228 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Personally speaking, DAO never required me to tactically think either.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Zanallen wrote...

Voiced PC - Keeping[/quote]
But they could make it optional, or just structure the audio files differently to allow us to mod it out.

[quote]Paraphrase System - Most likely staying with the voiced PC[/quote]
As mentioned, they've been receptive to the idea of full-text being available, even if not by default.

[quote]Companion Appearances - DA2 model, though you will be able to adjust stats and possibly have a few more choices in outfits, but no mix and match full customization of appearance ala DAO[/quote]
If true, that would be a bad decision, but luckily that's also moddable (it was modded pretty quickly for DA2)

[quote]Combat mechanics - No real info, but I can't see them changing much from the faster combat[/quote]
Forget the speed (which is too fast, but that's not what I meant), but the gross asymmetry is my complaint.  The rules that govern the PC and his companions bear almost no resemblance to the rules that govern the enemies.  And even within either of those groups, the rules make little or no sense.  Why is a dagger the most powerful weapon (in terms of base damage) in DA2?  Why are enemies randomly immune to various damage types for no lore-based reason?

[quote]Corridor level design - They are supposedly hiring new enviroment designers, but no word on how the specific areas will be mapped out.[/quote]
I can't imagine they woudn't improve the level design.

[quote]Waved combat - Keeping, but it will probably be less frequent or with better spawning[/quote]
What it should be is enemies exist in the world until we kill them.  They should not appear out of nowhere.  They should not be invulnerable until "Combat" begins.  It should not be impossible to ambush them.

[quote]Artstyle - Keeping[/quote]
I much prefer realist art to fantastic art.  DAO tended more toward the realist.

[quote]Animations - No information, but I also don't see this changing much[/quote]
I do.  Even if the core art style is maintained, DA2's animations were choppy and abrupt.  Not to mention horribly exaggerated.
[quote]Tsuga C wrote...

I was on the old BioWare Forums as early as 2002[/quote]
Noob.
[quote]Mr Fixit wrote...

I am not entirely sure what you mean by quest structure.[/quote]
There was no obvious connection between many of the quests in DA2.  Without relying on the metagame information provided by the journal, there was no way to know which quests would turn out to be related.

BioWare hasn't done this to the same degree since the original BG.  Both games don't give the PC any indication of what the central plot is until fairly late in the game, leaving the player free to assign motivations to his character without being contrained by an obvious pre-written path.

[quote]I do agree with your assessment of railroaded narrative (it is truly an abomination); I can't remember the last time I felt so constrained and powerless in an RPG. [/quote]
I felt constrained and powerless party because quests ecame mandatory even though I didn't want to do them, but also because the voice-over fixed the delivery of the PC's lines, so whatever my PC said he had to say it in exactly the way the writers decided he would.

And that's completely unacceptable.

[quote]Same for "iconic looks". While I enjoy "mixing&matching" armor and equipment, it's not *that* important to me, though I would prefer multiple looks for each companion. Perhaps if various armors change the look in some way? Make it apparent that the companion in question wears a chain mail or leather, for example, while retaining the general idea behind their recognizable look.[/quote]
I demand full customisation.  The rules that govern the PC's clothing should not differ in any way from the rules that govern the companions' clothing.  The rules are the core of the game's setting.  if the setting doesn't make sense, how are we supposed to roleplay in it?

[quote]I would also like to add that the iconic looks in DA2 sorely needed more detail - companion outfits seemed very plain and not really memorable. Didn't that undermine the whole point? The only truly great look was Varric's, in my opinion.[/quote]
Varric was the one companion I never used, because I couldn't change his appearance even with mods.

[quote]Corridor levels need to go as soon as possible. This design decision is perhaps the most baffling. The other ones can at least be understood on some level, but what on Earth is the point of these incredibly constraining and narrow corridors. Were they afraid players would get lost in bigger spaces? I don't get it.[/quote]
I was briefly heartened by the extent to which those corridor levels in DA2 were often labyrinths, with multiple paths through them.  Until I realised that there were arbitrary barriers scattered through them each time, thus removing thos feature.

I've previously described DA2's levels as "a poor idea, expertly done, and then thoughtlessly ruined".

[quote]The new art style, on the other hand, kind of grew on me. Yeah, it is different than in Origins, and it's not really that distinctive, but it's nice. Now, if they could put some more work into it, flesh it out a bit, things would be even better.[/quote]
I would prefer my armour look as if it was made by an armourer, rather than by a child playing with clay.

Those spikes were inane and dangerous, and everything was too thick and heavy.  It's like they oversized the armour in order to balance the oversized weapons.

