623 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

google_calasade wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

esper wrote...


if someone drops at your feet and their friend is two second away from hammering you with a giant axe you might not have the time to check if you merly knocked them out or they are death since said friend would kill you if you paused. But yes it is metagaming and a question of what one prefer. I would rather metagame than knowing that dead is cheap though. .

Alternertively we could have it as in mass effect where shepard death = game over, just anyone from party death = game over, but to pull that off the game needs a much, much better companion AI because frankly they are idiots even with the best tactics on if you don't micro them.

I wouldn't like it if you got a game over just because one companion died or if the PC died. FFXIII did that also with the party leader and that was one of the cons of that game. If the party leader died, you got a game over and after a while it just got more annoying than strategic.

Then how about a normal/easy where that doesn't happen but on hard and nightmare levels, it's a different story?

That'd be more tolerable for me, but I'd still dislike it because on the higher difficulties it just might become more of an inconvenience.

Especially given how far back autosaves go sometimes.

Now, were Bioware to implement the FF system's method of health and mana/stamina automatically upgrading upon level up -- with the player still being able to invest points in health and willpower -- then I could get behind this idea a bit more.

Because I do want the enemies to keep the current amount of health they have in the DAII combat system -- as I felt that DAO's combat would end too soon even on Nightmare -- but I also want the party's health to be roughly equal to them.

I think that without the upgraded health/stamina/mana idea this type of thing would happen far too often on the higher difficulties and it would cease to be a challenge. It would become an inconvenience for the player.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 janvier 2012 - 09:12 .

[Yrkoon]

Pzykozis wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...


It's not challenging or fun to run from a battlefield to a church, nor is it challenging or fun to have that dead person disintegrated because of random.

No, but it is challenging   and memorable to  suddenly lose your healer, or your mage when you're on the second level of a 4 level dungeon.  Do you continue on and try to finish the dungeon without their services?  or do you trudge their bodies back to town, pay a large sum of gold to a priest to have them raised  (Money that you were saving in order to purchase  that special weapon you had your eye on   in the shop down the street.  But now you can't buy it, because you f**ked up in battle and let your mage die.)  

That's... not challenging. It's an option but there's no challenge in simply leaving and getting revived. As for memorable whether that's a good thing or a bad thing would be dependant on preferences I'd say. I don't understand why you'd purposefully handicap yourself and continue, that makes no sense to me.

Money, time and gameplay wise, It's an inconvenience, but inconvenience and challenge aren't the same things. It's challenging to fight a room full of elite opponenets all at once, it's not a challenge once that is over to drag a corpse to a church to get revived, the cost of that revival is an inconvenience. If the item in the shop is mandatory to gameplay somehow then perhaps the inconvenience causes a more challenging game, but really if an item in a shop is that important then really to me the game has balance issues.

Going back to town to raise a dead companion is not supposed to be a challege in and of itself.  It's supposed to be the consequence of failing a  challenge  (you couldn't keep everyone alive in a  battle)

Having to  survive the rest of the dungeon without them IS a challenge, however, and one I absolutely loved in BG1.  (Durlag's tower.  Oh the memories!)

Modifié par Yrkoon, 14 janvier 2012 - 09:14 .

[esper]

google_calasade wrote...

esper wrote...

if someone drops at your feet and their friend is two second away from hammering you with a giant axe you might not have the time to check if you merly knocked them out or they are death since said friend would kill you if you paused. But yes it is metagaming and a question of what one prefer. I would rather metagame than knowing that dead is cheap though. .

But that would not be the case all of the time.  What really gets me is something I mentioned in an earlier edit, how enemies can be beheaded for instance, lose their limbs, etc., and yet that never happens to my PC or a party member.

esper wrote...
Alternertively we could have it as in mass effect where shepard death = game over, just anyone from party death = game over, but to pull that off the game needs a much, much better companion AI because frankly they are idiots even with the best tactics on if you don't micro them.

