hack compared to him

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

Eh, DA2's final decision was never grey for me. There wasn't really anything in the game to point at the Annulment being a grey issue.

But how do you know Orzammar will be taken over by the darkspawn? The epilogue states that he's poisoned and someone else takes over. I always go for Harrowmont for the 'good' option, myself. Even if I'm Casteless, usually.

Besides, I'm sure the dwarves have their own generals, or commanders. They should have enough common sense to not let themselves get overrun with or without a poor ruler.

Modifié par Gunderic, 26 décembre 2011 - 03:28 .

[taine]

Zanallen wrote...

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.

I wasn't referring so much to the character creation/levelling mechanics as to the depth and breadth of things you can do. I.E. DA2 scrapped non-combat skills, large explorable areas, deep side-quests, tactical combat, etc. and expected this simplification of the game to make it more popular.

[nightscrawl]

bleetman wrote...

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'll start by saying that I have never played any of the Elder Scroll games.

However, I was under the impression that the main reason for playing the games was to be in the open world, finding out the thousands of quests, exploring, and all of the other various things one would want to do in a generated world where anything is possible.

If you consider that, then most of the OP's points are moot. Dragon Age, and Bioware in general, does characterization and story very well because that is the main focus of the game, whereas Bethesda has chosen to focus a large amount of development resources in creating a hugely vast world for players to explore, that is only somewhat supported by a story, and where the story is in fact so unimportant that players can ignore it completely if they want.

It's really comparing apples and oranges. Sure they're both RPG fruit, and people who like fruit will probably like playing them. But if you have two games whose player goals are different from the outset of development, it's not an accurate comparison.

[TEWR]

Gunderic wrote...


But how do you know Orzammar will be taken over by the darkspawn? The epilogue states that he's poisoned and someone else takes over. I always go for Harrowmont for the 'good' option, myself. Even if I'm Casteless, usually.

I don't actually know it will happen, but I can use all the information given in the game to make a more accurate guess as to the likelihood of it happening.

Given that Harrowmont prefers both isolationism and traditionalism in times where even a blind nug could see that should not be done, alongside the facts that more Dwarves are going topside each year and the Warrior Caste is dwindling each and every day, it's only a matter of time until Orzammar is left to the dust and the Darkspawn conquer it.

It could be years, decades, or even a century or two but the point is that Harrowmont is only speeding up the process while Bhelen is actually giving them a fighting chance.

Plus, there's no indication that Harrowmont's possible successor -- as the wiki states that the wrangling for it begins and not that anyone actually took over -- is better suited for the throne. For all we know he could be worse than Harrowmont. Or better. Point is it's a lot to bank on the unknown.

I'm not saying anyone who picks Harrowmont is wrong or anything. I'm just backing up my original assertion that to me the choice for the Anvil and the throne wasn't morally grey.

Besides, I'm sure the dwarves have their own generals, or commanders. They should have enough common sense to not let themselves get overrun with or without a poor ruler.

Well they do have the Dwarf Wardens, who are pretty much the best Dwarven generals.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 décembre 2011 - 09:08 .

[Monica83]

A) dragon age don't have 1/10 of the content of skyrim
There is political differences from race to race in skyrim (or maybe you missed the thalmor thing?)
C)THe storytelling isn't at the level of bioware past title included dragon age origins.. But for sure superior to dragon age 2 and the skyrim story isn't bad
D)You can zoom away the camera even more distant than you do in dragon age 2 IMO

E) You are free to post your opinion as a long your points are correct... Those things you says make me think you not played Skyrim...

F) The story of the witcher is from a series of book there is no way that witcher storyline been copyed from DAO

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Monica83 wrote...
F) The story of the witcher is from a series of book there is no way that witcher storyline been copyed from DAO

He wasn't saying that, he was saying that the idea of different characters have different perspectives was copied from Dragon Age: Origins. Which is even more epically what.

