1306 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

I think I hate awesome at this point.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nor were those swords anywhere near as large as those found in either DA game.

I think that's the main thing. Armor generally doesn't slow people down too much (that would defeat the point of wearing it to a fight)

But it does severely impact endurance.  That's why I miss the fatigue mechanic from DAO.

Interestingly enough, Mass Effect 3, I have found, has a fairly novel way to deal with fatigue/equipment weight.

You can carry five different types of weapons - pistols, rifles, grenade launchers, etc. However, you can equip these slots as empty (meaning you can have an assault rifle equipped, but no pistol equipped). So if I wanted to carry all five different types of weapon into battle, I could. Within each of these five different categories, there are multiple weapon types (diffferent types of pistols, different types of sniper rifels, etc.) so I could further customize my weapon choice.


HOWEVER... each weapon type has a weight (a pistol weighs signifcantly less than a rocket launcher) and this weight has a bearing on how fast your abilities regenerate.


So brining a huge, high damage dealing weapon into a fight is an option... but it lowers your ability to use your powers and abilities more rapidly, which I think is an even balance. By a similar scope, if you bring only a pistol with you into a fight, it lets you regenerate your powers very rapidly, allowing you to focus primarily on abilities and powers, since they come back into play every few seconds.

So, to put it into a DA parlance, if one were to have an Arcane Mage who was dual wielding in Heavy Armor, they could only use magic veyr rarely (although if they set their buffs up to be long lasting through the power customization seen in ME3, one could rely solely on long lasting buffs to go along with great combat). On the other hand, if one was a pure mage build, you could pump out spells quite rapidly... and everything in-between. Wielding a sword wouldn't be impossible, as seen in DA2's model, but it would only affect the rate at which you could have abilities/spells regenerate.

Fairly ingenious, if you ask me. I could see applications of this in the DA franchise... and I dread saying that, given the Dragon Effect type of changes we saw in DA2. But the simple truth is that it is a very logical way to deal with weapon/armor loadouts while still keeping in line with player choice when designing skill layouts.

[Joy Divison]

sreaction wrote...



Dr. Freud, I just you to know that your transference hypothesis is, "a completely unwarranted intellectual construct" (Seguin 1965 p.vii).

I'll be the first one to admit the two-handed animations in DA:O were painfully slow and unappealing, but I find the notion the DA:2 combat was an improvement ludicrous.

As a Mage in DA:O, once I got to level 9 or so, I never auto-attacked. I was always doing something "awesome."  As a Mage in DA:2, I'd say even at level 17 or so, 80% of all attacks are auto-attacks.  Auto-attacks are not what I'd call the forefront of tactical thinking.

As a duel-weidling rogue in DA:2, the attacks were so fast I often found myself just hitting "R" (attack nearest enemy).  Positioning did not matter.  Movement was actually discouraged bc/ if you disengaged for even a half a secong, you'd miss a truckload of damage.  Once you got the games best daggers, even the backstab talent became obsolete bc/ 1) it could be interrrupted 2) the animation took too long and you actually lost DPS.  I wasn't a fan of shuffling in DA:O either, but DA:2 really didn't get rid of it (in fact your character walks A LOT slower than they fight...very jarring), and at least in DA:O there was a tangible payoff so again, it ws more tactical.

Warriors in DA:2 I do think are very tactical bc/ their ability to hit mulitple enemies with every swing does make positioning quite important.  Of course, you've got to throw verisimilitude out the window...

All this excludes the annoyance that the PCs and bad guys play by different rules, there is far too much fodder, most fights consist of many useless enemies and 1 dangerous opponent who can one-shot non-warriors, enemies with literally hundreds of thousands of hit points, commander type enemies who do little more than wave their arms (and take forever to kill should your other party members go down and you have no CCCs), etc.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 10 mars 2012 - 03:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Interestingly enough, Mass Effect 3, I have found, has a fairly novel way to deal with fatigue/equipment weight.

You can carry five different types of weapons - pistols, rifles, grenade launchers, etc. However, you can equip these slots as empty (meaning you can have an assault rifle equipped, but no pistol equipped). So if I wanted to carry all five different types of weapon into battle, I could. Within each of these five different categories, there are multiple weapon types (diffferent types of pistols, different types of sniper rifels, etc.) so I could further customize my weapon choice.


HOWEVER... each weapon type has a weight (a pistol weighs signifcantly less than a rocket launcher) and this weight has a bearing on how fast your abilities regenerate.