Death = game over.  I like it.  Great point, too, on the AI.  I tend to micro them because if I don't, well, they do some stupid crap. LOL

Since we are on all right terms, how do you break up quotes I havn't figured that out yet.

I ignore finishing moves since they in both games a proven to be non canonical. You can finish a move boss by beheading him and he might still have a dying cutscence. Frankly I could life without since they as stated is not canonical and only there to look good, but a lot of persons love them so it is not much skin of my nose. 

Death = game over is fun when the companions are not idiots so bioware needs to work on that first, but if they manage to make companions who doesn't think it is a great idea to run into a firestorm then it would be interesting, I don't want to micro the companions too much since my metagaming for controlling them is that I pretend I am shouting orders at them. (In da:o, this was even confirmed by the way they said, Yes? Your orders? when you took control).

again perhaps it should be a nightmare/hard feature for the hardcore gamers and then the casual could have it easier on normal/easy. I know that sometimes I turn the game difficulty down simply because I would rather see which miniscule thing changes if I pick abc instead of abf, but might not want to play the whole game again.

Another thing. What do you think on the companions AI when they turn on you. Personally I think that it would be more interesting if they kept the tactics and abilities we have given them. I know such a fight is easy to break, but I also think it would be an interesting way of getting your own tactics thrown in your face if you purposely anger your friends.

[Pzykozis]

google_calasade wrote...

It's a challenge if there are obstacles to leaving and getting somewhere.  It's a challenge if you have to earn enough coin to afford it.  It can be made a rather huge challenge with additional roleplaying opportunities and not just a chore to be done.  It also provides consequence of choice.  All of that will certainly make you play more strategically, and wince at a failed outcome.  Thus, the battles become more meaningful.

That [obstacles] just sounds like additional time sinks to get in the way of doing something you don't want to be doing anyway. I can't understand wanting to pay the forfeit, I can understand to a certain extent increased punishments for failing at something, but I can't see how it'd make you happy to bypass "obstacles" in order to go somewhere and get a cutter to patch someone together. Prohibitive costs aren't challenging they're inconveniences.. and depending on how prohibitive they are there's no point wasting the man hours on even developing the mechanics in the first place.

failure is failure, there's no real need to make it more punitive, is it great when you game over on some games they play a fanfare for about half a minute with big flashing YOU SUCK (read as GAME OVER) emblazoned in the middle of the screen? I find that just annoying. Having to drag a party member out of a dungeon to a city and have them healed up regardless of expense just to me takes away far more than it gives, since I already failed in having someone go down in the first place. I'd prefer it if the battles were more meaningful by making each and every fight harder in and of itself not introducing stuff after the fight.

[Yrkoon]

You're right. Better that your party members just  be unkillable. It's more "challenging" that way. Wait...

Modifié par Yrkoon, 14 janvier 2012 - 09:24 .

[TEWR]

I'd also prefer that the party's health and mana/stamina doesn't automatically go back to the maximum number after a battle ends.

One of the things I prefer about the FF games is how health and mana stays at the most recent number until you use something that restores it. So if you have 499 MP and you stop at 363, it stays there.

Probably used in other games as well -- possibly ones I've played -- but FF is the one that immediately comes to mind where it's used.

[esper]

@Ethereal, indeed, but that demands that we get more of it. As you say perhaps automatically more as we level up and then we can put in stats points to get even more.

[Pzykozis]

Yrkoon wrote...
Going back to town to raise a dead companion is not supposed to be a challege in and of itself.  It's supposed to be the consequence of failing a  challenge  (you couldn't keep everyone alive in a  battle)

Having to  survive the rest of the dungeon without them IS a challenge, however, and one I absolutely loved in BG1.  (Durlag's tower.  Oh the memories!)

