178 réponses à ce sujet

[PinkShoes]

People complain constantly to Bioware that they miss the origins and I'm sure Bioware is tired of this. But honestly its so understandable. You play the first game you expect certain things taken from the first to make the second. DAO's biggest attraction to a lot of people was the races, of course its expected in DA2, of course its understandable that people are annoyed its not.

A big problem with DA2 is bioware took out certain things which most people didn't even give a second thought that it wouldn't be in the game. Did anyone think it wouldn't be another origins story? I thought it would be.

DAA, one of its biggest complaints was you couldn’t talk much to your party members. Why exactly put that in DA2 then? Its sort of funny in a way, like they wanted people to complain.

People don't want the same thing they do want something new, interesting, fun. But keep the things that make it good. Keep the bases of whats good and then add to it. The combat in DAO was pretty awful, stale and boring. DA2 made it enjoyable, more exciting if not a bit over the top but that is fine! I'd rather have something a bit over the top than simplified like our character Hawke. Hawke was a set character, from so much diversity to Hawke? Voiceless and many choices on what to say to a voice we never got to pick and only 3 types of personalities to chose from? That doesn't leave much creativity for the player.

My Warden Naomi was a mage, she was stern and not interested in humor but loved to learn so would always ask for more information, she found Alistair odd to be around because he would always make jokes. She feels like she has to prove herself more so when Wynn joins and finds Morrigan fascinating. Shes never even thought about leaving the circle before but when she finally did it was amazing and she realized just how freeing it all felt. My Hawke Erric had a sarcastic personality.

When you are with a blank slate you create something even without thinking, i did and I'm sure so many others did to. I created a story to my character and added to the world, i felt close to her because Naomi is mine. She is someone i created. Hawke...not so much.

In origins you start off with 6 different origins, i loved creating all the characters seeing what their origins was like seeing if my choices made a differences. You could be a dwarf Nobel or a dalish elf or a human mage. Already so much choice. In DA2 you pick a class and a gender, its already a generic RPG which doesn't stand out from the crowed.  In DA2 you should of started off with Hawke at home with his family, you could talk to people go around explore a bit. Not start off with a bunch of people that you don't know and do not even care about. You don't get a chance to talk to them and then one dies, is THAT supposed to draw you in to the story? i didn't feel touched by my siblings scarified i felt annoyed to be ruefully, so instead of a helpful member of my party I'm left with a useless old woman?

The Dragon age series strength should be its story and its already fallen short when its only been 10 minutes into the game.

Kirkwall, the people in Kirkwall. Did anyone bother spending more than a second on them? Sure Denrim wasn't packed full but at least its people didn't look like a poorly animated dead Michael Jackson and had some sort of life in it with the children running around. We are in one city the whole time and you don't bother to at least make it less obvious that every mansion is the same? and Bloody hell Fenris clean up the dead bodies in your house. Also, why does he have books in his mansion he cant read. Wouldn't it of made sense to have books put there after we say we will teach him to read?

Why does everything look so clean? Even the slums, the docks, the Alienage, the sewers and the deep roads. I get why Hightown is so nice and clean and bright but why does everywhere look so bright? You'd expect the deep roads to have a more sinister feel but not really. Sorta boring.

And i just killed a Dragon and get 45 silvers? Well at least i know it paid off.

Its odd, in DA2 we spend 10 years with our party members and i feel so little for each of them. Why don't we go on a quest to help Isabela and only find some bad poems and an old boot? That would have been a fun quest right. Why don't we go to Aveline wedding? or her dinner party at least and get to know Donnic a bit more? Why doesn't Varric tell us some stories? Why cant we join Anders underground mage movement? There are too many "why cant i" in DA2. The ONLY reason i make sure i have full friendship with Isabela is so i can make that level up potion. I don't romance her because frankly she is sorta gross. "Do i need a bath?" she apparently has STD's and will hump anything that moves. Thats sexy. I think its Mike who says his favorite character is Isabela because she has such depth. Really? Cause she tells Anders she knows who she is? How is that depth? Its something I'd expect from a fortune cookie. How is knowing who you are in any form deep. We only find out more about her if we romance her and i don't want to. I like her well enough don't get me wrong but she, like everyone else, seems shallow and undeveloped. People liked Zevran because you could speak to him and find out he isn't completely shallow. Hes funny, he can laugh at himself and hes realistic about his work.

I could say more but Bioware has heard it all before. How the story is lacking, how Hawke feels like a gloried postman, how we don't even get to have somewhat of an idea how his story ends. So I'll just finish with this.

More hair.

[septembervirgin]

PinkShoes wrote...

 who says his favorite character is Isabela because she has such depth. Really? Cause she tells Anders she knows who she is? How is that depth? Its something I'd expect from a fortune cookie. (...) People liked Zevran because you could speak to him and find out he isn't completely shallow. Hes funny, he can laugh at himself and hes realistic about his work.

One can only be realistic about a work that rewards daydreams with death.

I personally feel you're right about Isabela.  Zevran was written by Gaider and while I personally feel that the wisest choice would be to kill Zevran (given all that could be known about him from a meeting), I am wont to guide the story to let him go.  Sheryl Chee wrote Isabela in DA2 (and tellingly enough, Oghren in DAA).  If you consider that Oghren and Isabela are kindred souls, you'll understand them better (they'd be good drinking buddies but they'd end up in the sack and about a day later both would be on the ground bleeding with only eachother to compliment and blame).  While I do not enjoy Oghren at all and consider Isabela to be deserving of small pities, I DO like Chee's capability with words.

