410 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Shall we stop with this silly one-upmanship?

You're welcome to stop anytime.

[Pasquale1234]

Elhanan wrote...

I miss the Death scenes from DAO and prefer more realistic animations as a rule. But this is fantasy; not historical fiction, and some stave twirling and backflips are not too out of place. And exploding bodies were toned down in a Patch due to an error in crits, I believe.

While some of those animations may have been entertaining to some players, they also created a different situation where you could not re-direct a companion to do something else until the animation is finished.  That can be a bit frustrating in an intense battle.

ME and DA2 are both tales about singular characters; full VO fits well. Now Origins told several tales of various wardens, and full VO there may not have been possible given the Dev Time of SWTOR.

There is a great deal of disagreement about whether the VO and its implementation (the dialogue wheel) enhanced or detracted from the player's enjoyment.  Or rather, it seems to be a matter of personal preference.

For this game, I think the companion system works given that all had to stick around for a while, but also hope for more improvements in DA3. TOR has a decent one working; at least has me choosing my words somewhat cautiously at times, or expecting to see some reaction from those with opposing personalities. But I also pretend that I do not always speak my thoughts, so it all works out well for me.

I have mixed feelings about the friendship/rivalry system.  While I appreciate the concept in some respects, I found myself metagaming it - IOW, I would choose which companions to take on any given quest based on how I though they might react to Hawke's choices instead of the companions that I thought were best suited to the mission at hand.

Some players did not like the gifting system in DAO, and saw it as manipulative - which it was - but I felt like I had more freedom in party composition and making choices my companions would not like because I could make it up to them later with gifts.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 13 mars 2012 - 05:35 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

I'd respectfully disagree the response of the NPC/Companion tells you exactly the tone and intent of the dialogue choice you just made, For example one of my Wardens prefered peaceful soloutions but was happy to fight if thats what it took on several occassions i picked my choice and evnvisioned that my Warden being the sort of guy he was delivered his answer in a calm,polite yet firm way only for the Companion/NPC's response to be bark, bark, bark, you cheeky sod how dare you etc, and voila instant immersion breaker.

Why would that break your immersion?  Shouldn't that just demonstrate that either the NPC is irrational, or you didn't understand the NPC's position?  The Warden was calm and polite, and the NPC freaked out.  Maybe he took issue with what you said, not how you said it.

But you can't know that.  So why would you intentionally resolve the ambiguity in a way that breaks your character?

You may well decide in your head that you pick dialogue option 1 and deliver it in tone A with intent B however your apparent choice is rendered null and void because the scriptwriter at BW had already decided that if Dialogue option 1 was picked it will in fact be delivered in tone D with intention F and the NPC/Companions response is composed accordingly.

Why do you think there's a necessary relationship between how the line is delivered and how the NPC reacts?  Explain that to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...


You are not wrong. It is fundamental to literary criticism. But this conversation right here got started by jbrand saying, imprecisely and using the wrong words, but still quite clearly, that the authorial intent matters (to him, obviously) when playing the game. Whatever may be your position, it is true for him. So it really serves no purpose to hang onto the literal meaning of words and purposefully disregard what is obviously intended as jbrand's meaning.

Except that's not what he said.  His claims were normative, not descriptive.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...


You are not wrong. It is fundamental to literary criticism. But this conversation right here got started by jbrand saying, imprecisely and using the wrong words, but still quite clearly, that the authorial intent matters (to him, obviously) when playing the game. Whatever may be your position, it is true for him. So it really serves no purpose to hang onto the literal meaning of words and purposefully disregard what is obviously intended as jbrand's meaning.

Except that's not what he said.  His claims were normative, not descriptive.

Dear Lord, shoot me now.

[DAYtheELF]

Just want to quickly say that I loved DA2 - perhaps even more than DAO! It's impossible for every game to cater to everyone's desires - and also they shouldn't. Sure, there are things I would have liked to be different in DA2 (Why can't I kiss Anders whenever I want????), but there are things I wished were different in DAO (Why can't I romance Morrigan as a femWarden????).