Right, I can see that, I just consider that consequence to take away more than it brings, the failure is in the act of failing and I'd have thought everyone feels atleast some amount of failure when a party member goes down in a fight, or if your huscarl goes down in skyrim, any added extra time spent in game doing whatever to get them back is just kind of an ordeal of punishment.

Aye, but at the same time I don't really understand the want to self handicap or I see "having to" as being poorly designed, you can easily just break a game by doing stuff like that. Reminds me of the old health kit games, and how you could easily make those games literally impossible to complete if you had a bad encounter and used too many health kits in a specific place. Challenging yes, but then it's kinda just broken too. Especially in games like DA wherein RNG / luck plays a role aswell as your own personal skill with the game.

I'll pretty much have to agree to disagree on this.

Yrkoon wrote...

You're right. Better that your party members just be unkillable. It's more "challenging" that way. Wait...

I never said it did make it more challenging? I just said that the other option doesn't really make it more challenging.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 14 janvier 2012 - 09:33 .

[DreamwareStudio]

esper wrote...

Since we are on all right terms, how do you break up quotes I havn't figured that out yet.

Go into the standard editor and custom place the block quotes as I've done above and below.

esper wrote...

I
ignore finishing moves since they in both games a proven to be non
canonical. You can finish a move boss by beheading him and he might
still have a dying cutscence. Frankly I could life without since they
as stated is not canonical and only there to look good, but a lot of
persons love them so it is not much skin of my nose. 

It is still skin off my nose (good term, btw) if what happens to enemies cannot also happen to my party.  It makes the battles seem too favored.

The non-humanoid battles...don't get me started on the whole fighting a dragon thing, the dragon picks you up in its jaws, flings you about, you land on the ground, and you hop back up and are swinging your sword. LOL

esper wrote...

Another thing. What do you think on the
companions AI when they turn on you. Personally I think that it would be
more interesting if they kept the tactics and abilities we have given
them. I know such a fight is easy to break, but I also think it would be
an interesting way of getting your own tactics thrown in your face if
you purposely anger your friends.

That would be fricking great.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 09:39 .

[esper]

[quote]google_calasade wrote...

[quote]esper wrote...

Since we are on all right terms, how do you break up quotes I havn't figured that out yet.

[/quote]

Go into the standard editor and custom place the block quotes as I've done above and below.
[/quote]

Let's see if this is right then. Thanks anyway,

[quote]google_calasade wrote...

[quote]esper wrote...

I
ignore finishing moves since they in both games a proven to be non
canonical. You can finish a move boss by beheading him and he might
still have a dying cutscence. Frankly I could life without since they
as stated is not canonical and only there to look good, but a lot of
persons love them so it is not much skin of my nose. 

[/quote]

It is still skin off my nose (good term, btw) if what happens to enemies cannot also happen to my party.  It makes the battles seem too favored.

The non-humanoid battles...don't get me started on the whole fighting a dragon thing, the dragon picks you up in its jaws, flings you about, you land on the ground, and you hop back up and are swinging your sword. LOL
[/quote]

years of gaming on various console has quickly made me tell my self that sometime it is better just not to ask. The hits and wound people in game can survive simply prove why it is a good thing that we can't fight dragons in reality.


[quote]google_calasade wrote...
[quote]esper wrote...

Another thing. What do you think on the
companions AI when they turn on you. Personally I think that it would be
more interesting if they kept the tactics and abilities we have given
them. I know such a fight is easy to break, but I also think it would be
an interesting way of getting your own tactics thrown in your face if
you purposely anger your friends.[/quote]

That would be fricking great.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I would be great, I know it is easily breakable such as you knowing meta that you want this companion to betray you and then purposely not do give them proper abilities, but let people exploit what they want to exploit.
I am think on a special fight in legacy and while it is nice for the first time in game to actually battle someone using, rock amor, petrify and repulsion, it would be even nicer if said person has used glyps of paralyzing, fireball and winters grasp which I had set up. Also it would be interesting to see how effective that tactic would be against my own team.  