I hope that future DA games include characters who are more articulate and eloquent.  Zevran was the right guy at the wrong time doing precisely the wrong thing.

[PinkShoes]

Jasmine96 wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

Its odd, in DA2 we spend 10 years with our party members and i feel so little for each of them. Why don't we go on a quest to help Isabela and only find some bad poems and an old boot? That would have been a fun quest right. Why don't we go to Aveline wedding? or her dinner party at least and get to know Donnic a bit more? Why doesn't Varric tell us some stories? Why cant we join Anders underground mage movement? 

Although I don't agree with everything you wrote I love these ideas. I would of loved to do more with my companions and have more of a connection with them. I still love my DA2 companions but I did feel like they were lacking a bit, I really realized this at the end where your saying goodbye to your companions. In origins the last talk with them really touched my heart, in DA2 it didn't as much. I remember we knew Lelianna's entire backstory, where she came from, how she grew up, about her family, that whole thing with majolaine. Same thing with Zevran and Alistair and all the other companions. I just feel like we didn't know much about our companions in DA2. I still liked DA2 but I felt Origins definitely had it better in the companions department.

I don't think DA2 is as bad as some people make it out to be it really did have its good points. I would like them to combine the combats though because its cool when a rouge blocks an attack and you hear the clang of metal against metal. DA2's combat was more exciting to watch and felt more edging if a little too...animated?

I really do hope they bring back DA2's companions in some form because i want to know about them. I agree our last goodbyes were lackluster, the romance at the goodbyes were stronger though which i do appreciate. One last kiss. But a kiss doesn't make a romance you know, neither http://www.spellchec...spellcheck/does sex, i never understood peoples fuss over the sex scenes they were fine. DAO's were awkward and funny to watch, i felt DA2's sex scenes had a bit more...heart? Maybe. i feel like if they keep origins style for conversation but bring in some elements of DA2's style it could be very moving.

I don't envy the Dragon Age team, they really have to make a good DA3 and i know they can but they will have to read a lot of horrible and rude comments. I hope none of my comments come across as rude because while i didn't enjoy DA2 as much as DAO i really do want them to make a great DA3, i wont be spiteful and say i wont get DA3 i know i will, they haven't lost all my trust (some of it maybe but not all), one medicore game doesnt mean every game will be the same. I know you and many others enjoyed DA2 but in my honest opinon it came up short.

[TheShadowWolf911]

bring back origins and/or races (and give us the choice for Qunari, seriously.)

[Sacred_Fantasy]

DeadPoolMK wrote...

I think some people are just too focused on recreating a tabletop PnP experience when that can't be done effectively in a CRPG.  The mediums are simply too different and because of that require an equally different approach.

If you think like this than RPG will turn into arcade action game with beautiful graphic in the next 30 years. This is 2012. It has been 30 years since the first CRPG  ( Dungeon and Dragons ) has been created. 30 years ago it's understandable we do not have high end machine capable enough to process a lot of features from PnP experience.
But for 30 years, instead of trying to develop, refine and recreate PnP experience ( doesn't have to be D&D to avoid stagnation ), RPG continue to be dumbed down to cater the lowest common denominators who are not interested to invest their time and effort in a RPG.

I don't want to play arcade action game under the label of RPG in the next decade. I have enough action game with RPG element already. Why can't I be the hero in at least one game out of thousand games out there?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 24 mars 2012 - 02:46 .

[TheShadowWolf911]

Mmw04014 wrote...

Honestly, the only way I think I will ever (begrudingly) be ok with a voiced protagonist is if they enable it so we don't have to rely on these damn paraphrases. I've read Laidlaws distaste for reading a line and then hearing it repeated back, but I just don't share that distaste. I want to know exactly what my character is going to say. That would go a long way into making the character feel more like my own and not like I'm just borrowing him from bioware for a couple hours.

I'll still forever lament giving up the ability to apply my own tone to a line.

it is rather annoying, a example in SWTOR, my Sith Maruader, i selected the option that said "ok" or something simple around those lines, what he ACTUALLY said was basically "IMA EAT THEIR HEARTS!!" which was out of place as i made him a light sider.

alot of these 'paraphrasd' lines are INCREDIBLY misleading.

[nightscrawl]

PinkShoes wrote...

So I'll just finish with this.

More hair.

I'm with you on this.

There is one type of hair option that is currently missing: long hair down the back, and alternate models of such with a braid or other stylings. In addition, I also would like more short hair. I use short hair, or hair that is off the shoulder on all of my girls and would like more variety with those. The hair variety on the two females I made during the SWTOR beta (one human and one red-skinned sith race) was quite large and creative. And seriously, it is really unfair that guys get to have corn rows but girls don't.

There are too many feminine type of hair styles, and not enough practical or tom-boyish ones. If I want to play a badass woman who doesn't really care very much about her appearance, either throwing her hair in a simple knot out of her face, or just chopping most of it off, my choices are severely limited.

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

it is rather annoying, a example
in SWTOR, my Sith Maruader, i selected the option that said "ok" or something simple around those lines, what he ACTUALLY said was basically "IMA EAT THEIR HEARTS!!" which was out of place as i made him a light sider.

alot of these 'paraphrasd' lines are INCREDIBLY misleading.