<3<3

[Elhanan]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

While some of those animations may have been entertaining to some players, they also created a different situation where you could not re-direct a companion to do something else until the animation is finished.  That can be a bit frustrating in an intense battle.

There is a great deal of disagreement about whether the VO and its implementation (the dialogue wheel) enhanced or detracted from the player's enjoyment.  Or rather, it seems to be a matter of personal preference.

I have mixed feelings about the friendship/rivalry system.  While I appreciate the concept in some respects, I found myself metagaming it - IOW, I would choose which companions to take on any given quest based on how I though they might react to Hawke's choices instead of the companions that I thought were best suited to the mission at hand.

Some players did not like the gifting system in DAO, and saw it as manipulative - which it was - but I felt like I had more freedom in party composition and making choices my companions would not like because I could make it up to them later with gifts.

My style of play involves a lot of use of the Pause feature, mainly due to my RL restrictions. And I have read of those that want to micro-manage combat to the point of offering advice on Stave Twirling optimizing. That said, I have yet to require any of such management after 300+ hrs of gameplay. And having others acting independently can be frustrating; ask almost any NCO.

Agreed; the wheel and full VO are matters of discussion; gathering many opinions. But I do not get the need for the hate posted on this game because of them, or most other implementation.

Selecting a team based on social dynamics as well as skills and abilities is not meta-gaming in itself; that is basic leadership. It certainly does not take a genius to avoid placing the Mage-haters along with the Templar-haters, unless one wants to force confrontations (and possible dialogue, but that may be meta-gaming, too).

I liked some of the actual gifts of DAO, but disliked the manipulation it suggested. TOR has a better approach where deeds and dialogue has more effect, and gifts may help, but certainly are not purchased guarantees of affection.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Except that's not what he said.  His claims were normative, not descriptive.

Dear Lord, shoot me now.

Semantics matter.

Elhanan wrote...

My style of play involves a lot of use of the Pause feature, mainly due to my RL restrictions. And I have read of those that want to micro-manage combat to the point of offering advice on Stave Twirling optimizing. That said, I have yet to require any of such management after 300+ hrs of gameplay. And having others acting independently can be frustrating; ask almost any NCO.

While I'll agree that DA2 doesn't generally require extreme micromanagement, for some of us extreme micromanagement is, in itself, fun.

In DAO I could monitor the battlefield and if I needed a Heal right now I could pause the game, select a mage, and fire off a heal.  In DA2, I can't ever have a Heal right now, because the mage is stuck in some lingering animation.

For this reason, DA2's combat was far less responsive that DAO's combat.  And I use that term simply because DA2 was sold as being more responsive.  It's not.  It's far less responsive because of how the animations work.

[Elhanan]

Again, being Techless, I cannot argue about response issues; simply know I had no real troubles in either game. And as far as Comanion AI, Bioware has produced much better results than some other games; wish the high standards would continue.

Modifié par Elhanan, 13 mars 2012 - 11:39 .

[Melca36]

i wonder which group will be doing the most complaining when DA: 3 comes out

The developers have already more elements from Origins in the game and combat will be different from DA:2

I suspect the hardcore DA:2 fans will be complaining just as much as Origins hardcore fans while the rest of us who pretty much enjoyed both games for what they offered will be the quiet group

[jbrand2002uk]

Its a safe bet that the writer who wrote the dialogue option i picked also wrote the NPC/Companion's response in order for that response to be put into words the writer would have envisioned how the NPC would respond there is quite a marked difference in the dialogue options your given as to which a confrontational and which are not altering the phrasing or pace of any choice or NPC response in order to fit in with my created character as i see it would be essentially ignoring the writers intent it is our place as the reader/gamer to follow the story not re-write it to suit our imagination.

So for example changing the tone or delivery of a clearly pacifist line to a more aggressive tone/pace so that it fits my aggressive character to me would be wrong as it messes with the writers intent.

For me if my character is aggressive i choose the aggressive line and vice versa.
For me choosing the look and personality of the PC is ok but changing delivery of dialogue so that its fits my character is violating the writers intent.

