1306 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

I'll jump in from my on-going ME2 playthrough and say this:
We do NOT want a linear and defined character coming through the dialogue and choices system. Sure, ME2 is pretty awesome at what it does, but however redundant this may sound, it is not a RPG as I know them - it is a magnificent third-person shooter with a lot of life to it.
Same goes for DA2, for many reasons, quite a few rooted in the similarity between the two.

The main thing that gave me this understanding of the ME-series is that you're always the same character, basically. Sure, you've got the slightly less **** option, neutral option, the "ok" Shep and the investigation buttons, but in the end, there's not much variety in what you can make your character, nor what his/her motives are. Shepard is Shepard. Hawke is also Hawke.

I know that many of you don't want more role-play (or can't see and don't imagine that "amount" to be of any importance), but it is strictly crippling if I really take DA2 or the ME series as role-play. It was not so for DA:O and Baldur's Gate. I can only feel good playing the former ones if I don't make my usual efforts of imagining my character (which will be crushed by EVERY action the protagonist takes, in a more-or-less manner).

This stuff has been said a lot, I know, but I simply feel I'll be better off playing ME2 if I got this out of my system (again).

(and for all you thinking Origins' character was just as pre-defined, I only say NO, and I've explained myself in many pages now long gone - let's leave it at that for now, ok)...

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

I certainly miss the spell combos from DAO.  I don't understand why all of the combos in DA2 were cross-class?  Why not just make combos rather than enforcing some gameplay objective of having the classes work together.

Incidentally, I did prefer DAO's talent system because of the way the talents' pre-reqs were handled.  Most of the talents required only you have a pre-requisite talent and an appropriate stat level.  That makes sense.  You can't learn how to do something without knowing first how to do a simpler, related thing and being strong enough to do it.  DA2 added level restrictions, which were arbitrary.  When I modded DA2 to remove the level restrictions, then DA2's talent system was better than DAO's, but out of the box DA2's worked less well.  If forced character builds down a few narrow paths, something DAO didn't do.

DAO offered more freedom to build a character as you liked.  DA2 offered less.  Therefore, DAO's talent system was better.

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 found that DA2's warrior talents offered fewer options that suit my preferred style of play.  DA2 gave warriors fewer offensive talents, and more support talents (and I don't like non-magical support talents because I don't understand how they work).  DA2 also relied more heavily on the activated mode system DAO used with Blood  Magic, and I didn't enjoy that.  I don't like losing versatility during combat, so whole trees became wasted for me.  Not to mention that combat happened too quickly to bother activating these modes within an encounter.

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 loathe the voice.  These games will not work until they scrap this awful idea.

[Elhanan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I certainly miss the spell combos from DAO.  I don't understand why all of the combos in DA2 were cross-class?  Why not just make combos rather than enforcing some gameplay objective of having the classes work together.

Incidentally, I did prefer DAO's talent system because of the way the talents' pre-reqs were handled.  Most of the talents required only you have a pre-requisite talent and an appropriate stat level.  That makes sense.  You can't learn how to do something without knowing first how to do a simpler, related thing and being strong enough to do it.  DA2 added level restrictions, which were arbitrary.  When I modded DA2 to remove the level restrictions, then DA2's talent system was better than DAO's, but out of the box DA2's worked less well.  If forced character builds down a few narrow paths, something DAO didn't do.

DAO offered more freedom to build a character as you liked.  DA2 offered less.  Therefore, DAO's talent system was better.

I found that DA2's warrior talents offered fewer options that suit my preferred style of play.  DA2 gave warriors fewer offensive talents, and more support talents (and I don't like non-magical support talents because I don't understand how they work).  DA2 also relied more heavily on the activated mode system DAO used with Blood  Magic, and I didn't enjoy that.  I don't like losing versatility during combat, so whole trees became wasted for me.  Not to mention that combat happened too quickly to bother activating these modes within an encounter.

I loathe the voice.  These games will not work until they scrap this awful idea.

And I too, prefer a less restrictive system for building the character, as I also oppose the Lvl and Ability Restrictions (ie; items) seen within DA2. However, I still prefer the latter Tree system as my characters had more effective abilities; fewer unused ones during the course of gameplay.

Now while I found the Warrior experience to be the least versatile of the classes, I also avoid Activated sbilities in games as a whole due to my RL restrictions, and the sequel Warrior has plenty of Static choices. This contention might be a build pref thing, as our end results are seemingly two different designs.

And while full VO may not work for you, they work. Personally, I would like to see them work even better with either more exact phrasing in choices, or simply give us Iconic selections. But when an event is disturbed by the deafening silence of the character, I am willing to move forward to the sequeled method.