Ahahaha! The is one of the best examples ever of this issue.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

If you think like this than RPG will turn into arcade action game with beautiful graphic in the next 30 years. This is 2012. It has been 30 years since the first CRPG (Dungeon and Dragons ) has been created. 30 years ago it's understandable we do not have high end machine capable enough to process a lot of features from PnP experience.

Did you ever get to play Neverwinter Nights? It was pretty much DnD rules in a rendered environment, with Bioware acting as the DM having written out the story before hand. There were alignments, dice rolls, all of that good stuff. Yes, people will say (as they have been saying for many RPGs over the past decade) that there weren't options that let you be REALLY evil (ie you had to do some things in a certain way in order for the story to progress) if you wanted, but since everything is pre-written and scripted, there are limitations on systems like alignments.

If group play (with other real people) is important to you in an RPG, well NWN had that too, and you could have people make their own story modules, which they then acted as the DM in direction the action through the game's mechanics. I'm not sure how heavy the RP got with this since I never played in that scenario, but the possibility is still there.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 24 mars 2012 - 03:16 .

[DeadPoolX]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

DeadPoolMK wrote...

I think some people are just too focused on recreating a tabletop PnP experience when that can't be done effectively in a CRPG.  The mediums are simply too different and because of that require an equally different approach.

If you think like this than RPG will turn into arcade action game with beautiful graphic in the next 30 years. This is 2012. It has been 30 years since the first CRPG  ( Dungeon and Dragons ) has been created. 30 years ago it's understandable we do not have high end machine capable enough to process a lot of features from PnP experience.
But for 30 years, instead of trying to develop, refine and recreate PnP experience ( doesn't have to be D&D to avoid stagnation ), RPG continue to be dumbed down to cater the lowest common denominators who are not interested to invest their time and effort in a RPG.

I don't want to play arcade action game under the label of RPG in the next decade. I have enough action game with RPG element already. Why can't I be the hero in at least one game out of thousand games out there?

You misunderstand me.  I don't want a pure action game.  If I want that, I'll play an action game. 

That said, the mediums are different.  You can't approach them the same way.  If you try, you'll ultimately fail because what works for one medium won't work for another.  That's why we have different forms of media.

[PinkShoes]

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

Mmw04014 wrote...

Honestly, the only way I think I will ever (begrudingly) be ok with a voiced protagonist is if they enable it so we don't have to rely on these damn paraphrases. I've read Laidlaws distaste for reading a line and then hearing it repeated back, but I just don't share that distaste. I want to know exactly what my character is going to say. That would go a long way into making the character feel more like my own and not like I'm just borrowing him from bioware for a couple hours.

I'll still forever lament giving up the ability to apply my own tone to a line.

it is rather annoying, a example in SWTOR, my Sith Maruader, i selected the option that said "ok" or something simple around those lines, what he ACTUALLY said was basically "IMA EAT THEIR HEARTS!!" which was out of place as i made him a light sider.

alot of these 'paraphrasd' lines are INCREDIBLY misleading.

The paraphrasing was so damn annoying, also they would say things we didn't choose i didn't like it. It didn't bring me into the story more just took me more out of it because i kept thinking "This isn't my character" I think one of the problems with Bioware is they say "we feel this is the best direction" or something along those lines too much. Like the voice. There has been a poll and people are spilt some like some don't so why not give people the OPTION to be silent? Why not? seriously i don't get why we don't get an option to be silent and the only excuse bioware has given us is because its the direction they feel is the best. Well i want the option to be silent and have more voices. To be frank its really not about them is it, its about the fans the people they are making this game for and things like a voice they are not listening to.

[DeadPoolX]

What's wrong with BioWare going in the direction they feel is best? It's their game, their world and their story. We can't tell them how to do anything. Sure, we can offer suggestions, but that's about it. At the end of the day, it's their decision, not ours and we just have to accept that.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with the option to mute the player character (and I'm firmly in the voiced protagonist camp).

[QueenPurpleScrap]

Loot should make more sense, whether it is armor and weapons you opt not to use or diamonds, information, etc. I really didn't understand why a chip of coral or a broken sword were loot. Even books make sense, because you can read them and then sell them.

I enjoyed the quest for juggernaut armor in DAO, whether I ended up using it or not. There was lore, adventure, and something useful and valuable. I would like more of that sort of thing.

When I first played DA2, I appreciated the simpler potions. But I became bored with that and soon came to prefer all the different varieties I had in Origins. One complaint I have about the potions in Origins is that I never really felt that warmth balm, ice balm, etc. made any real difference except on rare occasions. I would like them to be more necessary more often. If I'm facing a fire-breathing dragon, I want to have to need the fire resistance of a potion or piece of equipment, not just a few health potions.

I like some of the new abilities in DA2, such as decoy. I like my decoy turning into a fire trap. I also miss some of the abilities from DAO: the ranger tree is a big example. I also see no reason why a rogue, especially a human rogue can't use a longsword. In DAO I frequently made the decision to use longswords in both hands.

Romance shouldn't be on a schedule. I can see where a particular quest might be necessary before it's possible, but after that I should decide on the time table for future discussions and interactions. And I should be able to enjoy my LI's company as often as I wish. In Origins it was easier to avoid romances or turn somebody down without being downright rude. In one of the first conversations with Anders I have the option to say "Don't think about me that way." Really? That was so unnecessary for the conversation and the timing.

[TheShadowWolf911]

DeadPoolMK wrote...

