2816 réponses à ce sujet

[Kilshrek]

I may not be in the best position to wade in and offer my two cents, but I simply ask that the ending to the hypothetical DA 3, not do anything like DA 2 and ME 3, where even the illusion of choice is stripped away and a "bespoke" ending is thrusted at the player. Choice should always matter to the player, and it should be reflected in the game, if it comes out and if it appeals to me.

DA 2 was certainly the lesser offender in the endings department, for what it's worth.

[Malakar1]

LPPrince wrote...

John Epler wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

If there's going to be a "Make a weapon legendary yourself" element to the game, I think it needs to be restrained to ONE weapon, and it should be a little side plot.

Lets play with the DAO story, say Human Noble.

Momma Cousland gives you a bow and arrows, claims the bow is nothing special, but its your job to make it special.

Then over the course of the game, you modify it. You purchase buffs for the bow, you put permanent bonuses on it, you can change its appearance at will, you can name it, and if you complete any big quests with it, its noted in its journal page.

Or the journal page for the weapon can just say that the main character had it with him/her on his/her travels, when the main character did this and that.

Well, there are ways to avoid the 'you can pick up a brand new weapon that is immediately better than your upgraded weapon'. Making sure to have a good way to 'track' the power of the weapon (generally, by making upgrades require certain resources that the player will have X of by any particular point in the game) means that you can at least make a guess that the weapon the player's toting around will be at least somewhat better than what they're picking up - with the caveat that, if they choose to upgrade their shiny new weapon, it can eventually become more powerful.

I don't know. It's a difficult system to balance, because you want to make sure that the player isn't forced into either the 'just keep using a new weapon' style, nor the 'keep your upgraded weapon because it's prohibitively expensive to bring a new weapon up to that level' style. But we're definitely keeping an eye on crafting and crafting-related customization.

Yeah, exactly. I worry the same as you.

Though, how about The Witcher 2's Dark Mode?

In said mode(which is basically equivalent to the hardest difficulty in the game) there are special "Dark" items that MUST be crafted and cannot be found, require A LOT to create, but when used make the game significantly easier.

Something like that would be cool in DA. I don't think it should be a difficulty level though- forcing people to play on a certain difficulty is never fair-

But a "Dark Mode" type thing would be sweet. Any sort of alternative mode.

Perhaps there could be a special "Dark Mode" made, which could be played on any difficulty, which would allow you to craft your own weapon and make it legendary or some sort.

I don't know how that could work exactly, as this would require a lot of time to study and look over, but hey, the idea's out there.

I totally forgot about the withcher 2 crafting system. I REALLY loved it actually. Would be a good example to look at. You know what would be even nicer? Implement the ability to "melt" or take your items appart. Rather than just sell stuff being able to take it appart for the components and make new items with it. Would really ad some depth and feeling of "this is MY weapon"

[John Epler]

hunterxx1xx wrote...

Malakar1 wrote...

hunterxx1xx wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Back to "making" a weapon legendary-

Lionhead mucked it up in Fable III.

They said in development that we were gonna "make weapons legendary", but in the end, all that happened was they gave us weapons that were already legendary, and we barely changed them as we used them.

If Bioware is to implement a way to make a basic weapon something greater both in power and in PLOT, they need to go into Fable III and do the complete OPPOSITE of that.

I'm not a fan of making my own weapons. One of my favorite parts about Origins was finding awesome weapons/armor through my travels. If it's similar to how it was in Awakening(collecting pieces for Wade to make it), I'd be all for it.

The ability to do it doesn't mean you absolutely have to do it. In some guess I had the ability too but never did for some reason.

If I can make a weapon better than any I could find within the game then I'd make it. Which is why I'd rather find one through a quest because it'd be like a reward. 

A question regarding that, then - what if making it better required you to spend resources that could instead be allocated elsewhere? I think the biggest reason why some titles succeed on this front is that they give consequences to improving your weapon. Sure, you may have an amazing weapon, but it's correspondingly difficult to take a hit, as you never really focused too much on your armour.

That's just an example, mind - there are other consequences that can come up, especially in a more narrative-focused RPG.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Starfang and the Dragonscale/bone armour were fine for me where 'crafting' is concerned. All you needed were the prime component, not a backpack full of crap, and someone to forge it. The items may not have followed my characters's adventures and updated accordingly in terms of legend, but from an RP perspective I was far more attached to them than the random loot I picked up elsewhere that were famous because someone else had borne them. They were made for me.