Modifié par Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut, 26 décembre 2011 - 06:42 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Guldor wrote...

Skyrim and DA shouldnt even be compared. This thread is ridiculous, go back to exploring Kirkwall.

the problem with exploring Kirkwall is that I keep on getting a strange sense of deja vu...that I had been in that place before....

[Realmzmaster]

taine wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

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.

I do not want them to do that. I do not need mutiple cRPGs from different companies  that look the same.
I wasn't referring so much to the character creation/levelling mechanics as to the depth and breadth of things you can do. I.E. DA2 scrapped non-combat skills, large explorable areas, deep side-quests, tactical combat, etc. and expected this simplification of the game to make it more popular.

The past two TES games Oblivion and Skyrim barely have what would be considered a story in comparison to Morrowind. Morrowind had both a story and an open world environment.  Oblivion and Skyrim are dumbed
down in comparison to their older sibling. Many actions have been streamlined in Skyrim in comparison to older TES titles and it all started with Oblivion.

Skyrim has been streamlined for the same reason Bioware tried to streamline Dragon Age to attract a different
audience while retaining most of the old. Bethesda was more sucessful with the streamlining than Bioware for various reasons.

Bioware focuses on a different niche in the cRPG market  than Bethesda. Bioware does story telling cRPGs and Bethesda focuses on open world exploration at the expense of an excellent story.

There are gamers who only like TES games. Those who only like Bioware games. Those who like both. Those who like TES games like them because of the emphasis on exploration and the ability to basically forget the main story until the gamer wants to pick it up or stumble into it. Those who like Bioware are in it for the story and
party interaction among other things.

TES games have always been single protagonist. Skyrim is the first to use companions and does not
do it well. Bioware had a single protagonist with NWN and you could hire henchmen who were well intergrated in the story other Bioware games are party based.

Each developer has its strengths. Everyone wants to point to Skyrim sales and say see the numbers Bethesda racked up. I say good for them. Bethesda does not give me the same experience that Bioware does.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 26 décembre 2011 - 08:55 .

[Nevara]

BioWare has always been story motivated when it comes to their games. You know most if not all character motivations from the main character all the way to the allies. They are character driven for a reason, that's the way they like to do things and hence you get the emotional involvement.

In Skyrim, it's not story driven, it's character driven. You are the character. You opt to proceed or not in any quest or stop it dead in its tracks and do something else. You create your motivations. Do you become the Listener of the DB or do you wipe it out from the get-go because of all the wrong things they do?

For all the griping about streamlining and the overplayed words of "dumbing down" I still find it hard to believe that even that is considered a fair amount of handholding. It's an open world, create your backstory, personality, etc., and run with it.

It's all about imagination whether its a voiceless NPC or not it all comes down to (another hated phrase) "player agency". The story is yours not Skyrim's. That's just the setting. Do with it what you will.

[Kreid]

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.

This is spot on.

There is a large base of fantasy fans out there in all media, books, movies AND videogames too. It's not all war shooters ad infinitum that people want, and Skyrim proves that when a developer cares about making a true AAA quality fantasy title, all these people are going to react.

BioWare games are not and should not become TeS, but they can learn a lesson as why Skyrim is so popular, people like lots of content, they like to explore, go places, feel the discovery and have a certain of freedom to their experience, those are all things TeS excels at and it pays but it needs time and funds, you can't expect to put a Skyrim together in eighteen months.

Bioware are the best at what they do but they often get a little too entranced about character development and let everything else aside, they need to take their time and put together a game that takes the best of both worlds.

[fortunesque]

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. 


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. 


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!

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!

From the things you said, I seriously doubt that you gave Skyrim more than two hours of playing.

3. Moral ambiguity exists in Skyrim in many places. The Blades asking you to kill Paarthurnax is a huge example, as well as the debate of which side to join in the revolution. There are plenty of sidequests also where you have to decide if someone's lying or not.