In DAO they justified the oversized weapons on the grounds that they needed to be big so that we could see what they were even when using the overhead tactical camera.  Well, in DA2 they removed the camera, so there was no longer any reason to have oversized weapons.  Until we get that camera back, the giant weapons need to go away.

And, frankly, we have small weapons in NWN despite a long-range camera.  Was that design somehow inadequate?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 09 février 2012 - 12:01 .

[Cody]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Personally speaking, DAO never required me to tactically think either.

Indeed. If anything I found myself being more tactical with DA2 than I did with DAO. Hell I was doing just fine on nightmare in DAO with my rogue and didnt even have to tweak my companions tactics all that much. DA2 however called for an entire custom set for each companion. And what specifically i needed in a party.

Was pretty simple in DA:O for the most part :/.

[Ghidorah14]

CodyMelch wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Personally speaking, DAO never required me to tactically think either.

Indeed. If anything I found myself being more tactical with DA2 than I did with DAO.

I cant really agree with this, BUT I see where you're coming from.

When playing on higher difficulties, I've found that it really does require me to think and fight tactically, plan ahead, and keep a healthy supply of injury kits on hand, whereas on Easy I could just go up, wack someone till they died, and win.

[Mark of the Dragon]

The OP said the story will focus more on the mage/templar conflict. This is true however its also been said that it may not be the main focus of the story though.

[Halarid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Forget the speed (which is too fast, but that's not what I meant), but the gross asymmetry is my complaint.  The rules that govern the PC and his companions bear almost no resemblance to the rules that govern the enemies.  And even within either of those groups, the rules make little or no sense.  Why is a dagger the most powerful weapon (in terms of base damage) in DA2?  Why are enemies randomly immune to various damage types for no lore-based reason?

This bothers me a lot, as well.
Also, why the hell did they need to introduce "primary" attributes? This is not Warcraft. I suspect that the excessive simplification of stats was a consequence of the fiasco with (overpowered) dexterity in DAO, so instead of balancing stats they decided to completely streamline them.

And yes, the speed of combat was way too fast.

Modifié par Halarid, 09 février 2012 - 08:08 .

[Wolf]

Regarding the customization of party-members, Mike Laidlaw has stated that they are experimenting with making armor and outfits "mix" in the sense that the character would keep their unique look but armor would still be visible. If you look at my thread titled "Follower Customization" you'll see what I mean.

Hope this helps!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Halarid wrote...

Also, why the hell did they need to introduce "primary" attributes?

That was terrible.  Strength is strength.  It shouldn't have different effects based on class.

What they did was eliminate a lot of design flexibilty.  DAO allowed Rogues to use Strength, Dexterity, or Cunning as their primary damage stat.  That allowed far more build variety than DA2 does.

[TEWR]

CodyMelch wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Personally speaking, DAO never required me to tactically think either.

Indeed. If anything I found myself being more tactical with DA2 than I did with DAO. Hell I was doing just fine on nightmare in DAO with my rogue and didnt even have to tweak my companions tactics all that much. DA2 however called for an entire custom set for each companion. And what specifically i needed in a party.

Was pretty simple in DA:O for the most part :/.

I've played DAII on Nightmare and it just didn't really seem all that much of a challenge either .

Combat in Dragon Age has never been challenging for me. Corypheus was the closest thing to a challenging fight, but he was by no means challenging.

But this is only for me.

[Cody]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Personally speaking, DAO never required me to tactically think either.

Indeed. If anything I found myself being more tactical with DA2 than I did with DAO. Hell I was doing just fine on nightmare in DAO with my rogue and didnt even have to tweak my companions tactics all that much. DA2 however called for an entire custom set for each companion. And what specifically i needed in a party.

Was pretty simple in DA:O for the most part :/.

I've played DAII on Nightmare and it just didn't really seem all that much of a challenge either .

Combat in Dragon Age has never been challenging for me. Corypheus was the closest thing to a challenging fight, but he was by no means challenging.

But this is only for me.

FYI I should have said that pre patches,(to me) DA2 on Nightmare was a lot harder than DA:O ever was, with or without patches. I mean like I said before I did very little tactic setting for my companions and they died most of the time while my rogue soloed most of the things on nightmare. Very rarely did I have to adjust the difficulty. Only time I needed help from my companions was the last boss in Golems of Amarak(that S.O.B REALLY pissed me off...not necessarily a bad thing though).

On DA2 on the otherhand, before the patches it was a living hell. I could do nothing on nightmare. Hell I was having a hard time on normal no matter WHAT class I used. Even using the builds posted by the magnificient Arelex I had some hard time. But it was a lot more fun than DA:O.

That changed once Bioware cattered to the people who were having trouble on nightmare and didn't want to lower the difficulty or look up builds online. They patched it and made the game just as easy as DA:O. Most things I can solo and even when my party members die I can litteraly go in close and beat people down with and tank hits ON MY MAGE.