What's wrong with BioWare going in the direction they feel is best? It's their game, their world and their story. We can't tell them how to do anything. Sure, we can offer suggestions, but that's about it. At the end of the day, it's their decision, not ours and we just have to accept that.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with the option to mute the player character (and I'm firmly in the voiced protagonist camp).

but heres the thing, they are making it the way THEY want it, not their fans/customers.


cause really, whats the point of making a game only the developers like but the consumers don't?

they lose money that way.

[DeadPoolX]

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

DeadPoolMK wrote...

What's wrong with BioWare going in the direction they feel is best? It's their game, their world and their story. We can't tell them how to do anything. Sure, we can offer suggestions, but that's about it. At the end of the day, it's their decision, not ours and we just have to accept that.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with the option to mute the player character (and I'm firmly in the voiced protagonist camp).

but heres the thing, they are making it the way THEY want it, not their fans/customers.


cause really, whats the point of making a game only the developers like but the consumers don't?

they lose money that way.

Yes, but they are the designers, not us.  As I said, we can suggest or even urge them to do certain things, but when all is said and done, it's their choice and theirs alone. 

Furthermore, the fans don't agree on anything.  Some of us want voiced characters, others want silent; some want multiple races, others don't care; some want a listed dialogue tree, while others are fine with a dialogue wheel, etc.

How're they supposed to make a game based on fan feedback when there's virtually no consensus?  The answer is they can't or at least, can't do it without pissing someone off, which is what'll happen if they make the game how THEY want anyway.

[eroeru]

DeadPoolMK wrote...

eroeru wrote...

DeadPoolMK wrote...

Anyway... onto something different: I know a lot of people disliked the fact you couldn't give or buy new armor to companions. I didn't mind, because it kept your companions with a signature look. I don't want them to look like me or similar to each other.

What the hell would this fix?? Adding different colors?? Letting the system be exactly the same!!?? Damn, this opinion seems infuriating at this time.

I'll go over the wheel again once. Though ultimately, I'd prefer a (option for a) silent protagonist, the wheel remains awful, as it exactly, without anything interesting gives you exact functions. You get the Fenris +1 and Anders -1 option, the opposite, and so forth, based on where the option is located. Damn, I want to be prompted to think the answer through - knowing what the function will be based on the location of the line is such that I feel the game makes fun of me, and degrades my intelligence. That's not how I want a game making me feel.

Also, many DA fans are NOT ME fans, or at least want something completely different in their Dragon Age. I for one despise ME in comparison to DA, though in itself, the games were quite well-done. But it simply feels not as a RPG, but more as ... I don't know. A mockery of my ability to think (if my preposition is that I'd need that in the game, and look forward to that - which I and many others often do).

Origins had me INVOLVED! DA2 DID NOT!

Add the possibility (or rather a not-invasive necessity) to use ones imagination and thinking ability, and you'll get a more deeply interactive game, that really has something MEANINGFUL to a player. Hence, the player can be more involved - thus the player can grow to feel with the game, and love it (on a deeper level, with more of the player's agency involved).

First off, my idea would allow you to give your companions armor you find or buy while keeping their signature looks.  In other words, they all wouldn't look the same or similar to you.

As for "DA fans are not ME fans," that's simply not true.  I loved both DA:O and DA2, in addition to all three ME games.  Both DA games captivated me, but to be honest, DA2 had a more engaging story and interesting companions.  Sure, it also had reused areas and more bugs than a South American rainforest, but that's a technical issue.  

DA:O's story was nothing new.  It's been redone a million times since Tolkien.  I'm tired of being the one person in all the world who can save it from some mega-epic evil.  DA2 was a breath of fresh air in that you just a normal person caught up in the political and social events surrounding your newly adopted home.  It was more personal and down-to-earth.

I think some people are just too focused on recreating a tabletop PnP experience when that can't be done effectively in a CRPG.  The mediums are simply too different and because of that require an equally different approach.

Huge mistake in quoting I did on page 3. I actually wanted to quote this:

DeadPoolMK wrote...



That said, I do agree the dialogue
wheel in DA2 was unclear. Why not just use the same wheel (different
colors, maybe) as they used in the ME series? Better yet, add in
interrupts as well.

Also, I was not claiming no DA fan was a ME fan, but rather that NOT ALL DA fans are ME fans. I think that it's a significant amount of players who DON'T want ME come into their DA.

Modifié par eroeru, 24 mars 2012 - 09:09 .

[DeadPoolX]

Ah. Well, that does make more sense now.

The reason I suggested the ME dialogue wheel is because it doesn't use symbols or colors to represent choices. In the ME series, you get a brief blurb, giving you an idea as to how Shepard will respond. It's not perfect, but it's certainly less confusing that figuring out which symbol means what.

As for the whole "ME/DA fan" thing, I think some bits and pieces of ME would enhance DA3 (such as dialogue interrupts), but I can certainly see why some people would want to keep the series mechanics separate.

[WardenWade]

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

bring back origins and/or races (and give us the choice for Qunari, seriously.)

Oh, yes.  A thousand times this!  The protagonist of DA3 hasn't been hinted as anyone in particular, unlike DA2 where we knew pretty much immediately we would be playing Hawke, and I personally see no reason why this couldn't work. 