Note for others: RPG may be about a single predefined character, or a more varied one. Too many Davy Crockett's, Lone Rangers, Tarzan's and various superheroes in past settings to offer as examples to mention all. While it may not be an indv preference, it does negate them as a solid RPG choice.

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

[steelfire_dragon]

did the game go the wrong direction??? well imho no it did not. it went a different direction than what many would have liked.

the main gripes on it I've seen were mostly the obvious reused areas.
( I dont think many would have minded the reused areas as long as it was not obvious.....

my main gripe is that thetitle was dragon age 2, it should have been called something else as to me that dragon age 2 would have been a direct sequal to dragon age 1 of which we have not gotten.
all we got was dragon age: origins not a dragon age 1.....

dragon age 2 was not a sequal to anything, it was another game set in a world with a different protagonist, which is a good thing.


again did it go tthe wrong way, no. it only went a different way than most people were expecting.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

As will DA3 bee, a new game, not an expansion pack. Sequels come as DLC and expansion packs not as new games. Saying DA2 should be a sequel to DAO is like saying the Sims 3 should be a sequel to the Sims 2 or the Sims original (all of which come with several stuff and expansion packs.)

Now had they called it Dragon Age: Kirkwall and required you to own DAO to run it, then I would have expected an expansion, a sequel.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elhanan wrote...

And while full VO may not work for you, they work. Personally, I would like to see them work even better with either more exact phrasing in choices, or simply give us Iconic selections. But when an event is disturbed by the deafening silence of the character, I am willing to move forward to the sequeled method.

The player is not in control of a voiced PC.  Maybe it's possible to design a game such that the player is in control of a voiced PC, but BioWare certainly hasn't managed it yet.

[Elhanan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The player is not in control of a voiced PC.  Maybe it's possible to design a game such that the player is in control of a voiced PC, but BioWare certainly hasn't managed it yet.

Control? If you mean the "cinematic presentation", then the main control is till in place: the Player's imagination. You are still offered choices as to dialogue as before; just have a full VO behind them. And if one does not like the VO chosen, then as with NWN1 or non-voiced games, one simply imagines themselves with a different intonation.

[Killjoy Cutter]

"Just imagine it" isn't really workable when they take away the space that allowed it in DA:O.

In DA2, you have to ignore a lot more that already exists in order to make the space for that.

Big difference.

[eroeru]

steelfire_dragon wrote...

again did it go tthe wrong way, no. it only went a different way than most people were expecting.

Again, it didn't only go a different way than most people expected, but also a way that many found less enjoyable - I'm positive to say even "unenjoyable", absolutely.

Anyways, an addition to my criticism to the conversation wheel that I don't remember seeing:
if it's too clear where the option is "positioned", or what is it's function, it isn't interesting nor viable anymore. It's simplified unto utmost tedium with the unimaginative DA2 and ME's wheel - you get to either investigate, or click on the top-most, middle, or lowest option. All is absolutely clear by functionality (and this is a bad thing, as it leaves no surprises nor interesting choices) - only that the voice speaks it's own mind and doesn't let you even think of a tone to go with it. Crissake, I want options that work not only in one pre-defined way-path with a differently-mannered protagonist, but options that actually do different things, and not just good/evil (though even these are missing from DA2 and ME), but lots of different-functioning sentences - or actions which appear in brackets and enable you to put your allocated skill-points to use. You know, replayability.

I don't find ME nor DA2 to be replayable, at least by my criteria (which are probably shared by many of the "trolls" here and metacritic).

Modifié par eroeru, 12 mars 2012 - 07:20 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Saying "it's a sequel, expect changes" is silly, and counter-intuitive.

If I go to the sequel of medievel period-piece movie that took setting, characters, and swordplay seriously, and I get a rompy SFX blowout with cheesy combat and corny modern dialogue, no one would tell me "but it was a sequel!"

The fact that it was a sequel is exactly why I should expect it to be true to the original in tone, feel, concept, etc.

[eroeru]

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...
Saying DA2 should be a sequel to DAO is like saying the Sims 3 should be a sequel to the Sims 2 or the Sims original (all of which come with several stuff and expansion packs.)

So you're saying Sims 3 isn't a sequel to Sims 2??

edit: http://dictionary.re...m/browse/sequel
By definition, the "2" in the title, and the common background makes the game a sequel, de facto. Though one can still claim (and I'm fast to do so myself) that DA2 does not move forward on many basic principles of DA:O, thus making it a contested sequel, and a utterly bad one in my opinion.

Modifié par eroeru, 12 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[Elhanan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

"Just imagine it" isn't really workable when they take away the space that allowed it in DA:O.