But anyways we have differing opinions on this and we have agreed to disagree so I'll leave it at that for this matter before we give mr fixit a heart attack

[Morroian]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

While some of those animations may have been entertaining to some players, they also created a different situation where you could not re-direct a companion to do something else until the animation is finished.  That can be a bit frustrating in an intense battle.

 
Thats part of the combat restrictions like cooldowns.

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I have mixed feelings about the friendship/rivalry system.  While I appreciate the concept in some respects, I found myself metagaming it - IOW, I would choose which companions to take on any given quest based on how I though they might react to Hawke's choices instead of the companions that I thought were best suited to the mission at hand.

Some players did not like the gifting system in DAO, and saw it as manipulative - which it was - but I felt like I had more freedom in party composition and making choices my companions would not like because I could make it up to them later with gifts.

The approval system is just as open to metagaming, decisions made in missions affected approval. The F/R needs more refinement but it gives character interaction more complexity which is an advantage IMHO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Its a safe bet that the writer who wrote the dialogue option i picked also wrote the NPC/Companion's response in order for that response to be put into words the writer would have envisioned how the NPC would respond

Of course.  But I don't see why the player should care.

there is quite a marked difference in the dialogue options your given as to which a confrontational and which are not altering the phrasing or pace of any choice or NPC response in order to fit in with my created character as i see it would be essentially ignoring the writers intent it is our place as the reader/gamer to follow the story not re-write it to suit our imagination.

I'm not suggesting you should ever change what the NPC's do.  I'm not suggesting you should change anything.

But when you're in-character, you don't know the writer's intent.  you don't even know there's a writer, because you're in-character.  Your character doesn't know he isn't real, so when you're playing you have no reason ever to take anything outside the game's reality into account.  The writer doesn't exist within the game, therefore the writer is irrelevant.

So for example changing the tone or delivery of a clearly pacifist line to a more aggressive tone/pace so that it fits my aggressive character to me would be wrong as it messes with the writers intent.

I don't think you can get much more obviously normative than this.

See, Mr. Fixit?

For me if my character is aggressive i choose the aggressive line and vice versa.
For me choosing the look and personality of the PC is ok but changing delivery of dialogue so that its fits my character is violating the writers intent.

I don't know the writer's intent, so I cannot take it into account whem making my choice.  Moreover, being aggressive isn't enough detail.  I might want to say a specific thing in an aggressive way, while the writer might think that specific line isn't aggressive.  Either I have to accept that there are only 3 discrete options, or I can have much more nuanced control of my character.

I'd rather have more control.  And with an unvoiced PC, that's what I have.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

Thats part of the combat restrictions like cooldowns.

But cooldowns only restrict your ability to do specific things, not everything.  Moreover, if you're unable to do something because it's in cooldown, that's because you wilfully chose to do that thing in the first place.  The cooldown is something you initiated.

Not so with the auto-attack animations in DA2.  Unless we manually trigger every single attack, which I'm not even sure is possible, the trailing animations prevent the same level of immediate control overe any character that existed in DAO.

[jbrand2002uk]

While I can see your point the way I see it is because there are 3 discreet choices then 3 discreet choices is what you have nothing more nothing less for me when it comes to have option 1 2 or 3 its as simple as we have 3 choices because the writer intended me to have choices not 3 choices each with a variance or nuance as you choose to call it.

If the Choices presentd are Good,Bad and Snarky then I can imagine till I'm blue in the face that I can have choice Good said in a Snarky however the reality is that option does not exist however much i might want it to

[geng0610]

I loved dragon age 2 and played it like 3 times. I don't care what the haters say since all they do is to hate on something. I hope bioware and EA understand that the loud minority of haters doesn't represent the big picture and continue on making great games. Doesn't mean Bioware games are perfect and don't need to be improved, but I sure like them better than a lot of other games.

Modifié par geng0610, 14 mars 2012 - 12:25 .