[Remmirath]

I believe I already did post in the original Constructive Criticism thread, so I'll try not to just reiterate the things I said there (although since that was a fairly long time ago, I might not remember). This won't be all things that I completely dislike, either - I'll make sure to include some things that I think were going the right direction but could be improved on, et cetera. 

Things aren't in any particular order here; I figured it would make for easier reading to seperate them as much as possible, however.

(Probably worth noting ahead of time is that I often just use NPC to refer to NPC party members, since it's shorter.) 


Voiced PC: 

I'm going to try not to sound like a broken record here. I realise that this is here to stay - it's been said, and I'm not going to stick my head in the sand about it. However, since I do still feel that it is very detrimental to both roleplaying and replayability, I will try to offer some suggestions of how it would bother me less.

One possibility would be to have several different voices to choose from. I expect this would be quite expensive, so it might not be feasible (I fully admit I don't have a good idea of the costs involved for voice acting), but it would definitely help the replayability. The different tones really didn't help that for me - they all still sounded very much like the same person. That would also help another problem I have, as in that having only one voice fit the spectrum of characters that people might want to play is pretty damned hard (I would venture to say impossible). A few different options would help a great deal.
I'm not sure what could be done about my other major problem with it, which is that I feel that tone and subtext are very important parts of acting (and so roleplaying) that then can't be controlled by the player. I wish I did have some suggestion for that, but anything I can think of would be dreadfully complicated.

The other possibility I can think of, which I would consider ideal given the circumstances, would be to have an option to switch off the character voice. I realise that currently one can switch off all the voices, but since I do like hearing the NPCs and all, I'd much prefer to be able to switch just the PC voice off. I, personally, would be quite fine with it being simply a mute - although I'd prefer if it just cut out the 'PC talking' part or something, effectively reducing the chosen dialogue to the paraphrase (or however that ends up being).
Not sure how relevant this is, but if that ability wasn't included in the main game, I would honestly be willing to pay for it. 

Dialogue Wheel:

First off, the dialogue for me was in every way better in DA II than it was in ME or ME 2. Now, what I ended up doing was in fact largely going purely by the tone symbols - thinking 'okay, so at this point he's angry, so I'll just hope that response works' - and trying to ignore the paraphrases because I knew they wouldn't be exact. I don't think I'd want it to be reduced to only the icons, though.

My main problems with it as it now stands are that there didn't seem to be enough options for different tones but similar things, so I found myself compromising a lot. I'm not sure how much that's a dialogue wheel issue and how much a voice issue, but with the list style (the way I see it) each dialogue option has a multitude of different tones it could be said in, whereas with the dialogue system as it stands each one is set. So, it feels more limited, even if the actual number of options is the same. 

My other problem is not knowing what exactly is going to be said. Sometimes the paraphrase was exactly what I'd've wanted my character to say, for instance, and then the actual line was fairly different. Any way to see the actual line would improve that, I think.

NPC Armour:

And, mostly, the inability to change it. At times this actually ended up being my primary source of frustration with DA II, even sometimes eclipsing the two above. The reasons are several.

Firstly, tactical reasons. I might want to change out one suit of armour that protects against cold for one that protects against fire, for instance, or one that grants more armour for one that grants an attack bonus. This certainly isn't all of it, because if it was just that part that changed but not the appearance I'd still be pretty bothered (though not as much).

Secondly, I like to use the things I find, and I like to see that. If I find some particularly cool suit of armour or set of robes that my character can't use, for instance, my first thought would be to give them to a suitable party member. I'm generally kind of annoyed when things drastically change appearance when characters put them on, so I ideally want to see said thing looking pretty much as it did on the NPC who was wearing it.

Thirdly, replayability. I like the NPCs to look at least a bit different every time through, and that really doesn't happen if you can't change their armour.

Lastly, I like to see the party look more powerful as the game goes on, not just my character. It seems odd to me if my character is the only one who looks any different. I like the contrast between, for instance, seeing Alistair in his beginning splint armour and in dragonbone plate (or what have you) at the end.

NPC Specialisations:

This one is largely a replayability thing to me. I admit that it doesn't make all that wonderfully much in game sense for the characters to change their weapon styles and all, so this isn't really a huge deal to me compared to the others - but it does really aid replayability for me to be able to, say, have Sten use a greatsword one game, a longbow the next, or what have you.

class Differentiation: 

I do think that classes should be differentiated if you have classes; after all, there's not much point to having classes if they aren't going to be. However, I personally feel that DA II went a little too far with it. I would really like to see rogues and warriors both being able to use all weapons again. Not necessarily all weapon styles - I was fine with rogues being restricted to two-weapon or bow, for instance - but all weapons. I like being able to build a rogue who's only real difference from a fighter is a stealthier approach. I tend to think that between the basically fighting classes (as in, not mage) the differentiation should come mainly from the next thing I come to, skills.

Skills:

In short, I like skills. Ones I particularly missed were persuasion and the crafting skills (and I'd really prefer lock-picking and stealth to be rogue-only skills rather than rogue-only abilities, since as abilities they take away from combat talents). I'd far rather the quality of craftable things be tied to the skill rather than the amount of stuff you've found in the world.

As for persuasion... I like having it. I like being able to do the persuasion or the intimidate. However, I also don't want it to come close to the Jedi mindtrick level, where it seems that people will just do whatever you want. I like that in Origins there were some things you really couldn't talk people out of, and honestly, I'd like to see more things like that.