I am hoping ME3 is harder than the last 2 and I hope that DA3 is harder than the last DA games(not the only thing I am hoping for mind you, just saying).

Modifié par CodyMelch, 09 février 2012 - 09:02 .

[alex90c]

CodyMelch wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Personally speaking, DAO never required me to tactically think either.

Indeed. If anything I found myself being more tactical with DA2 than I did with DAO. Hell I was doing just fine on nightmare in DAO with my rogue and didnt even have to tweak my companions tactics all that much. DA2 however called for an entire custom set for each companion. And what specifically i needed in a party.

Was pretty simple in DA:O for the most part :/.

I've played DAII on Nightmare and it just didn't really seem all that much of a challenge either .

Combat in Dragon Age has never been challenging for me. Corypheus was the closest thing to a challenging fight, but he was by no means challenging.

But this is only for me.

FYI I should have said that pre patches,(to me) DA2 on Nightmare was a lot harder than DA:O ever was, with or without patches. I mean like I said before I did very little tactic setting for my companions and they died most of the time while my rogue soloed most of the things on nightmare. Very rarely did I have to adjust the difficulty. Only time I needed help from my companions was the last boss in Golems of Amarak(that S.O.B REALLY pissed me off...not necessarily a bad thing though).

On DA2 on the otherhand, before the patches it was a living hell. I could do nothing on nightmare. Hell I was having a hard time on normal no matter WHAT class I used. Even using the builds posted by the magnificient Arelex I had some hard time. But it was a lot more fun than DA:O.

That changed once Bioware cattered to the people who were having trouble on nightmare and didn't want to lower the difficulty or look up builds online. They patched it and made the game just as easy as DA:O. Most things I can solo and even when my party members die I can litteraly go in close and beat people down with and tank hits ON MY MAGE.

I am hoping ME3 is harder than the last 2 and I hope that DA3 is harder than the last DA games(not the only thing I am hoping for mind you, just saying).

Yes, making it so Fenris doesn't wipe your entire party just because he swings his sword in an arc is something they removed to make nightmare easier, not to fix it because it was a problem or anything.

[Cody]

I never had a problem with Fenris and his sword before the patch. My party consisted of Hawk, Varric,Anders and Merril. Only had to worry about Ander fire bombing the party, have to worry about that now too.

And that was far from the only thing they did to make Nightmare easier.

Modifié par CodyMelch, 09 février 2012 - 09:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

alex90c wrote...

Yes, making it so Fenris doesn't wipe your entire party just because he swings his sword in an arc is something they removed to make nightmare easier, not to fix it because it was a problem or anything.

Melee friendly fire was an intended feature.  They talked about it before release as a big innovation (and it was - I think it was a great idea).

They took it out because people didn't like it.  Which is a shame, because it was awesome.

[alex90c]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Yes, making it so Fenris doesn't wipe your entire party just because he swings his sword in an arc is something they removed to make nightmare easier, not to fix it because it was a problem or anything.

Melee friendly fire was an intended feature.  They talked about it before release as a big innovation (and it was - I think it was a great idea).

They took it out because people didn't like it.  Which is a shame, because it was awesome.

The problem is that the damage didn't scale down for party members. Fenris would swing for 2000 damage and that would obliterate our 120HP rogue while the 50000HP enemy lieutenant would be barely touched.

[Xewaka]

alex90c wrote...
The problem is that the damage didn't scale down for party members. Fenris would swing for 2000 damage and that would obliterate our 120HP rogue while the 50000HP enemy lieutenant would be barely touched.

That is not a problem of the melee friendly fire, but of the ridiculously huge assimmetry between playable characters and nonplayable characters.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

alex90c wrote...
The problem is that the damage didn't scale down for party members. Fenris would swing for 2000 damage and that would obliterate our 120HP rogue while the 50000HP enemy lieutenant would be barely touched.

That is not a problem of the melee friendly fire, but of the ridiculously huge assimmetry between playable characters and nonplayable characters.

Exactly.

[Cody]

alex90c wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Yes, making it so Fenris doesn't wipe your entire party just because he swings his sword in an arc is something they removed to make nightmare easier, not to fix it because it was a problem or anything.

Melee friendly fire was an intended feature.  They talked about it before release as a big innovation (and it was - I think it was a great idea).

They took it out because people didn't like it.  Which is a shame, because it was awesome.

The problem is that the damage didn't scale down for party members. Fenris would swing for 2000 damage and that would obliterate our 120HP rogue while the 50000HP enemy lieutenant would be barely touched.