Just naming an item would be cool though. It's no less prone to abuse than naming your own character.

[GeneralArrow]

LPPrince wrote...

If there's going to be a "Make a weapon legendary yourself" element to the game, I think it needs to be restrained to ONE weapon, and it should be a little side plot.

Lets play with the DAO story, say Human Noble.

Momma Cousland gives you a bow and arrows, claims the bow is nothing special, but its your job to make it special.

Then over the course of the game, you modify it. You purchase buffs for the bow, you put permanent bonuses on it, you can change its appearance at will, you can name it, and if you complete any big quests with it, its noted in its journal page.

Or the journal page for the weapon can just say that the main character had it with him/her on his/her travels, when the main character did this and that.

Elder Scrolls seems to find a perfect balance.

[LPPrince]

John Epler wrote...

A question regarding that, then - what if making it better required you to spend resources that could instead be allocated elsewhere? I think the biggest reason why some titles succeed on this front is that they give consequences to improving your weapon. Sure, you may have an amazing weapon, but it's correspondingly difficult to take a hit, as you never really focused too much on your armour.

That's just an example, mind - there are other consequences that can come up, especially in a more narrative-focused RPG.

That, I would NOT like. I'd hate having to sacrifice something directly helpful to me just to make my weapon better.

Again, I bring up The Witcher 2's Dark Mode.

In it, there are armor sets and weapons that are "dark", which take a lot of coin and items to craft. You cannot acquire them any other way.

Thing is, if you use said items when the sets are not completed, or if you mix and match the items, then its DETRIMENTAL to your character, because the dark items are "cursed".

[LPPrince]

GeneralArrow wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

If there's going to be a "Make a weapon legendary yourself" element to the game, I think it needs to be restrained to ONE weapon, and it should be a little side plot.

Lets play with the DAO story, say Human Noble.

Momma Cousland gives you a bow and arrows, claims the bow is nothing special, but its your job to make it special.

Then over the course of the game, you modify it. You purchase buffs for the bow, you put permanent bonuses on it, you can change its appearance at will, you can name it, and if you complete any big quests with it, its noted in its journal page.

Or the journal page for the weapon can just say that the main character had it with him/her on his/her travels, when the main character did this and that.

Elder Scrolls seems to find a perfect balance.

I did like Skyrim's crafting, I won't lie.

Hell, I crafted a Legendary Daedric Sword, Legendary Daedric Bow, and Legendary Daedric Armor set.

I was all spec'd out in gear and weapons I crafted myself.

[Rorschachinstein]

I would prefer a quest for making an amazing sword over making an amazing sword.

argument: In Elder Scrolls, Way of the samurai and most other games where you make a sword it usually doesn't feel unique because I could make 5 or 6 swords just like it. while the creatable weapons in DA:O: Vigilance, Starfang, and the Heartwood shield each had a unique model and felt nice to have around because there is only one, and you made it.

[WhiteThunder]

I just want to have choices again.

Choices in class (O DW Warrior, where art thou?)

Choices in race

Choices in companion equipment

Non-binary choices in dialogue

Choices in the ending

[Darji]

Rorschachinstein wrote...

Darji wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Darji wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Meris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are kidding about DAO's gameplay not being simplified? DAO is the game that started the simplifiction of the RPG elements in Bioware's games as compared to their ealier titles.

To be fair, the most complicated portions of older, dnd based, games was the issue of you not knowing how things work - which would normally happen because many things weren't well presented. The tooltips assumed you knew how DnD 2nd ed works and I've seen it's vets having trouble explain its more counter intuitive mechanics, like THAC0.

Never had any problems in that area. The manuals that came with BG1 and 2 even NWN were comprehensive. I did have an advantage in having played most if not all the major p n p systems out there. But DAO did borrow simplifications from the MMO's.

Yes it was simplified to a certain degree but RPG plaer could totally live with it. However they wont live again witha DA2 combat style. This does not work. It was even more simplified and made more actionary instead of atleast a bit tactical.

Again If you do the combat from orgins and make it a little bit faster. Something between DA2 and Orgins and also give us a tactical view. Most RPG players will be fine with that.