So brining a huge, high damage dealing weapon into a fight is an option... but it lowers your ability to use your powers and abilities more rapidly, which I think is an even balance. By a similar scope, if you bring only a pistol with you into a fight, it lets you regenerate your powers very rapidly, allowing you to focus primarily on abilities and powers, since they come back into play every few seconds.

So, to put it into a DA parlance, if one were to have an Arcane Mage who was dual wielding in Heavy Armor, they could only use magic veyr rarely (although if they set their buffs up to be long lasting through the power customization seen in ME3, one could rely solely on long lasting buffs to go along with great combat). On the other hand, if one was a pure mage build, you could pump out spells quite rapidly... and everything in-between. Wielding a sword wouldn't be impossible, as seen in DA2's model, but it would only affect the rate at which you could have abilities/spells regenerate.

Fairly ingenious, if you ask me. I could see applications of this in the DA franchise... and I dread saying that, given the Dragon Effect type of changes we saw in DA2. But the simple truth is that it is a very logical way to deal with weapon/armor loadouts while still keeping in line with player choice when designing skill layouts.

That ME3 system is quite similar to the DAO system.  DAO's fatigue system basically made the character get tired faster, so he'd be able tu use fewer abilities before having to wait for more stamina.  Stamina was effectively the cooldown system in DAO, and fatigue affected it.

I don't know why they removed it from DA2 only to put it in ME3 (particularly given Mike Laidlaw's impassioned defense of not having it).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 mars 2012 - 04:02 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That ME3 system is quite similar to the DAO system.  DAO's fatigue system basically made the character get tired faster, so he'd be able tu use fewer abilities before having to wait for more stamina.  Stamina was effectively the cooldown system in DAO, and fatigue affected it.

I don't know why they removed it from DA2 only to put it in ME3 (particularly given Mike Laidlaw's impassioned defense of not having it).

It is similar, but while armor was the main driver for how much fatigue you garnered, in Mass Effect, it is primarily weapons only. It prevents you from having all five different weapon load outs put in at once, unless of course you don't mind using your power but once a battle. It could be compared to having the ability to whip out a 2H weapon, two dual wielding daggers, a bow and a staff all in the same battle, but at the expense of skills/spells... or be limited to just the dagger as your weapon choice, and having your skills regenerate more quickly.

Anyway, I too was surprised to see the mechanic in ME3, which had really stripped out a lot of RPG elements going from ME1 to ME2. Its a pretty nice balance... although if shooters aren't your thing, I wouldn't recommend picking up the ME series. As awesome as it has been in my view, its a whole different beast that standard Western RPG fair.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Anyway, I too was surprised to see the mechanic in ME3, which had really stripped out a lot of RPG elements going from ME1 to ME2. Its a pretty nice balance... although if shooters aren't your thing, I wouldn't recommend picking up the ME series. As awesome as it has been in my view, its a whole different beast that standard Western RPG fair.

Aside from the voice+paraphrase system, I thought ME was pretty good.  I liked the exploration of the uncharted worlds, and I thought the cone of death was the best implementation of RPG combat with a shooter interface I'd ever seen (later surpassed by VATS), made particularly excellent by the ability to aim while paused, thus allowing a fully tactical experience.  There was a good variety of combat styles, lots of opportunities to mix-and-match abilities, and an interesting overall story.

ME2, I thought, ruined just about everything.  They scrapped the exploration, they enforced class designs more rigidly, the completely removed stat-driven aiming.  ME2 was worse than ME1 in nearly every way.  Level and encounter design was contrived (compared to ME1).  It was just a far inferior game.  The only important good feature they kept was the ability to aim while paused, without which the game would have been unplayable.

[batlin]

casamar wrote...

Personally, I think the opinions on DAII are too varied to reach an acceptable consensus

I'd just like to address this

Isn't the fact that there is no consensus a huge red light that the game went the wrong direction? I mean, obviously Dragon Age: Origins didn't see this amount of vitriol a year after its release, and THAT game was supposed to be a successor to Baldur's Gate. Dragon Age 2 is WAY more like DA:O than DA:O is to BG, so what other conclusion is there to make other than over half of the game's target audience did not like what DA2 did for reasons unrealated to simply being different than DA:O?

Modifié par batlin, 10 mars 2012 - 08:25 .

[PinkShoes]

I loved DAO.

DA2 was an average game in my books. But it made some improvement im some areas that needed to be improved. Bioware talk to their fans and their fans have told them exactly what they didn't like. Some have been rude, but i hope Bioware know that most of its fanbase really do want DA to be a great series! I want it to be a great series. DAO is one of my favorite games to this day. DA2 wasn't great, wasn't terrible. Some things were better in DA2 than in DAO, but overall i personally think DAO was the better game.

