178 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

Clertar wrote...

I think people in the DA team have denied that the "ancient god child" will be the protagonist.

And, in any case, it doesn't exist in all playthroughs: a lot of gray warden PCs died killing the Archdemon.

This would be possible, and great, if the feeling was a bit more poetic, and story-telling-like. DA:O was basically such, and a transition would (have) work(ed) fantastically.

What I mean is that the "tale" of the ancient god child be told - in the style of some fairy tale - or a possibility in this fantasy realm. It would also work as a parallel universe -in-one-universe kind of thing. But only if they hold on to the feeling of an epic tale.

Damned be pure logic in a fantasy game. I don't want a computer program. I want a game, and epic story. A Lord Of The Rings or Dune like world unfolding (with uncertainty, as with all tales of times and wonders lost).

[eroeru]

lx_theo wrote...

Art Style:

----> So much time was spent on making a great art style for Dragon Age II that I'd hate to see it get trashed already. 

So much time was spent on making a great art style for Dragon Age: Origins that I hate to see it get trashed already.

Especially by a style that is inferior in terms of believability and (low-)fantasy qualities.

Modifié par eroeru, 28 mars 2012 - 12:04 .

[PinkShoes]

eroeru wrote...

I would like to ask someone of Bioware:

Will you consider an option for a silent protagonist? Like something enabled in the options menu...

I would like this but i doubt. If they did this in DA2 i would of played the male more. Just didnt like his voice much, this is why we should have more voice actors.

[PinkShoes]

t003 wrote...

I'm assuming that the protagonist is the child of the Warden and Morrigan. So i doubt that there will be origins back stories.

Thats just not gunna happen cause it would be a male human (or half race but the guy would still probably look human) that just lacks so much customization already and a lot of people didnt like how Hawke was too much of a set character.

Also thats not canon so those who want this will be disappointed.

I bet Bioware must be regretting some of the choices we got in DAO because the OGB is starting to annoy me now to.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

One thing I am really tired of is the lack of autosave before some major battles. For example in Legacy when talking to the dwarf just after the get back to Kirkwall station, and the Arishok at the end of Act 2. I get tired of having to replay the conversations over and over again. No snickers about my lack of battle skills, please. LOL. I want autosave before every battle, so if I have to start over it's from the beginning of the battle. There also seem to be fewer autosave slots than in DAO. That also annoys me, though not as much.

[Pasquale1234]

QueenPurpleScrap wrote...

One thing I am really tired of is the lack of autosave before some major battles. For example in Legacy when talking to the dwarf just after the get back to Kirkwall station, and the Arishok at the end of Act 2. I get tired of having to replay the conversations over and over again. No snickers about my lack of battle skills, please. LOL. I want autosave before every battle, so if I have to start over it's from the beginning of the battle. There also seem to be fewer autosave slots than in DAO. That also annoys me, though not as much.

I think that's one of the problems inherent in the more cinematic approach overall - there are quite a few places throughout the game where the designers are controlling the pacing and timing and general movement through the game.  It is a further denial of player agency, and I feel the character (and player) should be able to work through the events at whatever pace best suits them.

[DeadPoolX]

QueenPurpleScrap wrote...

One thing I am really tired of is the lack of autosave before some major battles. For example in Legacy when talking to the dwarf just after the get back to Kirkwall station, and the Arishok at the end of Act 2. I get tired of having to replay the conversations over and over again. No snickers about my lack of battle skills, please. LOL. I want autosave before every battle, so if I have to start over it's from the beginning of the battle. There also seem to be fewer autosave slots than in DAO. That also annoys me, though not as much.

Why're you relying on autosaves?  BioWare's one of the few gaming companies around that still allow manual saves and quick saves, so you might as well take advantage of it. 

Most companies seem to be using save points and check points.  I'm glad BioWare hasn't gone down that awful route and I hope they never do.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

I save constantly, 2000+ times per game, if you're interested. And I really appreciate the opportunity to save so often, thank you Biowware. However, there are times when you have a conversation or a cutscene plays and you go straight into battle. There is no opportunity to save. If you have to restart, it is at the beginning of the convo or cutscene instead of the start of battle.