In DA2, you have to ignore a lot more that already exists in order to make the space for that.

Big difference.

Not for my imagniation it isn't, but then I am used to using PnP, too. As long as the music and VO is not too distractive, then it is generally fine by me.

[Killjoy Cutter]

I've been playing PnP RPGs for longer than many of Bioware's customers have been alive.

I still say there's a fundamental difference between filling a hole, and having to dig the hole before you fill it.

[Elhanan]

eroeru wrote...

Again, it didn't only go a different way than most people expected, but also a way that many found less enjoyable - I'm positive to say even "unenjoyable", absolutely.

Anyways, an addition to my criticism to the conversation wheel that I don't remember seeing:
if it's too clear where the option is "positioned", or what is it's function, it isn't interesting nor viable anymore. It's simplified unto utmost tedium with the unimaginative DA2 and ME's wheel - you get to either investigate, or click on the top-most, middle, or lowest option. All is absolutely clear by functionality (and this is a bad thing, as it leaves not surprises nor interesting choices) - only that the voice speaks it's own mind and doesn't let you even think of a tone to go with it. Crissake, I want options that work not only in one pre-defined way-path with a differently-mannered protagonist, but options that actually do different things, and not just good/evil (though even these are missing from DA2 and ME), but lots of different-functioning sentences - or actions which appear in brackets and enable you to put your allocated skill-points to use. You know, replayability.

I don't find ME nor DA2 to be replayable, at least by my criteria (which are probably shared by many of the "trolls" here and metacritic).

As one that played ME1 and DA2 at least three times each, I would tend to agree with the last part a little.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elhanan wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The player is not in control of a voiced PC.  Maybe it's possible to design a game such that the player is in control of a voiced PC, but BioWare certainly hasn't managed it yet.

Control? If you mean the "cinematic presentation", then the main control is till in place: the Player's imagination. You are still offered choices as to dialogue as before; just have a full VO behind them. And if one does not like the VO chosen, then as with NWN1 or non-voiced games, one simply imagines themselves with a different intonation.

But the rest of the game is written around those added details.  Whole quests will be available or not based on things your character didn't even do.  What you suggest (and I've tried this very thing in DA2) produces great swaths of gameplay which have no relevance at all to my character.  We're left with hour upon hour of pointless combat that simply doesn't matter.

I'll agree that playing as you do eliminates some of the incongruity, but it also doesn't make the game any more fun.

[Killjoy Cutter]

DA2's flimsy story already makes minimal sense.

Take out the baseline assumptions and range for Hawke and family, and DA2 makes no sense at all.

[Elhanan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But the rest of the game is written around those added details.  Whole quests will be available or not based on things your character didn't even do.  What you suggest (and I've tried this very thing in DA2) produces great swaths of gameplay which have no relevance at all to my character.  We're left with hour upon hour of pointless combat that simply doesn't matter.

I'll agree that playing as you do eliminates some of the incongruity, but it also doesn't make the game any more fun.

The game is based on a narrative, so the events are a bit beyond those of the Players's control, as with RP'ing the events of any historical figure. Different does not equate to bad, as many also liked it,

Look forward to seeing some of the NPC's again, as well as new ones. And as origins did not repeat, I doubt Varric will repeat his role as narrator either.

[Elhanan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

DA2's flimsy story already makes minimal sense.

Take out the baseline assumptions and range for Hawke and family, and DA2 makes no sense at all.

And opinion does not equate to fact.

Take away the story of Hawke, and there is no DA2. And for one, I would miss it.

[Anomaly-]

Elhanan wrote...
Stealth was hardly useless; simply different uses than DAO.

You couldn't sneak around surveying a battlefield, arming traps and the like because the majority, if not all of the encounters just dropped down on your head and wave after wave made positioning pretty much useless. The crit effect from stealth was already made obsolete by other skills that did the same thing better, so the only real benefit was
defensive which was also redundant because disengaging was never much difficult and you already have other, better ways of reducing threat, anyway.

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.

Yes, some of these things were still available (though in much stripped down form), but the point is they required no proficiency investment on your part. For all intents and purposes, they were just free bonuses available to anyone with some arbitrary requirement like find ingredient A and suddenly you have unlimited resources as long as you have money. It requires no thought, planning, or specific skill investment from your character. As a result, it does absolutely nothing to flesh out your character and what he/she is good at. What if I want a character who specializes in making poisons? Can't do that. Traps? Can't do that. Lockpicking, bribery, stealing, pets? Can't do that, etc.