I want DA3 to be a great game, i want bioware to combine what made those two games good and mix a whole bunch of fantastic in that bag and come out with something i will be addicted to. Sure DA2 wasn't great, but i Bioware listened. So lets hope DA3 will be great.

I hope Bioware realize DA2 wasn't great and i hope they say to those who have complained (including me) "I'm going to show you just how fanatic we can make a game!"

[Sylvius the Mad]

casamar wrote...

Personally, I think the opinions on DAII are too varied to reach an acceptable consensus

The same is true of DAO.  If you ask a bunch of people who love DAO what it was they loved about it, they'll probably disagree.  But the game does enough things right for enough different people that they can find things in it that make it a great game.

Similarly, DA2 does enough things wrong for enough different people that they can all find things that make it a poor game.

Batlin has a point.

[Wulfram]

batlin wrote...

Isn't the fact that there is no consensus a huge red light that the game went the wrong direction?

I think it's a sign that DA2's fundamental problem was in quality terms, not in concept.

[Das Tentakel]

Wulfram wrote...

batlin wrote...

Isn't the fact that there is no consensus a huge red light that the game went the wrong direction?

I think it's a sign that DA2's fundamental problem was in quality terms, not in concept.

I think that is not all - I think there are several structural problems with DA and Bioware, some of which were already visible in DA:O. However, a lot of those can be hidden / compensated for with sufficient development time. But the problems are still there (I hope I can sort of formulate my thoughts on this later).

However, if you mean by concept the framed narrative by a somewhat unreliable narrator, I agree. It needed better implementation, but the concept was good, as was the idea of making the adventure smaller in geographic scope.

I just finished DA2, after sticking to it in my second attempt, directly following a replay of DA:O and Awakening.
My biggest gripe right now is - what a waste of much of the writing and voice acting:crying:

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 11 mars 2012 - 11:10 .

[T3HB3N]

Right direction. Wrong path.

[Wulfram]

Das Tentakel wrote...
However, if you mean by concept the framed narrative by a somewhat
unreliable narrator, I agree. It needed better implementation, but the
concept was good, as was the idea of making the adventure smaller in
geographic scope.

I mean pretty much everything seemed a bit slipshod in implementation.  The combat was brought down by a really bad implementation of waves, and the generic undifferentiated enemies - though the actual basic mechanics are fairly solid, aside from some of the numbers being difficult to understand intuitively.  The story was obviously rushed in the 3rd act, and probably in the 1st too.  Yes, the framed narrative was wasted, and Kirkwall was a failure.  The Friendship/Rivalry system was an excellent idea but the implementation was often a mess.

I just finished DA2, after sticking to it in my second attempt, directly following a replay of DA:O and Awakening.
My biggest gripe right now is - what a waste of much of the writing and voice acting:crying:

The dialogue - but not the story - and the voice acting is I think the main area where Bioware managed to live up to their usual standards

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 mars 2012 - 03:55 .

[Fast Jimmy]

T3HB3N wrote...

Right direction. Wrong path.

Wrong direction, wrong path, reading the wrong map, riding the wrong horse. But still... I'd still say the right rider.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 mars 2012 - 04:44 .

[Elhanan]

Peronally, am hoping to continue to move forward with the storyline, dialogue, Companion inetractions, and full VO, and reverse direction a little on Character Creation and development, and allow more freedom in the building of the indv character.

I miss my heavily armored Rogues, and helmed Mages.

[HanErlik]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

T3HB3N wrote...

Right direction. Wrong path.

Wrong direction, wrong path, reading the wrong map, riding the wrong horse. But still... I'd still say the right rider.

The rider is the wrongest of all I think. Frankly, I don't believe Bioware can make a good "RPG" anymore. Handing over the Dragon Age series to the nimble hands of Obsidian (a la NWN) seems like the only solution.

[T3HB3N]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

T3HB3N wrote...

Right direction. Wrong path.

Wrong direction, wrong path, reading the wrong map, riding the wrong horse. But still... I'd still say the right rider.

Not at all. VERY right direction. Lots of the features were necessary and made the game better. Take away some sloppy execution points and replace them with Bioware-standard ones then you have an amazing game.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

HanErlik wrote...

Handing over the Dragon Age series to the nimble hands of Obsidian (a la NWN) seems like the only solution.