Conversations with NPCs: 

Now, I'll start by saying that I did like the conversations in DA II. They were interesting. What I'd really like to see would be a mix between that and the DA:O way, as in mostly the DA:O way with some DA II style conversations at key points. If I had to choose between the two, I'd prefer the DA:O way.

The reasons... I'm trying to think of how to explain. It's that, to me, with the DA II way it feels as though the NPCs refuse to talk anywhere except in their homes and at triggered times, and that seems odd to me. I also do like being able to have various conversations in different places with different playthroughs (replayability, again). It feels much more natural to me that, for the most part at least, characters would just strike up a conversation at some time rather than wait.

Not sure how well I explained that one. Ah well.

Friendship/Rivalry: 

While I think it was an interesting concept, I really didn't like the friendship/rivalry thing. Why? I'm one of those (apparently odd?) people who want the NPCs to be able to really hate their characters. It feels odd to me that the only choices are basically 'honest respect' and 'grudging admiration'. If my character consistantly does things that the NPC doesn't like, I'd really rather have the NPC get angry about it, hate them, and eventually leave the party. Just makes more sense to me.

Night/Day cycle: 

Here's one of those things that I basically liked, which is to say that I like having it. I'd like it a lot more if it just cycled on it's own, a la older games like Baldur's Gate and such (or Morrowind, or Skyrim, although those have waiting and all that). I don't really care if all that much changes at night, but although in DA II it was neat to have some quests that could be only done at night and most in day, it felt very artificial to leave the set and come back at night.
Honestly, I'd kinda like to see resting again, even if it's main point is defunct with the DA:O system (regaining spells and hit points and all). Going to an inn or a house or camping and resting would feel a lot more natural to me than leaving the set and coming back, for instance, although I'd like it best in conjuction with the day/night just changing on its own.

Elves/Graphic Design: 

I don't have any sort of problem with the general graphic feel changing a bit game by game. They're different games, they're not direct sequels, I understand that.

What I do have a problem with is changing the way that elves and Darkspawn and such look. The elves are my biggest problem, and I'll try to explain why I do have such a problem with it.

Elves were a playable species in Origins. Darkspawn weren't, Qunari weren't. I prefer the old look of the Darkspawn, and I'd be totally cool with it if the Qunari were mixed between old and new or what. I realise the idea was to make them more unique looking, but... they already looked how they did in Origins, and a goodly number of people had elven PCs. Perhaps even most people at one point or another, although I don't have those statistics. There were also elven party members, one of whom's reappearance in DA II did rather bring the change home. Because... argh, I'm not really sure how to put this. Because it's not just changing the way they look in the future, it comes off at least as also saying 'and basically, your character (if they were an elf) looked more or less like this, and so did every elf you met'. It's not just that I don't like the redesign. If it had been that way in Origins, I wouldn't've been bothered (although I might never have played an elf, who knows). It's changing it afterwards.

I'll admit the stated reason for the change doesn't really sit well with me either - I'm not a big fan of changes things to be different just for the sake of it, and then also the dwarves weren't changed. I really don't understand why making the elves different but not the dwarves made sense.

Species Choice:

I admit, I get bored playing human characters in games sometimes. Sure, I make some I like sometimes, and it's not the end of the world if human is the only choice - but I am human, and I so I find it a lot more interesting to play a character who isn't. I personally have never played very many dwarven characters in DA:O, but I know a lot of people did. I did play a lot of elves, and a lot of people did that, too. It's also another thing that's different for (you probably guessed it) replayability.

Injuries:

I liked having the injuries in both games. I felt they made more of a difference in Origins, but I'm not sure if that was actually true or not. I would like it if they made even more of a difference. To be quite honest, I'd like it if your characters could actually get killed, but I'm not expecting that in any way - but massive penalties from a large stack of injuries is great.

I also really don't like regenerating health. I'd much rather it stayed down until healed or (if applicable) rested.

Less Fixed Character:

I suppose this one could probably be guessed by some of the above points, but I do prefer as much as possible about the PC to be left up to player creation. I did like the origin stories - that was fine - although honestly if there had been only one, I would have preferred to not have it and just skip to having already been recruited and going to Ostagar. I really don't like being locked down into playing a certain background or type of character, because I like playing very different characters.

So... I'm not saying origins necessarily, just that I'd prefer either that or it being left more up to the imagination. The PC in DA II was just about as fixed as I can stand, and sometimes it grates on me. Now, because I expect somebody to bring it up, that grates on me in Planescape: Torment as well. I do very much enjoy Ps:T; but it's one of those games that I replay only once in a blue moon, once I've forgotten nearly everything - because I can't make my own character.
Really, I consider creating and playing my character or characters through the course of the game to be the single most important facet of an RPG. If it doesn't let me do that to my satisfaction, I'm probably not going to be too fond of the game unless it does absoloutely everything else right (which, to my mind, Ps:T does - that's why I still manage to like it as much as I do).

Interface: 

This one's a pretty minor thing, all told, but I liked the look of the interface of DA:O a lot more than DA II. Why? I found DA II's to be a bit boring with the transparency and all, and especially with regards to the icons of loot.

Combat: 

This was in fact one of my largest issues with DA II, even though it's all the way down here. I fear it might be a bit hard to properly explain, but it was enough of a problem to me that I actually turned off feedback, and usually I turn that on to the max.