[Thori]

Minority of haters? Look around, mate. Bioware is falling apart, thanks to you DA2 lovers! Bioware was just fine before EA came and brought with them action/adventure game lovers. DA was supposed to be successor to Baldur's Gate, not Prince of Persia!

[Realmzmaster]

If that is the case Bioware started falling apart with DAO which is most definitely not the successor to Baldur's Gate. Even Bioware only said it was a spiritual successor. Because DAO pales in comparison to BG (IMHO). So it has nothing to do with DA2 lovers. I could say that DAO lovers have ruined Bioware especially some of that stuff they borrowed from MMOs. I happen to like DAO and DA2, but I considered them lightweight compared to earlier cRPGs. So I could say that DAO lovers have ruined it for BG and NWN lovers.
But, I do not do that because I have learned that gamers like what they like. I like DA2 and I make no apologies for it.

[Joy Divison]

Morroian wrote...

Thats part of the combat restrictions like cooldowns.

It's not anything like a cooldown.  A cooldown only prevents you from using a specific ability which has been recently used..

It is a combat restriction, true.  A very annoying superfluous one adds extra micromanagement and frustration.

[Melca36]

geng0610 wrote...

I loved dragon age 2 and played it like 3 times. I don't care what the haters say since all they do is to hate on something. I hope bioware and EA understand that the loud minority of haters doesn't represent the big picture and continue on making great games. Doesn't mean Bioware games are perfect and don't need to be improved, but I sure like them better than a lot of other games.

The developers have acknowledged missteps with the game. I liked the game too but it was NOT perfect.

They have already promised taking the BEST of DA:2 and Origins for the next game.

Hardcore DA:2 fans need to face reality....

DA2 sold half of what Origins sold

Origins fans need to face reality that they will NEVER Get another Origins game again.

What the game needs is BALANCE to appeal to ALL fan bases insteading of pandering to one.

[Thori]

Unfortunately, fan base is split up and tense ( especially now, considering ME3 boycott). So, I'm afraid that whatever EAware do, no one will be pleased. Or at least small part will. But I do agree with you. I don't really hate on DA2 (not as much as I thought in start). I just love my Warden too much. Can't stand that pathetic bystander Hawke.

[seraphymon]

geng0610 wrote...

I loved dragon age 2 and played it like 3 times. I don't care what the haters say since all they do is to hate on something. I hope bioware and EA understand that the loud minority of haters doesn't represent the big picture and continue on making great games. Doesn't mean Bioware games are perfect and don't need to be improved, but I sure like them better than a lot of other games.

Most of the hate is not without valid reason. and imo from what i have seen theres alot more haters than lovers for DA2. Not always a consensus of specific reasons, cept the repeat enviroments, but from one reason or another it just isnt their best work.

[Elhanan]

seraphymon wrote...

Most of the hate is not without valid reason. and imo from what i have seen theres alot more haters than lovers for DA2. Not always a consensus of specific reasons, cept the repeat enviroments, but from one reason or another it just isnt their best work.

I also hold that DA2 is not Bioware's best work, but Hate is never valid. IMO.

Still, I enjoyed the game, and hope to see some of DA2 gameplay again in DA3.

[Thori]

Bah... even among those who think similar to me, I find myself standing out. Am I the only one who finds combat system of DA2 disgusting and totally unrealistic?

[seraphymon]

Wether or not hate is valid depends. In DA2 i think it is justified in its hate. At least those with a resonable excuse. otherwise no way to make it better. There is such a thing as failures. In movies songs, anything. there is always going to be someone out there who likes it. Im willing to bet superman 64 has someone out there.

Thori wrote...
Bah... even among those who think similar to me, I find myself standing out. Am I the only one who finds combat system of DA2 disgusting and totally unrealistic?

Your not the only one. While i dont find its disgusting. I do find it too over the top, and more unrealistic than DAO, and much less strategic. Even dull. The flash fades away quickly, when aside from mages, your stuck 60% of the time just auto attacking, or switching to another character just to do something.

Modifié par seraphymon, 14 mars 2012 - 07:16 .