As for "Dog", it turned into a soulless summon that you occasionally whip out of your pocket somehow from time to time, no longer has any interactions with anything, nor has it's own skill tree, nor tactics. Again, no thought or investment on your part and no depth, just a freebie. No more Ranger pets, either.

All of these things combine to make for a gameplay experience that I find very restrictive, and completely uninteresting.

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.

I often did, yet a scant few times I did not. The point is, having the option there made differentiating between those times I did or did not much easier and more satisfying. Those characters actually felt different to me as a result.

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.

I don't recall having the issue in DA:O. I never accidentally wound up in bed with anyone, nor could I make an advance and know for certain it would be recieved positively.

Maybe it ain't your game of choice, and I also preferred DAO, but I am hoping these additions continue in DA3.

I'm praying that they don't.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 12 mars 2012 - 11:01 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elhanan wrote...

The game is based on a narrative, so the events are a bit beyond those of the Players's control, as with RP'ing the events of any historical figure. Different does not equate to bad, as many also liked it,

Look forward to seeing some of the NPC's again, as well as new ones. And as origins did not repeat, I doubt Varric will repeat his role as narrator either.

The set of quests that make up DA2's main plot only make sense if we accept some of BioWare's assumptions about Hawke's personality.  If we don't, then many of the quests are not quests Hawke should be doing, but the game's authored narrative doesn't progress without them.

If the game instead had progressed even without Hawke doing those quests (for example, if the game assumed that Blackpowder Promise got resolved some other way off-screen if Hawke hadn't done it by the time he went on Bartrand's expedition), then the player would have greater freedom to create a coherent Hawke within the story's framework.

The existence of Varric as narrator, I think, is a wonderful tool for eliminating many of the problems created by the cinematic presentation and voiced protagonist, but if we use it like that we do still have to go through all the motions of playing out every detail of Varric's story, even when those details don't matter.

I don't mind playing through the serial killer plot as if Hawke's hunting the killer, even though I've decided that Hawke is the killer (and Varric is simply lying about it), because that there is a serial killer is still relevant to my Hawke.  But I don't want to waste time acting as errand-runner for Javaris when my Hawke would never bother even talking to the guy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Anomaly- wrote...

I don't recall having the issue in DA:O. I never accidentally wound up in bed with anyone, nor could I make an advance and know for certain it would be recieved positively.

This bothers me in DA2.  Hawke never gets shot down.  In DAO the Warden could say the wrong thing and embarras himself, but it never happens to Hawke.  The icons make romance far too simple an endeavour.

[Elhanan]

@ Sylvius the Mad - To me, it was not about Bartrand, Javaris, etc; it involved the other main principle players that were connected thru them (eg; Varric, the Arishok, the relic, etc). And Varric needed more deatails to keep breathing and drinking.

And Hawke does get shot down, though it seems that a romance with one Companion was never meant to be.

[Anomaly-]

Elhanan wrote...
And Hawke does get shot down, though it seems that a romance with one Companion was never meant to be.

But that's exactly the point, you either can't succeed or you pretty much can't fail. It's completely linear and unaffected by your choices. If a character is available to romance, just hit the heart icon and you're golden. If they're not, there is nothing you can do to interest them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elhanan wrote...

@ Sylvius the Mad - To me, it was not about Bartrand, Javaris, etc; it involved the other main principle players that were connected thru them (eg; Varric, the Arishok, the relic, etc). And Varric needed more deatails to keep breathing and drinking.

But as a player, I'm concerned more with Hawke than with Varric's story.  Wherever Varric's story ceases to be relevant to Hawke, I stop caring about it.

That's not a problem in and of itself, but it does become a problem because there's just so much of that content.

And Hawke does get shot down, though it seems that a romance with one Companion was never meant to be.

Can Hawke be shot down by those character with whom he can have a relationship?  Is it possible for Hawke to try for a relationship with Merrill, Isabela, Fenris, or Anders and not succeed?

I've certainly been unable to unconver such a possibility.  Hawke's not a person.  He's a HERO, and he always wins.  That's just not an interesting protagonist.

[Elhanan]

Hawke is the Hero of Varric's tale, and based on what we discover of the Dwarf in game, such conquests appear to be common place. And my guess is that no matter the telling, the respect (or fear) for both Hawke and/ or Aveline will not allow Varric to sully their memory and friendship with such tales.

And while Hawke is the Champion, it is Varric as the narrator and subject of of the interrogation that is key; skipping over him is not really possible.

My other point is if one does not wish a Romantic interlude; don't look for it. Don't know if they can fail or not, as I did not have interest in anyone besides Aveline. But if one wants to be shot down in an epic fail, avoid RPG's and stick with RL....