[Pzykozis]

esper wrote...
I would be great, I know it is easily breakable such as you knowing meta that you want this companion to betray you and then purposely not do give them proper abilities, but let people exploit what they want to exploit.
I am think on a special fight in legacy and while it is nice for the first time in game to actually battle someone using, rock amor, petrify and repulsion, it would be even nicer if said person has used glyps of paralyzing, fireball and winters grasp which I had set up. Also it would be interesting to see how effective that tactic would be against my own team.  

That would be pretty great, albeit I'd almost like it more if there was some semblence of smart AI going on in which it could perhaps optimise or use other abilities outside your current tactics (I for example don't always have specific spells activated through tactics that a person has acquired..) It'd be funny for example if it was seen that a character has some destruction spells but they're not enabled (mostly cause of FF in my case) but they would be well used in the situation regardless and so they sort of improved on your tactics given (It would also stifle gaming the system aswell).

That's my pie in the sky moment anyway.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 14 janvier 2012 - 10:11 .

[Pzykozis]

D'oh

Modifié par Pzykozis, 14 janvier 2012 - 10:11 .

[esper]

Pzykozis wrote...

esper wrote...
I would be great, I know it is easily breakable such as you knowing meta that you want this companion to betray you and then purposely not do give them proper abilities, but let people exploit what they want to exploit.
I am think on a special fight in legacy and while it is nice for the first time in game to actually battle someone using, rock amor, petrify and repulsion, it would be even nicer if said person has used glyps of paralyzing, fireball and winters grasp which I had set up. Also it would be interesting to see how effective that tactic would be against my own team.  

That would be pretty great, albeit I'd almost like it more if there was some semblence of smart AI going on in which it could perhaps optimise or use other abilities outside your current tactics (I for example don't always have specific spells activated through tactics that a person has acquired..) It'd be funny for example if it was seen that a character has some destruction spells but they're not enabled (mostly cause of FF in my case) but they would be well used in the situation regardless and so they sort of improved on your tactics given (It would also stifle gaming the system aswell).

That's my pie in the sky moment anyway.

Well, if using our own tactics would be too diffucult or breakable then at least the talents they have learned or a combination of our tactics and talents such as: 
Attack - not attack talent in the tactict in sheet - goes to the default damager tactic and unleash fireball. on group more than two

Which remiends me since I am wishfully thinking. I want a tactic that can make the companion shift between tactics sheet such as: 
(I am imaging a mage/healer here, since mage is the class I play most and I usually find that I don't have tactics sheets enough)

Costum tactics:
Other tactic
Hp above 70 %: Swithc to damager
Other tactic
Other tactic

Damager sheet:
Other tactic
Party hp less than 50 % : Switch to Healer sheet

Healer: 
Other tactic.
Other tactic
More than 2 enemies alive: Swithc ti custom tactics.

I know that ideally we would be able to freealy tweak the non-custom tactics as well then, but the game game could still have restore default tactics bottom and then in the case of somebody turns on you the default tactics for all sheet but custom is restored making sure the companion has acces to all abilities.

[astreqwerty]

geez why?honestly!! why skyrim is thought to be the greatest rpg ever??i dont get it..its practically the exact same product with oblivion only with better textures and a story that my 7 year old sister could have done better.i know exploration and all that jazz but rly been there done that some years ago with oblivion and that too got tedious after a while.So witcher 2 was arguably the better rpg and the better game from da2 and skyrim both...

[Realmzmaster]

esper wrote...

@Ethereal, indeed, but that demands that we get more of it. As you say perhaps automatically more as we level up and then we can put in stats points to get even more.

Automatic health. mana and stamina on level up would take away some of the choice in how the gamer builds the character. I would prefer more points to be given per level and the gamer can allocate them as he/she sees fit.  What purpose does it serve?

[TEWR]

Realmzmaster wrote...

esper wrote...