The most obvious thing is that they were just too large. Having a defense or attack bonus in the 1000s seems to me very inflated, and what made it even more odd to me were the percentile's - I distinctly recall that at one point, although Fenris had a significantly higher attack bonus than my character, he had a lower percentile number, and that made me really not be able to figure out what the percentile number meant.

I also felt that the way in which the various boss monsters were supposed to be challenging was a mix of boring and annoying. Why? They mostly seemed to have enourmous hit point bars. Certainly it has been my experience in DMing that it's more interesting and effective in a fight to have enemies with lower hit points but more ability to kill. Wearing down an enemy just feels like boring work to me, whereas killing the enemy before it kills you feels exciting.

My preferences also run more towards realistic combat than fast and flashy combat, but that's not as much of a problem for me as the other things (although I must say that I really couldn't manage to take playing a rogue seriously in DA II due to the near-teleporting and the endless smoke bombs and all).

I didn't have any problems with any of this in Origins, for reference. These were all purely DA II problems for me. I really am not sure why it was changed so much. I'll admit that even above and beyond the fact that I dislike the changes, I suppose there's something in me that thinks that ideally games set in the same world should work the same way in terms of combat. That's a far lesser concern to me, though, than that I didn't like the combat in DA II, because combat is also fairly important to me. Now, I didn't think DA:O's combat was perfect - but I did actually quite enjoy it, often playing on Nightmare or if not that at the least on Hard (if the particular character I was playing was not a very good character), whereas in DA II the combat just bored and annoyed me so much I switched it to Casual and never looked back.

Intro:

Not so much the intro itself, but I really didn't like that you had to play through the default-character thing in DA II to get to making your own character. It was certainly very odd to me that the character in the beginning tale had almost nothing in common with how my character ended up, and I also really don't like having to stare at the default for a while before making the character - it comes off as if you're not even really supposed to be making your own character, and that (at least for me) is a very bad note to start a roleplaying game off on.

Character creation, to my mind, should come before you ever see your character, and tutorials should be optional (since I guess really, that first part was a tutorial).

Romances:

I'm not really much of a romance person, I'll say that off the bat. However, when it makes sense and is in character and all I'll go with it, so I figure I might as well way in on it. I thought they were fairly well done in both games.

I do prefer the approach from DA:O of having characters be either straight or bisexual - or gay, which would be cool, though that hasn't happened yet - as opposed to flip-flopping. I am, in fact, generally all for more romance restrictions rather than less - anything that makes it feel more like the NPC in question has an opinion about it. I'm totally cool with it if said NPC doesn't like elves, refuses to have anything to do with a character with a certain background or a stat under a certain amount, doesn't like characters with nose slider option #6, what have you. If it's a question of only completely straight romancable characters or flip-flopping ones, though, I'll take the flip-flopping.
I do understand that some people are big on romance and would get annoyed by not being able to romance -insert character here-, so... yeah.

Again, this is not a big issue for me - I'm just weighing in on the ongoing debate on the whole thing here. I was basically fine with it both ways.

Multiplayer:

Since I've heard people theorising about this, I'll just throw my two cents in on it.

I like multiplayer. Multiplayer as defined as LAN-type a-few-friends multiplayer. I loathe massively multiplayer, but that's neither here nor there, as it's a very different beast from what I speak of here. I'm not sure why people around here have such animosity towards multiplayer, either. A lot of people here liked the Baldur's Gate series, yes? And/or Neverwinter Nights? They both had multiplayer, of the sort which I speak.

I do speak of the Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights style of it, where the only thing that really changes is having another person or two in the party, and where it's perfectly fine to go through the whole thing either single- or multi-player. I like playing through multiplayer with my family or friends after I've finished a game once. Creates more roleplaying possibilities, it's fun, all that. Now, I do certainly realise some things could be tricky to pull off in modern games - I'm not a good programmer, and I certainly don't know how to deal with NPCs keeping the two or more characters straight and all that - but assuming it works out, I see only good things about that kind of multiplayer.

I'd love it if you could create more than one character in multiplayer or just in general, but I surely realise that there are a lot of problems with that in 3d games, and with the NPCs to the level they're at now not being able to create the whole party doesn't bother me too much.

Summary of this point: I'm cool with BG/NWN/other-example-of-your-choice style multiplayer, and would consider it a good thing. I'm also cool with not having it.



Well, that's all I can think of at the moment. I'll be sure to post again if I think of anything else. Hopefully it's at least decently clear what I mean through all of that.

[Iakus]

 A couple of suggestions concerning followers:

A) Allow us to change their looks this time.  At the very least give us a range of outfits for them.  Players like to customize.   And our tastes may not be in lockstep with the designers, let alone each others'.  Having a few alternatives outside of "default" doesn't hurt anybody

 Do not give us any companions who have played a major role in previous Dragon Age games.  However tempting it may be.  No matter how much we cry, no matter how much we beg, don't give in.  Not Leliana.  Not Cullen.  Not Morrigan.  Not Varric.  Not Sebastian.  If you do there will invairably be outcry over how much the character has changed, how this isn't "the real ::name::" and how the character was subverted or "ruined forever".  Justified or not, it will happen. So I say, make a clean break and make an all new cast of followers.