I bet Obsidian could also come up with a better fantasy setting, too. *donates money to the MCA kickstarter*

[Anomaly-]

T3HB3N wrote...
Not at all. VERY right direction. Lots of the features were necessary and made the game better. Take away some sloppy execution points and replace them with Bioware-standard ones then you have an amazing game.

Could you give some examples of "features" that were necessary and/or made the game better?

[Elhanan]

Anomaly- wrote...

Could you give some examples of "features" that were necessary and/or made the game better?

New Spell and Talent trees, integrated skills, inclusive class specialties, full VO, and romances not linked to gift bonuses spring to thought as features I enjoyed. While some could be expanded (eg; more Skills), I was pleased with this additions and alterations.

[Anomaly-]

Elhanan wrote...
New Spell and Talent trees, integrated skills, inclusive class specialties, full VO, and romances not linked to gift bonuses spring to thought as features I enjoyed. While some could be expanded (eg; more Skills), I was pleased with this additions and alterations.

See, I disagree with most of that. I found the new spell and talent trees to be largely disjointed and redundant, and character builds overall to be more shallow. VO is nice for the cinematic approach, but certainly didn't help me roleplay or feel attached to my character. While I agree the gift thing in DA:O was less than perfect, I found the ability to simply click the heart icon and never fail to romance anyone (unless it's impossible to succeed) to be much less interesting.

[Elhanan]

Anomaly- wrote...

See, I disagree with most of that. I found the new spell and talent trees to be largely disjointed and redundant, and character builds overall to be more shallow. VO is nice for the cinematic approach, but certainly didn't help me roleplay or feel attached to my character. While I agree the gift thing in DA:O was less than perfect, I found the ability to simply click the heart icon and never fail to romance anyone (unless it's impossible to succeed) to be much less interesting.

So you prefer the static 4 Tier Spells instead? Not certain since it has been so long since playing either game, but there may have been more wasted slots in my DAO play, though I did like some combos.

Same with Talents; seems much easier to build the abilities I seek in DA2, or avoid those that do not fit my choice of playstyle. For instance, I do not worry of Threat, Taunt, and other MMO like effects, and was able to skip these as desired.

Forget the cinema; after playing DA2 and returning to DAO for a while, I sorely missed the Main having a voice. While I prefer the witty banter of DAO, I am a convert for full VO when it is offered. And the level of snark that is present helps me a great deal in playing some characters.

I did not seek romances outside of Aveline, though I hit a couple of lines in error. But those Heart icons were helpful in avoiding such topics, and did not require the tips and walkthrough info of ME or DAO. Insta Romance is not fun admittedly, but if someone is hitting the big old Heart line knowingly, one should not expect too many surprises.

[Anomaly-]

Elhanan wrote...
So you prefer the static 4 Tier Spells instead? Not certain since it has been so long since playing either game, but there may have been more wasted slots in my DAO play, though I did like some combos.

My issue with the DA2 skill changes are mostly in regards to mechanics. You can check out my post a page or two back, or read the Gameplay section of the review in my sig for more detail. As a Rogue, I felt like I had much fewer options in DA2. No poison making, stealth pretty much useless, no traps, no pets, no stealing, no lockpicking, no coercion, pidgeon holed into two attributes and either essential or useless/redundant skills, etc. These were all things that helped me define my character and what he/she is good at. In DA2 with so fewer options, I could make much fewer characters, and those I could make were much less satisfying.

Same with Talents; seems much easier to build the abilities I seek in DA2, or avoid those that do not fit my choice of playstyle. For instance, I do not worry of Threat, Taunt, and other MMO like effects, and was able to skip these as desired.

I still seem to remember having to put points in several things I didn't want to get to something I did in DA2. In fact, several times I had to spend more, considering DA:O talent paths were a max of 4 long, whereas DA2 can have longer paths of pre-requisites. Anyway, like I said, my concern is mainly with the mechanics and loss of options. I actually don't mind wasting points much if what I'm getting along the way make sense as pre-requisites for what I'm really after. Cherry picking exactly what I want would feel a bit too convenient, and I like having to factor in choices/sacrifices in my builds.

I did not seek romances outside of Aveline, though I hit a couple of lines in error. But those Heart icons were helpful in avoiding such topics, and did not require the tips and walkthrough info of ME or DAO. Insta Romance is not fun admittedly, but if someone is hitting the big old Heart line knowingly, one should not expect too many surprises.