@Ethereal, indeed, but that demands that we get more of it. As you say perhaps automatically more as we level up and then we can put in stats points to get even more.

Automatic health. mana and stamina on level up would take away some of the choice in how the gamer builds the character. I would prefer more points to be given per level and the gamer can allocate them as he/she sees fit.  What purpose does it serve?

no it wouldn't. Not if Bioware worked around with it. This is why I stressed that the automatic upgrade to those stats happen in conjunction with player determined stat allocation, which esper echoed.

*level up!*

*health jumps from 1200 to 1500 and stamina jumps from 600 to 750*

*player invests one point into health at attribute menu, increasing it by 100 and the other two in willpower, increasing it by 100*

[Realmzmaster]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

esper wrote...

@Ethereal, indeed, but that demands that we get more of it. As you say perhaps automatically more as we level up and then we can put in stats points to get even more.

Automatic health. mana and stamina on level up would take away some of the choice in how the gamer builds the character. I would prefer more points to be given per level and the gamer can allocate them as he/she sees fit.  What purpose does it serve?

no it wouldn't. Not if Bioware worked around with it. This is why I stressed that the automatic upgrade to those stats happen in conjunction with player determined stat allocation, which esper echoed.

*level up!*

*health jumps from 1200 to 1500 and stamina jumps from 600 to 750*

*player invests one point into health at attribute menu, increasing it by 100 and the other two in willpower, increasing it by 100*

The question I asked is why should that occur? What is the logic behind it? You are saying I get an increase in Health. stamina and mana whther I want it or not. I am saying give the points associated with that increase and let me allocate it. If I get the points that the increase represents I can decide to put it all into dexterity.

The way you suggest is that I get the boost in health. mana stamina, but only the regular 3 points to put into dexerity or other attribute like strength. Let's say for example the boost on level up you suggest can be translated into 3 more attribute points. I am saying give me those three extra points and let me allocate them. Give the option to forgo the increase in Heath, stamina or mana.

[TEWR]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

esper wrote...

@Ethereal, indeed, but that demands that we get more of it. As you say perhaps automatically more as we level up and then we can put in stats points to get even more.

Automatic health. mana and stamina on level up would take away some of the choice in how the gamer builds the character. I would prefer more points to be given per level and the gamer can allocate them as he/she sees fit.  What purpose does it serve?

no it wouldn't. Not if Bioware worked around with it. This is why I stressed that the automatic upgrade to those stats happen in conjunction with player determined stat allocation, which esper echoed.

*level up!*

*health jumps from 1200 to 1500 and stamina jumps from 600 to 750*

*player invests one point into health at attribute menu, increasing it by 100 and the other two in willpower, increasing it by 100*

The question I asked is why should that occur? What is the logic behind it? You are saying I get an increase in Health. stamina and mana whther I want it or not. I am saying give the points associated with that increase and let me allocate it. If I get the points that the increase represents I can decide to put it all into dexterity.

The way you suggest is that I get the boost in health. mana stamina, but only the regular 3 points to put into dexerity or other attribute like strength. Let's say for example the boost on level up you suggest can be translated into 3 more attribute points. I am saying give me those three extra points and let me allocate them. Give the option to forgo the increase in Heath, stamina or mana.

I gave the logic behind it earlier in this thread. The enemies have thousands of health. Our health should be on par -- or at least roughly on par -- with their health, and this would allow us to have that.

What you're suggesting wouldn't allow for health on par with the enemies', and their would still be the jarring issue of "I have far less health than the enemies, yet I'm still kicking their ass."

In Origins, our health was roughly equal to that of the common enemies. This should've still been the case in DAII and should be the case in future DA games. You can still determine whether or not you want an added bonus in health, mana, or stamina, so I don't see any problem. The player is still allowed to customize the stats of their character.