6. Skyrim has a huge list of voice actors. Guess what? If you're going to make an open world game that has hundreds of characters in it, there's going to be some overlap. And looking at the DAO VA list, those overlap too.


8. Skyrim is a serious game, and it doesn't try to bring 'teh lulz' every second of the game. 

9. Being able to choose anything you want somehow makes gameplay shallow? Replayability is huge in ES games; you have different factions you can join, and you can roleplay which you join based on how you're going to play that time through. You can do one or you can do all, and that shows serious considerations toward the player's ability to choose.

4. I saved the best one for last. The statement that the races in Skyrim have no meaningful interaction or relationships is so incredibly hilarious that I actually thought you were joking for a few minutes. 

The Kahjiits aren't even allowed into cities because they're looked upon as thieves and drug addicts. Dunmer are viewed by some as unwashed refugees, and elves are made to live in ghettos in Nord controlled cities. There's also the viewpoint of the Imperials which can be summed up by General Tullius calling Ulfric Stormcloak "you people"- referring to Nords. I could go on and on about the racial tensions and differences in the Elder Scrolls series. But it's something you have to explore rather than have it fed to you like in DAO where "elves are slaves" and that's constantly hammered home. 

In short, yes, you can say "I didn't like Skyrim" and you can ask BW to not make DA3 like it, but at least sound like you've played the game first

Modifié par fortunesque, 26 décembre 2011 - 11:09 .

[TEWR]

First off, I'd like the record to show that in my life I've only played two ES games: Oblivion and Skyrim. I was never able to take Oblvion seriously because of the horrendous faces -- they made me laugh uncontrollably -- but Skyrim has me playing it fervently. It's just a beautiful game.

Second, I'd like to address what I can from the OP's post, because I really only addressed one point. Though I won't be able to make a strong defense as I haven't played much of Skyrim.

Third, and this applies only to the OP's post: not sure if serious.

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. 

As another poster pointed out you can rotate the camera around. You can also turn subtitles on which will tell you who's speaking.

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.

From what I've seen so far, Skyrim is building up a lot of suspense for its main plot. I'm actually more engaged in Skyrim's plot than I was in DAII.

Not the DAII that could've been with its great concepts, but the DAII that we got.

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.

As I said earlier, this made me lol.

DAO had no moral ambiguity, while Skyrim has me constantly asking myself if siding with the Stormcloaks was what I should've done.

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!

You see humans repressing the Elves in Skyrim too I believe. At least one city/village I think has the repressed Elves, while the Khandjit (sp?) aren't welcome anywhere and the Nords are taking on the Empire. I'm sure there are more.

Seems like the different races are politically related to one another

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.

No, mediocre is what DAII was. And that's being generous.

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'm sure Gideon Emery and some of the other people who worked on the DA series are indeed awful.

Oh wait, they aren't. But they're also in Skyrim.

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.

Wait what? There was a power struggle between Morrigan and the Warden? That never happened for me. If anything, it was a struggle for Morrigan to confront her feelings.

Plus, can't you marry people in Skyrim? And one would hope it's not a chaste marriage.

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.

I found the fact that one prisoner would rather die then listen to some preacher quite funny.

I think the humor is indeed there. One just needs to be paying attention instead of going "BAH HUMBUG!"

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!

I disagree. I'm already intent on replaying the game numerous times. I want to side with the Legion next time, maybe decline to be a werewolf, become a full-fledged mage, etc.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

bleetman wrote...

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.

The problem I had with the civil war storyline in Skyrim was the fact that neither side made a real good case on why I should support them. Sure there was General Tullis' and Stormcloak's speeches in their respective castles, but I never had a real understanding of the difference between each side other than that the Stormcloaks and a good portion of the Imperials don't like the banning of the worship of Talos . It seems that both sides hate the treaty with the Dominion.

 At least in DA2 the mages and templars each side made their cases on why should I support them or not.