I would still expect to be able to fail, at least. No surprises isn't much fun. For example, I wasn't very fond of Isabella. I was basically a total jerk to her. At some point, in the interest of amusement, I clicked the heart icon expecting to be thoroughly told off. Instead I found myself instantly in bed with her. I felt like I was left with two options: dislike her even more, or be unable to take the character seriously (even less seriously than before). I ended up doing the latter, and lost a lot of interest in the romance(s) as a result.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 12 mars 2012 - 07:31 .

[Elhanan]

Anomaly- wrote...

My issue with the DA2 skill changes are mostly in regards to mechanics. You can check out my post a page or two back, or read the Gameplay section of the review in my sig for more detail. As a Rogue, I felt like I had much fewer options in DA2. No poison making, stealth pretty much useless, no traps, no pets, no stealing, no lockpicking, no coercion, pidgeon holed into two attributes and either essential or useless/redundant skills, etc. These were all things that helped me define my character and what he/she is good at. In DA2 with so fewer options, I could make much fewer characters, and those I could make were much less satisfying.

I still seem to remember having to put points in several things I didn't want to get to something I did in DA2. In fact, several times I had to spend more, considering DA:O talent paths were a max of 4 long, whereas DA2 can have longer paths of pre-requisites. Anyway, like I said, my concern is mainly with the mechanics and loss of options. I actually don't mind wasting points much if what I'm getting along the way make sense as pre-requisites for what I'm really after. Cherry picking exactly what I want would feel a bit too convenient, and I like having to factor in choices/sacrifices in my builds.

I would still expect to be able to fail, at least. No surprises isn't much fun. For example, I wasn't very fond of Isabella. I was basically a total jerk to her. At some point, in the interest of amusement, I clicked the heart icon expecting to be thoroughly told off. Instead I found myself instantly in bed with her. I felt like I was left with two options: dislike her even more, or be unable to take the character seriously (even less seriously than before). I ended up doing the latter, and lost a lot of interest in the romance(s) as a result.

Stealth was hardly useless; simply different uses than DAO. While I did not see romance with Isabela, I do know her shadow routine in combat could be rather effective. And I also seem to recall disarming traps (and possibly opening locks, but it has been some time), a dog, persuasive and coersive choices, plus gas and smoke bombs. In DAO, while these options were available, still did not use poison or traps past some quest prerqs after a score or more of Wardens.

Yes; there were some selections in DA2 that were used as prereqs, but overall both my Rogues and Mages were better crafted with the new trees in the sequel. Plus there were the inclusive Specialties; no expansion required.

And I agree that falling into romance and/or bed with any of the characters has been problematic, but this is the case for many games. As noted earlier, the Icons help avoid the issue. Plus the Player can simply say No Thanks, and move along.

Maybe it ain't your game of choice, and I also preferred DAO, but I am hoping these additions continue in DA3. Plus some more new stuff too, as well as some old.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Warning, largely irrelevant rant incoming.

RE: Character systems and game mechanics.

I made a thread re: character systems a long time ago, but my ideas were still firmly rooted in an ability and level based system. So, honestly, I'd rather junk that entire notion, I'm fickle like that. Maybe in a few months this post will stick out to me as retroactively awful. Who knows. (Though I still really like my curiosity-trait-as-exposition and dialog compass/thought-process-as-dialog-options ideas, those are kewlbeans.)

While I liked the mechanics in Origins better, both had positives and some startling negatives. In the end, the problem comes down to them being class and ability based character systems, as opposed to being skill based. This is compounded by how the levelling system works.

It touches upon character progression and how inorganic it is for both games. With ability based systems, it's only possible to show character progression in jumps (especially since it's tied to levels). This is aptly demonstrated by Origins, which in turn, encouraged linear ability trees. Let's face it, the ability branches in Origins would've been un-necessarily uninviting in terms of accessibility if they were more non-linear. This made customization feel somewhat less exciting, even if there was a lot of variety in what you could do.

You needed X to get Y, even though all you wanted was Y but there was no real way to present the notion of progression that still made sense without X->Y or resorting to absurd Attribute requirements that makes nobody happy.

Conversely, Dragon Age 2, BioWare simply decided to cut through a lot of the gameplay opportunities to mix and match, relying on more strict archetypes. To compensate, it made the ability trees visually more appealing and slightly less linear. Allowing you to finally get Y without X, but requiring you to get W first. Then basing so much of it on levels.

But in the end, the problem is the same. Character progression isn't organic and happens in "jumps". If you aren't careful, the end result is an inflated power scale of the PC over the course of the game. This causes the x->y notion. There's simply not enough elements of the system which are customizable to show a smooth progression of a character's power.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 12 mars 2012 - 04:41 .