DA2 combat style work just fine for me. I had no problem setting the AI scripts in the Tactics screen for my companions like I did in BG1 BG2 and DAO. The only time I had to step in is when one of them go into trouble. I simply pause took control of that character issued the command went back to the party member I was controlling before.  The combat in DA2 is not that fast. It is more realistic than the combat in DAO. As i said before BG1, BG2, and NWN had faster combat than DAO.

What DA2 combat is more realtic? What the hell?...

And Yes I agree that BG and NWN2 combat was a bit faster than the one in origins. If they just do that it is totally fine. Overall the combat in DA2 was bad becasue there was no tactic invlolved at all. Fights were trigered, every encounter was a lucky guessing game becasue of  totally invisible wave spawns also it was almost impossible due to the lack of tactical camera.

And at most it was not even needed.  you just could mash your way through this game. Rogue were totally overpowered, and overall there was no balance at all.

Should've played it on harder difficulties.

I I played it on the hardest difficulty. Origins and DA2.  But DA2 was only difficult becasue of its cheap and unfair spawns. There was no tactic involved at all.

[John Epler]

LPPrince wrote...

John Epler wrote...

A question regarding that, then - what if making it better required you to spend resources that could instead be allocated elsewhere? I think the biggest reason why some titles succeed on this front is that they give consequences to improving your weapon. Sure, you may have an amazing weapon, but it's correspondingly difficult to take a hit, as you never really focused too much on your armour.

That's just an example, mind - there are other consequences that can come up, especially in a more narrative-focused RPG.

That, I would NOT like. I'd hate having to sacrifice something directly helpful to me just to make my weapon better.

Again, I bring up The Witcher 2's Dark Mode.

In it, there are armor sets and weapons that are "dark", which take a lot of coin and items to craft. You cannot acquire them any other way.

Thing is, if you use said items when the sets are not completed, or if you mix and match the items, then its DETRIMENTAL to your character, because the dark items are "cursed".

Alright, I'll ask the other question - what about making a tradeoff bugs you? I'm not asking facetiously, I'm genuinely curious why you wouldn't be okay with saying 'okay, well, I can either make my armour convey a regeneration bonus or I can give my sword the ability to drain life'. Or it might be we're discussing completely separate points, which I readily acknowledge is entirely possible - I'm drinking a lot of Neocitran.

[CENIC]

I was heartbroken to hear about the end of DA2 support and the scrapped expansion pack.

Even though both the Warden and Hawke walked off into the sunset at the end of their respective games, I feel like the scene at the castle in Denerim and the epilogue in Origins gave the Warden's story more closure than Hawke is getting. I was so looking forward to DLC featuring the locations hinted at on developer's hangman t-shirts during conventions. And I had been hoping for an Exalted March expansion pack to wrap up Sebastian's story and maybe settle what happened to Hawke in the three years between defeating Meredith and Varric's interrogation. Not to mention, there are still bugs plauging the PS3 version of DA2 that have not been dealt with, and that I assume are just going to be ignored, like the fact that Hawke's battle cries are missing...

HOWEVER... it IS good to know that DA3 is in the works, and that the team will be sharing more information during the development process, and asking for audience feedback.

A few personal hopes I have going forward:

• Protagonist - I'd love to play as a Seeker recruit, starting out in Val Royeaux. This would fit the DA2 model of having a semi-customizable human voiced protagonist.
• Companions/Love Interests - I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping for Cassandra and Cullen to appear in DA3 as party members/romances. If the protagonist is a Seeker, Cassandra could be their superior/mentor. As for Cullen, one possible way to get him to Val Royeaux to meet the protagonist is if he was summoned to the White Spire after the events of DA2 because he was in Kirkwall when the rebellion began and has a lot of experience with blood mages. Other party members I'm interested in seeing: a Tevinter blood mage (perhaps a prisoner of the Seekers?) a mage from the College of Enchanters in Cumberland, a female Tal-Vashoth warrior, and a dwarf from Kal-Sharok.
• Dialogue Options - Since the DA team has been observing other popular games such as Skyrim and looking at how they handle mechanics, what about taking a few pointers about dialogue options from Deus Ex: Human Revolution? One thing they did very well in HR was make the INTENT of each choice very clear, which seems to be the biggest hurdle. The Personality System in DA2 was a step in the right direction, but I feel like HR's dialogue system would appeal to more people, fans of both Origins and DA2 alike.
• Home Base/War Room - I liked that Hawke got a home base with storage space, but like a lot of fans, I was missing being able to interact with companions at any time, even after I'd exhausted all conversation options with them. Using my idea of a Seeker protagonist as an example, and going off a dev comment I read on Twitter about a bunch of characters around a table, the Seeker protagonist could have a "war room" of sorts in the Grand Cathedral (or the Seeker fortress; wherever they'd be more likely to report on missions). When you enter the room, all of your current party members are there and can be interacted with. I'd also like to see party members I don't currently have following me out and about on their own, as if they have their own lives, rather than tethered to one location.
• Co-op Multiplayer - There have been rumors of player vs player in a future DA installment, but I'd like co-op, please. And rather than giving us set avatars like in ME3's multiplayer, I'd like to be able to use my carefully and lovingly crafted main character. This obviously wouldn't have worked with Hawke, but the Warden or the Seeker are members of a larger organization, so it's more believable for them to be teaming up with peers to take on a mission.
• Meaningful Choices - Please give us options to choose from that will actually have an impact on the story. If, in order to pull this off, you have to limit how many choices we can make, that's fine, but I want my choices to affect the direction of the plot.
• Importing Feature - If importing save files is no longer feasible, please do not scrap this feature altogether. This is what got me started on BioWare games in the first place. In KotOR 2, there is a scene at the beginning of the game where Atton asks the Exile what they know about the events of the original KotOR. This is a chance for the player to match the history of the game to the way THEY played it. This technique could work for DA: I'm imagining my Seeker protagonist being quizzed by Cassandra about important people/events in Thedas, and my answers determining what the history of Thedas is like in my game.

Modifié par CENIC, 21 mars 2012 - 04:02 .

[Malakar1]

LPPrince wrote...

John Epler wrote...

A question regarding that, then - what if making it better required you to spend resources that could instead be allocated elsewhere? I think the biggest reason why some titles succeed on this front is that they give consequences to improving your weapon. Sure, you may have an amazing weapon, but it's correspondingly difficult to take a hit, as you never really focused too much on your armour.

That's just an example, mind - there are other consequences that can come up, especially in a more narrative-focused RPG.

That, I would NOT like. I'd hate having to sacrifice something directly helpful to me just to make my weapon better.

Again, I bring up The Witcher 2's Dark Mode.

In it, there are armor sets and weapons that are "dark", which take a lot of coin and items to craft. You cannot acquire them any other way.

Thing is, if you use said items when the sets are not completed, or if you mix and match the items, then its DETRIMENTAL to your character, because the dark items are "cursed".

Well I don't see what would be wrong with it. Isn't it normal that some ressources would be use to build more than 1 thing? After all, iron armor, iron shield and iron sword would need Iron. If you use your Iron on the sword you'll need more to build the whole set. As long as the ressources aren't too rare it won't be a huge problem.

[Hrungr]

Rorschachinstein wrote...

I would prefer a quest for making an amazing sword over making an amazing sword.

argument: In Elder Scrolls, Way of the samurai and most other games where you make a sword it usually doesn't feel unique because I could make 5 or 6 swords just like it. while the creatable weapons in DA:O: Vigilance, Starfang, and the Heartwood shield each had a unique model and felt nice to have around because there is only one, and you made it.

Each way of handling it has it's merits, but I do agree with you that I had more attachment to *unique* weapons like Vigilance, et al.

[hunterxx1xx]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

We Dutck say "zo veel mensen zo veel wensen".
Sorry everyone do not know how to tranlslate it in english.

But I hope that I'm speaking for the majority here when I state that the biggest problem people are having is is that there wasn't a real ending to DA2 with a lot of (important) questions being unanswered.

The way the staff of Bioware is going for open discussion with the fans makes me hopefull that they are doing their best to at least appease most of them in the game their developing right now.

They said previously that Hawke's personal story is finished but the events that occured carry over into the next game.

[VampOrchid]

I'm excited to hear what they have planned for DA3

[SmokePants]

Good luck with this renewed focus on trying to have a dialogue. I think you guys are crazy and it's probably going to backfire at some point.