[EverettWalker]

Hey Bioware Team,
I loved the game I have beaten it five times and uploaded four different characters with many different stories and backgrounds. I am really impressed with the work you put into it. In saying that I would like more closure for my team. I just don't want shepard to die after romancing liara and not having an asari shepard. I want to know what planet they landed on and since my shepard has not died in any endings what can I anticipate for him/her in the future. I loved at the end where the grandfather was talking to his grandson and they eluded to a fourth installment or more DLC. I am not mad by any means. I understand that the ending was meant to relate to the player the depth of the sacrifice that sheperd and the crew made. Though I, as a fan who played ME2 for almost a year straight without touching another title, need closure. what happens to Vakarian, Vega, T'soni, Clan Urdnot, Joker, Zaed, Kasumi, EDI, Williams/Alenko, to the giant Fleet I brought to fight the reapers now that the mass relays are destroyed????

[DeadPoolX]

EverettWalker wrote...

Hey Bioware Team,
I loved the game I have beaten it five times and uploaded four different characters with many different stories and backgrounds. I am really impressed with the work you put into it. In saying that I would like more closure for my team. I just don't want shepard to die after romancing liara and not having an asari shepard. I want to know what planet they landed on and since my shepard has not died in any endings what can I anticipate for him/her in the future. I loved at the end where the grandfather was talking to his grandson and they eluded to a fourth installment or more DLC. I am not mad by any means. I understand that the ending was meant to relate to the player the depth of the sacrifice that sheperd and the crew made. Though I, as a fan who played ME2 for almost a year straight without touching another title, need closure. what happens to Vakarian, Vega, T'soni, Clan Urdnot, Joker, Zaed, Kasumi, EDI, Williams/Alenko, to the giant Fleet I brought to fight the reapers now that the mass relays are destroyed????

Hmmm... two problems here:

1. You're talking about Mass Effect 3 and this is the Dragon Age 2 forum.

2. You've revealed spoilers regarding ME3's plot and this is a "no spoiler" forum.

[nightscrawl]

Halae Dral wrote...

I'm not sure why people around here have such animosity towards multiplayer, either. A lot of people here liked the Baldur's Gate series, yes? And/or Neverwinter Nights? They both had multiplayer, of the sort which I speak.

I do speak of the Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights style of it, where the only thing that really changes is having another person or two in the party, and where it's perfectly fine to go through the whole thing either single- or multi-player.

I don't care if there is multi-player. It's not my thing in a game like Dragon Age, nor did I ever use it in Neverwinter Nights, but I can see that it's fun for some people. That said, what they did with ME3 in having multi-player required to do/see certain things is absolutely unacceptable. If it's that or no multi-player, then I don't want it at all.

At this point, I'm only counting on the fact that ME and DA series are done by different teams with different goals in mind, so a multi-player for DA might not be that way at all. However, this is 2012. It's a different environment with the internet, social networking, and online gaming that didn't exist when Baldur's Gate (1998) and NWN (2002) were made, the most drastic change being internet connectivity of consoles. Bioware as a company might be beyond the type of multi-player used in BG and NWN series.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 25 mars 2012 - 12:20 .

[Big I]

Bring back a persuasion system.


In DA2 it annoyed me that certain outcomes (for instance making peace between the elves and the former werewolf on the Wounded Coast) were only available to certain "tones" of Hawke. I felt I had to metagame the tone system to get the outcomes and dialogue I wanted, which was frustrating as hell because you had to keep track of conversation responses. Please give us back a persuasion system we can invest in, either points like in DA:O or time like in the ME3 reputation system.

[Amycus89]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Bring back a persuasion system.


In DA2 it annoyed me that certain outcomes (for instance making peace between the elves and the former werewolf on the Wounded Coast) were only available to certain "tones" of Hawke. I felt I had to metagame the tone system to get the outcomes and dialogue I wanted, which was frustrating as hell because you had to keep track of conversation responses. Please give us back a persuasion system we can invest in, either points like in DA:O or time like in the ME3 reputation system.

This. As it was in DA2, it just made us care even more about the "tone" icon than what the option was actually saying so that we could later threaten/bluff/persuade further on, instead of actually thinking what our character would say in a certain situation.

Personally I would prefer if you simply added persuade, bluff, and intimidate as 3 different attributes, and then simple giving us 4 stat points each level instead of 3. That way we can choose to simple make a really strong character, or a weaker one who is instead able to persuade/bluff/intimidate for extra outcomes or avoid battles. Though I could settle for the ME3 system as well.

Another suggestion would be to bring back the old crafting from DA:O, only with the difference that ingridients you pick up doesnt fill up your storage capacity at all.

Modifié par Amycus89, 25 mars 2012 - 12:54 .

[Remmirath]

nightscrawl wrote...

I don't care if there is multi-player. It's not my thing in a game like Dragon Age, nor did I ever use it in Neverwinter Nights, but I can see that it's fun for some people. That said, what they did with ME3 in having multi-player required to do/see certain things is absolutely unacceptable. If it's that or no multi-player, then I don't want it at all.

Oh, I certainly agree with that. I didn't realise that's how it was in ME 3, honestly - I've never played ME 3 and don't have any intention to do so, so I haven't been paying much attention to it.

At this point, I'm only counting on the fact that ME and DA series are done by different teams with different goals in mind, so a multi-player for DA might not be that way at all. However, this is 2012. It's a different environment with the internet, social networking, and online gaming that didn't exist when Baldur's Gate (1998) and NWN (2002) were made, the most drastic change being internet connectivity of consoles. Bioware as a company might be beyond the type of multi-player used in BG and NWN series.

It is a different environment, I suppose, although I would argue that it's not so much a matter of beyond as simply different. Of course, they might not see it that way.