Also, what you're suggesting would need health bonuses to be absurdly high to even come close to what I'm proposing, which would possibly lead to wild abuse of it. People would just invest points in Constitution to get insanely high health.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 janvier 2012 - 02:15 .

[Realmzmaster]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

esper wrote...

@Ethereal, indeed, but that demands that we get more of it. As you say perhaps automatically more as we level up and then we can put in stats points to get even more.

Automatic health. mana and stamina on level up would take away some of the choice in how the gamer builds the character. I would prefer more points to be given per level and the gamer can allocate them as he/she sees fit.  What purpose does it serve?

no it wouldn't. Not if Bioware worked around with it. This is why I stressed that the automatic upgrade to those stats happen in conjunction with player determined stat allocation, which esper echoed.

*level up!*

*health jumps from 1200 to 1500 and stamina jumps from 600 to 750*

*player invests one point into health at attribute menu, increasing it by 100 and the other two in willpower, increasing it by 100*

The question I asked is why should that occur? What is the logic behind it? You are saying I get an increase in Health. stamina and mana whther I want it or not. I am saying give the points associated with that increase and let me allocate it. If I get the points that the increase represents I can decide to put it all into dexterity.

The way you suggest is that I get the boost in health. mana stamina, but only the regular 3 points to put into dexerity or other attribute like strength. Let's say for example the boost on level up you suggest can be translated into 3 more attribute points. I am saying give me those three extra points and let me allocate them. Give the option to forgo the increase in Heath, stamina or mana.

I gave the logic behind it earlier in this thread. The enemies have thousands of health. Our health should be on par -- or at least roughly on par -- with their health, and this would allow us to have that.

What you're suggesting wouldn't allow for health on par with the enemies', and their would still be the jarring issue of "I have far less health than the enemies, yet I'm still kicking their ass."

In Origins, our health was roughly equal to that of the common enemies. This should've still been the case in DAII and should be the case in future DA games. You can still determine whether or not you want an added bonus in health, mana, or stamina, so I don't see any problem. The player is still allowed to customize the stats of their character.

Also, what you're suggesting would need health bonuses to be absurdly high to even come close to what I'm proposing, which would possibly lead to wild abuse of it. People would just invest points in Constitution to get insanely high health.

So what you are proposing is basically an illusion. Which would run contrary to the illusion of feeling like a bad ass because I can beat the enemy even if they have more hit points than me because I manage my tactics and strategy better.
If I have roughly the same number of Health,stamina or mana it becomes more of a battle of attrition. Or am I missing something?

[TEWR]

Realmzmaster wrote...

So what you are proposing is basically an illusion. Which would run contrary to the illusion of feeling like a bad ass because I can beat the enemy even if they have more hit points than me because I manage my tactics and strategy better.
If I have roughly the same number of Health,stamina or mana it becomes more of a battle of attrition. Or am I missing something?

It would more or less be a battle of strategic attrition, but I wouldn't even call it that with the number of enemies that would be present. DAO was more along the lines of this than DAII was, though nowhere near tactical imo. And I don't feel like a badass simply for killing dozens of mindless mooks in DAII. They employ no tactics, do not realistically fight in battle, and other things.

Badassery can come in other ways other than "They have more health, but I've killed more bodies". It can come from defeating complex enemy tactics and more numbers than the party has (4 people killed 30 that used actual enemy tactics). It can come from roleplaying. It can come from persuasion. It can come from being politically savvy.

I don't see much strategy in "I have less health than they do but I killed them". I don't see much of a -- dare I say it -- realistic nature in that the health is so wildly offset.

With the system I'm proposing as well as actual enemy tactics used -- which would vary depending on the type of enemy -- I think the combat could become tactical and appeal to the players.

Of course, enemy damage output would have to increase and they'd have to use the new animations/abilities, but if you're taking damage from various combatants then you have to account for it and have to work around that.