I'd like to see you guys put your heads down, with a chip on your shoulder, dead set on proving people wrong and shutting people up. Maybe that's just my American attitude being projected there, but it doesn't seem like you're going to convince certain people that a voiced protagonist is better than a silent one or that dialogue wheels are a good idea. You're just going to have to bulldoze past a lot of stuff that is just going to bog you down.

But I appreciate the sentiment.

Modifié par SmokePants, 21 mars 2012 - 04:01 .

[Nikowood]

Since the topic seems to be "great weapons" to craft/ upgrade, how about upgrading weapons through side quests? For example, someone sends you on a mission, and if you successfully complete it, then you are rewarded with a weapon upgrade, which you could spend on any weapon of your choosing, like skill/ talent points. You could choose things like upgraded damage, burn power, electric power, stamina increase when using the weapon etc. These 'weapon upgrade quests' can be scattered throughout the setting/ game. Just an idea.
I'll be back tomorrow with my other feedback, which is more 'DA2 things to fix' specific.

[LPPrince]

John Epler wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

John Epler wrote...

A question regarding that, then - what if making it better required you to spend resources that could instead be allocated elsewhere? I think the biggest reason why some titles succeed on this front is that they give consequences to improving your weapon. Sure, you may have an amazing weapon, but it's correspondingly difficult to take a hit, as you never really focused too much on your armour.

That's just an example, mind - there are other consequences that can come up, especially in a more narrative-focused RPG.

That, I would NOT like. I'd hate having to sacrifice something directly helpful to me just to make my weapon better.

Again, I bring up The Witcher 2's Dark Mode.

In it, there are armor sets and weapons that are "dark", which take a lot of coin and items to craft. You cannot acquire them any other way.

Thing is, if you use said items when the sets are not completed, or if you mix and match the items, then its DETRIMENTAL to your character, because the dark items are "cursed".

Alright, I'll ask the other question - what about making a tradeoff bugs you? I'm not asking facetiously, I'm genuinely curious why you wouldn't be okay with saying 'okay, well, I can either make my armour convey a regeneration bonus or I can give my sword the ability to drain life'. Or it might be we're discussing completely separate points, which I readily acknowledge is entirely possible - I'm drinking a lot of Neocitran.

Dear God to the bold and italized part.

I feel that anything having to do with weapons being upgraded should remain separate from armor, and vice versa, only if they aren't interconnected through some plot device(cursed items in TW2 Dark Mode).

"Sharpening a blade" to have it do +35% damage shouldn't be sacrificed so I can make my armor harder to prevent 35% damage taken.

I guess I'm seeing it from a story-perspective, while you're seeing it through a gameplay perspective.

I apologize, as I think I switched perspectives somewhere in there and threw you off your mojo.

[Statulos]

For future games, something I´d particularly love to see are the Nevarran dragonslayers. And a companion in that line with a very rash and fatalistic attitude would fit, I think, fine.

Rash and fatalistic does not mean a jerk, which I think Fenris is, simply a guy with the certainty that his life will end baaaaad.

[Darji]

Realmzmaster wrote...



There was no guessing game. It was a pattern. A three wave pattern that I pick up  in the first battle. The tactics were there. You simply did not get to use the tactics that you did in DAO. You simply could not tuck you mage in a safe spot and let them hurl magic with abandon. You actually had to watch them and your other characters.

I could tell if a party member was in trouble even if I could not see them at the time by their life bar. I simply switch to that character paused and selected what the character should do.  The waves keep you on your toes because they were not set battles which I thought DAO had to many of.  I did not need the tactical camera. I played mostly rogue and they are not over powered. DA2 had better balance between the classes than DAO.

Yes there was a pattern but the spawns were unpredictable and cheap that it actually was a guessing game. Even if you mages stand far behind the actual battle and with the back to a huge cliff or huge wall. There were manytimes when the new wave just spawned in my mages and they were totally ****ed after that. It was a unfair and cheap way to make the game more difficult. In Origins there were no waves atleast on the PC. And there were especially no unfair and cheap respawns. When you died in Orgins it was becasue of your own mistakes in DA2 it was always a guessing game where the next wave will spwan in the end which made it not challenging but frustrating.  And no the balance was almost non existent it was just the case that Bioware wanted to make every class aweomse and look like badass. and there the whole balance thing fell totally appart especially with the rogue becasue he basicly flew around the battlefield killing everything in his way.