It was awesome. It made it so you needed to think more about who you were going to bring. If you were gonna bring Fenris then it would be best to bring chars who fought from afar, or to set their tactics to attack enemies who aren't near him. Same goes for the player character. It added more pressure more tension and called for more stratedgy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

CodyMelch wrote...

It was awesome. It made it so you needed to think more about who you were going to bring. If you were gonna bring Fenris then it would be best to bring chars who fought from afar, or to set their tactics to attack enemies who aren't near him. Same goes for the player character. It added more pressure more tension and called for more stratedgy.

It badly broke the setting.  How is it that Fenris does 20 times more damage with his attacks than the Arishok does?

[Cody]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

It was awesome. It made it so you needed to think more about who you were going to bring. If you were gonna bring Fenris then it would be best to bring chars who fought from afar, or to set their tactics to attack enemies who aren't near him. Same goes for the player character. It added more pressure more tension and called for more stratedgy.

It badly broke the setting.  How is it that Fenris does 20 times more damage with his attacks than the Arishok does?

I meant that it was awesome how he damaged anyone who goes near him. If anything he should do the same amount of damage to his allies that he does to enemies(depending on protection of course).

That and like I said, I liked it because it added more difficulty to the game. I am a bit of a masochist in that regard.

Modifié par CodyMelch, 09 février 2012 - 11:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

CodyMelch wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

It was awesome. It made it so you needed to think more about who you were going to bring. If you were gonna bring Fenris then it would be best to bring chars who fought from afar, or to set their tactics to attack enemies who aren't near him. Same goes for the player character. It added more pressure more tension and called for more stratedgy.

It badly broke the setting.  How is it that Fenris does 20 times more damage with his attacks than the Arishok does?

I meant that it was awesome how he damaged anyone who goes near him.

That part was great.  I love the melee friendly fire.

If only it hadn't been limited to Nightmare, a difficulty setting I never use.

[Cody]

Yea it should have been an option to turn it on and off like before. Funny that there reasoning that they didn't do that was so that people who did not want to play nightmare did not have to deal with FF...even though they could have just turned it off...so that explanation of theirs makes no sense.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think BioWare's concern was that enabling friendly fire would dramatically and unpredictably change the level of difficulty (for example, auto-attack melee friendly fire was always glancing blows, which on Nightmare do much less damage). They didn't want to give players an option which might confuse them.

To that, of course, I say that it isn't BioWare's job to protect us from ourselves. If we want to press the "I am not an Idiot" button, let us do that. And if we were wrong, and we are idiots, that's our problem.

[LexXxich]

Wait, it isn't a "information thread". It's a "Dev Promises" thread.

[Tommyspa]

LexXxich wrote...

Wait, it isn't a "information thread". It's a "Dev Promises" thread.

More "dev ideas" than promises, which is all we have to go on for now.

[Halarid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Halarid wrote...

Also, why the hell did they need to introduce "primary" attributes?

That was terrible.  Strength is strength.  It shouldn't have different effects based on class.

What they did was eliminate a lot of design flexibilty.  DAO allowed Rogues to use Strength, Dexterity, or Cunning as their primary damage stat.  That allowed far more build variety than DA2 does.

Yes, and then you couple it with things like this:

alex90c wrote...
The problem is that the damage didn't scale down for party members. Fenris would swing for 2000 damage and that would obliterate our 120HP rogue while the 50000HP enemy lieutenant would be barely touched.

It's a big sad pile of incoherency in which one set of rules governs enemies, one set of rules the party, dexterity/strength etc. work completely differently for a warrior and for a rogue, monsters have thousands and thousands of HPs so that prepubescent players can go AWESOME when they see a 2000 damage hit, the level system is also just for show and does nothing because enemies level up along with the PC the moment he does...


Instead of fixing the broken parts of DAO's ruleset they stripped away all flexibility (which was modest in the first place).


For example, they could've simply reduced the power of dexterity, which made you untouchable later on in DAO, by tweaking the formula, by reducing the number of attribute points per level, by being very careful with items that grant dexterity, by having passive talents that need to be picked in order to draw damage/precision for daggers from dexterity... BUT nooo... let's throw everything away.


Armor? With flat damage reduction (which was a random value from 50% to 100%) against armor penetration. The concept was ok, but the balancing was not. They could've made the armor penetration value a range as well that would penetrate differently armors of different quality. They should've reduced the overall discrepancy between various armors and HP.

Instead Bioware decided to strip the complexity away and introduce damage block percentages (way simpler, and you can't go wrong with a percentage, right?) and not only that... they made this weird system where armor works differently depending on the level of creatures. 


Some complained about the "shuffle movement"... what did they do? They accelerated the combat 300%.


I know... it's hilarious and shocking at the same time.