=====================================================================

EDIT: Also -- since the thread has shifted towards combat in various aspects -- I'd like to see enemies sometimes do things appropriate for certain attacks. Say you use Hail of Arrows on a given area. Perhaps S&S Warriors could crouch down and put their shields into the air to take the arrows and thus take less damage from the Arrows, but mages and rogues would take normal damage.

And are the devs still reading the thread? I'd like to know some of their thoughts on how combat could be improved in the future of the series.

Abominations and Demons definitely need work:

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'd like to address demons and Abominations now. I think they need to begin to be a real challenge, depending on the level of the demon/abomination.

Rage Demons should use more Fire attacks. I say have them use Elemental Weapons, Fireball, and Firestorm. Rage Abominations should do these things along with their mindless drunkard style fighting because it's believable there. I'd also like to see the Abomination maybe pick up the enemy and throw them across the field in anger (this is actually something I wish Corypheus did in Legacy, but maybe when we see him again he'll do this)

Hunger Demons should use some more advanced spells. I'd like to see them use some Entropic spells along with abilities from the Elemental and Primal trees. They should also have an ability that drains the health of a character and replenishes their own.

Hunger Abominations should do all of these things as well as maybe eat a companion whole, for two reasons:

1) OM NOM NOM
2) It would add a new tactic if you lose one of your companions because he's been eaten whole (though he would return when the Abomination is defeated).

Sloth Demons and Abominations should also use Entropic spells, but they should also begin to use blood magic spells and some spells from the other trees. They should also make your companions fall asleep on the battlefield (which was in the Entropy tree) and then prey on that.

Desire Demons and Pride Demons should use the most advanced spells from each tree and use their own unique tactics with those trees. I'd also like to see the Desire Demons and Pride Demons use different attacks when they multiply themselves. In Legacy, all they did was the same attack, and they didn't even attack sometimes! Each one should use stuff like Firestorm, Tempest, Stonefist, etc when they multiply

I think I've made my point.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 janvier 2012 - 02:55 .

[Yrkoon]

astreqwerty wrote...

geez why?honestly!! why skyrim is thought to be the greatest rpg ever??i dont get it..its practically the exact same product with oblivion only with better textures and a story that my 7 year old sister could have done better.i know exploration and all that jazz but rly been there done that some years ago with oblivion and that too got tedious after a while..

Because heaven forbid  a successful company  continue to use a proven successful formula.  Who ever heard of such a  terrible business practice?!    It's obviously a recipe for failure.  It's no wonder Skyrim only sold...er... lets see... 8 million copies?  lol 

And no,  Skyrim's stories are neither simplistic, nor are they less than *great*.  I'd  most  certainly rank  the majority of them  about 3 magnitudes higher in quality than anything contained in DA2.

Perhaps there's something in that game that you're not seeing.  Not getting.  Not understanding.  But that's irrelevant.  Because the results can't be denied.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 janvier 2012 - 04:48 .

[Ponendus]

Yrkoon wrote...

Perhaps there's something in that game that you're not seeing.  Not getting.  Not understanding.  But that's irrelevant.  Because the results can't be denied.

On the contrary it is highly relevant. You can't chastise someone for their subjective view on a video game. It is completely based on the personal interests of the player. Numbers are not relevant, it just means that there are that many people that enjoy that particular formula.

I am not one of those number. I find the Elder Scrolls formula very boring and repetitive.

[Yrkoon]

Ponendus wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Perhaps there's something in that game that you're not seeing.  Not getting.  Not understanding.  But that's irrelevant.  Because the results can't be denied.

On the contrary it is highly relevant. You can't chastise someone for their subjective view on a video game.

Right. There's a huge difference between saying that you "dislike x" about a video game,  and claiming that  a 7 year old could  do better.  One is a subjective opinion, the other  is just silly drivel... not to mention ridiculously false.

And it doesn't matter anyway. He *admits* that he doesn't get it.   So it's not like we're in disagreement or anything.  lol.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 janvier 2012 - 09:15 .