Modifié par Darji, 21 mars 2012 - 04:08 .

[LPPrince]

Baby Dragon as mabari-style companion.

I still think that'd be mint.

Edit- Plus, DRAGON AGE. Durr.

Modifié par LPPrince, 21 mars 2012 - 04:05 .

[nightscrawl]

Sorry about the giant mess of quotes here, but I wanted to get everything in one post since this thread is over 90 pages now...

[quote]And finally, while we will still be keeping an eye out for any issues that might crop up in DAII and supporting the community should any emergencies should arise, we’re moving the entire team’s focus to the next phase of Dragon Age’s future.

You’ve most certainly heard the rumors floating around, and unfortunately I can’t really comment on them. However, what I can say is that we’ve been thinking a lot about Dragon Age – what it means, and where it could go. This past year, we’ve spent a lot of time both going back to the “BioWare vault” of games and re-examining them, and looking at some new possibilities that today’s industry allows.

With that, the next thing for the Dragon Age team members and I to do is hear from you, and not just on the forums, or Facebook, or Twitter. We’ll be attending a number of conventions and gatherings, including PAX East in April. The most valuable thing we can get out of those meetings is to hear from you on those same topics – what does Dragon Age mean to you, and where would you like to see it go? We’re excited to hear what you have to say!

On behalf of the entire team, we are incredibly eager to reach the moment when we can tell you more and show you where we are taking Dragon Age. But for now, thank you for your continued support, and we will be back here with more as soon as we can.

Thanks,
Mark
[/quote]
Really happy to read this entire post from Mark. I quite enjoyed DA2, indeed I'm a fan of the entire series and DA universe. While I'm sad there isn't going to be any new content for DA2, I'm ready for a new game. I've played DAO seven times (recently a full fresh run for a new import), DA2 almost a dozen and I'm ready for something new.

I'm looking forward to April 6 to see what you guys have to show at PAX.

[quote]Mark Darrah wrote...

We will try to bring some closure to Hawke's story but likely not in a playable form. Originally we had planned to do an expansion pack but had to stop to focus on what we are working on now.[/quote]
This news is rather stunning, especially as various forum posts about wanting an expansion have popped up here and there on the BSN over the past few months. It's simultaneously "Yay!" and "Awww!" knowing what almost was.

[quote]Alain Baxter wrote...

The DA team does spend a lot of time reviewing posts made from everyone (good & bad) and one section I spent a lot of time was the 'Constructive Criticism' thread that was created a year ago. The hook that made this thread important for review was that posters would tell us what they liked/disliked but then explained why. This is key. This information was often discussed within the DA team and helped us review what features/content we would work on for the then active expansion pack.

For now, keep the comments coming! We'll be reading them...
[/quote]
The Gameplay Feature Discussion thread created by Luke several months ago is another one that I followed eagerly and contributed to quite a bit, which is why I link to it in my sig. I like that thread especially because it focused on new ideas to move the game forward, rather than dwelling on existing problems.

[quote]David Gaider wrote...

[quote]Taellosse wrote...

So in the hope that this will be addressed, what, if anything, will be done going forward about the import problems between the existing games? [/quote]
Yes, it's a big issue... because "garbage in, garbage out", right? It doesn't help if we write things that take advantage of imported data if that data isn't properly there to be imported. We've got some ideas on the table, but I don't think we can comment on any of it right now. Know that this is a big issue, however, especially insofar as the writers are concerned.[/quote]

[quote]Mark Darrah wrote...

[quote]Taellosse wrote...

So in the hope that this will be addressed, what, if anything, will be done going forward about the import problems between the existing games?[/quote]
We are definately looking into getting a clean starting point of choices for DA3. [/quote]
Really pleased to read both of these responses. Most of the import issues concerning romances, people being alive or dead and other such things didn't really affect me, but I did feel quite badly for those who felt their own DAO imports were next to useless. In addition, I felt that something as simple as A Study of the Fifth Blight, Vol. Two not being complete was really irritating.

[quote]Mike Laidlaw wrote...

And yes, for those who asked: the "other thing that we are pursuing" is absolutely a game. A Dragon Age game.
[/quote]
Yay!!

[quote]Alain Baxter wrote...

Correct. There will be no more DLC for DA2.[/quote]
While I am sad to see this, I'm not totally surprised. I do find it rather amusing however, remembering all of the future DLC speculation threads where people (myself included) carried on about the rugs on the floor where DLC statues would go.

[quote]Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Q: Will we be going to silent protagonist?
A: A few months back, I noted that we'd be continuing on a voiced protagonist. We feel the voice improves the overall experience, thought we know that some of your disagree. Sorry! STILL, we have, however, heard feedback on paraphrase clarity. What I've often seen is feedback that the paraphrases fail when your character DOES something unexpected. Would you folks agree that moments of action or major choice are the issue that most needs to be addressed?[/quote]

[quote]Mike Laidlaw wrote...

[quote]jackofalltrades456 wrote...

I guess we're not going to win with the silent protagonist, but can we still see the return of the text wall? Save the text wheel for Mass Effect, please...

As I said many times, I hate "Hello" being." Hello there! I want set you on fire!"
[/quote]

Deeper dig: is the issue that you didn't know what you'd say, or that you did or said something unexpected?

I'll admit that I'm biased; I don't like reading a choice and then hearing the exact same thing read aloud to me. However, I can absolutely agree with concerns about being blindsided as per your example above.[/quote]
I eventually just saved the link to that post so I could post it in some of the voiced PC threads I commented in. While I do like the voiced PC and want it to remain, and while I do understand how the current DA2 system works with the personality and tone icons and the reason for paraphrases, I think that the paraphrasing system is probably one of the largest complaints I've noticed that people have with the voiced PC, and one of the largest flaws with the system overall.

Yes, I do think that people want to know exactly what their characters are going to say. On some of my plays, I began to feel afraid if hitting the red or purple icons because my character would end up saying something completely a-holey, insensitive, or just plain rude, when I only wanted it to be a serious response. In those situations, I felt forced into using the diplomatic/blue icon which also wasn't very satisfying and also sometimes resulted in Hawke saying something I didn't want, but only ended up being the lesser of three evils.

An example of the icons not working well with paraphrasing is the first opportunity to flirt with Anders. (I've explained this several times IRL and on forums, so I'm really clear on how this works having done it in game many times as well - in addition, I am NOT coming from a negative place where the Anders romance is concerned, but I have observed the frustrations of many others as relates to this issue.)

In that scenario, there are four options: heart icon (flirt back), blue (positive), purple (neutral), red (total rejection). The ONLY way to keep Anders from ever flirting with you again or from getting any future ideas about romance with you is to hit the purple icon, which is seen by the game as neutral in this specific case, and not just as the humorous response. If you hit the blue (even if you are only doing that because you are a mage sympathizer) the game sees it as positive even though you did not openly flirt with him, leaving you open for future flirting. Unfortunately, the red icon makes you reject him in a really negative way that seems unnecessary, given that you've only just met the man.

People who are just relying on the icons won't realize all of that, they will only just hear what comes out of their Hawke's mouth and either be pleased, surprised, or horrified by any of the given responses, and by how that single conversation can mold other parts of the game. I understand that this specific dialogue issue also blends into the romance issue as has been argued many times on these forums. I like to use it as an example of how multiple game systems affect each other and how one person's problem with any given aspect of the game (in this case the Anders romance) isn't necessarily fixed by changing one function.

While I agree that reading large chunks of text and then hearing that same text spoken can be tedious, I don't think it would be that bad in practice. It can be a menu toggle to "allow mouseover text previews of dialogue" or something along those lines, in addition to keeping the same tone icons. We read in our heads much faster than we speak, and of course the acting is taken into consideration where spoken dialogue is considered. I think most people would mouse over and skim the various responses, others would read them fully, and still others would just hit the desired icon.

[quote]Mark Darrah wrote...

[quote]Melca36 wrote...

Please do something like the Black Emporium again.

I would also like to see perhaps some quests offered with rewards being armor or weapon upgrades.[/quote]
Maybe its a franchise...[/quote]
+1 on this for me. BE was a great idea and I felt it to be a nice bonus that didn't interfere with the flow of the game. Oh and Maker's Sigh ftw...

[LPPrince]

Darji wrote...

*massive quote pyramid*

Guys, come on now.