Example 1: Legacy - shortly after you run into Varric's old friend there is a room full of bad guys. When you clear them out there is a portal next to a room which will allow you to go back to Kirkwall. You can save before you go into that room, but once you are in some mad dwarf starts talking to you. He's got a bronto ready to charge. It's a lengthy conversation and goes straignt into battle mode. No opportunity to save, no autosave, which means repeating the convo if you have to redo..

Example 2: The end of Act II - A cutscene plays when you enter Hightown. A noblewoman is being dragged off. At the end of the cutscene, battle begins. No opportunity to save, no autosave, back to beginning of cutscene if you die.

There are other instances. There are other battles where there is an autosave between convo/cutscene and the start of battle so you only replay the battle. You're right in that most battles you can easily save before you engage. There are no big convos or cutscenes that play first.

[KyleOrdrum]

Considering Bioware's previous insistance that the voiced protaganist is better despite all the complaints, I think the issue for many (like myself) was not the voiced protagonist, but the lack of options in the way they did it. Yes it's more expensive to hire more voice actors to read many more lines that won't be heard every time, but that's what it's gonna take. Give us more (clear) dialogue options, with at least 3 voices per gender per race. That way we can actually make the character the way we want instead of merely playing Hawke with someone else's face. For me that was the true kill-note of the title. The fact that once I'd beaten it with my mage and tried to start over with a warrior, I found I couldn't get into the story at all, because audibly speaking, it was still my first character.

[Uccio]

No MP and no ME two way discussion. Seriously! I didn´t buy ME3 and I surely will not buy Dragon Effect either.

[DeadPoolX]

QueenPurpleScrap wrote...

I save constantly, 2000+ times per game, if you're interested. And I really appreciate the opportunity to save so often, thank you Biowware. However, there are times when you have a conversation or a cutscene plays and you go straight into battle. There is no opportunity to save. If you have to restart, it is at the beginning of the convo or cutscene instead of the start of battle.

Example 1: Legacy - shortly after you run into Varric's old friend there is a room full of bad guys. When you clear them out there is a portal next to a room which will allow you to go back to Kirkwall. You can save before you go into that room, but once you are in some mad dwarf starts talking to you. He's got a bronto ready to charge. It's a lengthy conversation and goes straignt into battle mode. No opportunity to save, no autosave, which means repeating the convo if you have to redo..

Example 2: The end of Act II - A cutscene plays when you enter Hightown. A noblewoman is being dragged off. At the end of the cutscene, battle begins. No opportunity to save, no autosave, back to beginning of cutscene if you die.

There are other instances. There are other battles where there is an autosave between convo/cutscene and the start of battle so you only replay the battle. You're right in that most battles you can easily save before you engage. There are no big convos or cutscenes that play first.

Yeah, you're right.  Sorry if I seemed overly critical.  I just recently had a rather heated debate with someone who insists that manually saving your game or quick saving is "cheating" and that being able to save whenever you want "ruins the tension." 

Naturally, he was against adding in a manual save or quick save option for those who want it.  Want to know why?  He'd use it.  So because he lacks any sense of self-control, we should all be happy with save points and check points.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

DeadPoolMK wrote...

. . . . . . .  I just recently had a rather heated debate with someone who insists that manually saving your game or quick saving is "cheating" and that being able to save whenever you want "ruins the tension." 

. . . . . . .

LOL Wouldn't that make for a challenge, only autosaves and one quicksave when you need to stop playing? I may have to try that some time, I would have to change some of my tactics and inventory . . . . hmmmm . . . . .

[ta9798]

I really liked DAO but I also thought that DA2 had some good points, yet DAO is a game I've completely finished more than 8 times where I've only completely finished DA2 twice and i stopped in the middle of the third.

There were several parts I liked about DA2
- I liked a lot of the outside wilderness areas such as the wounded coast.
- I liked that mages could use their main weapons for melee fights.
- I liked the party banter a lot.
- I liked the framed narrative idea but it didn't turn out as well as I hoped.
- I liked that in MotA there was a stealth based aspect as a major part of the game.
- I liked a lot of the talents for the Rogue tree.

There were however, several things I didn't like about DA2
- I hated not being able to talk to my companions whenever they were on a mission with me. It felt completely unrealistic to not be able to talk to them right after fighting a hard enemy or finding a completely new location. I felt that I didn't really get to know my companions as I did in DAO.
- I really disliked not being able to change the armors of my companions. I liked some of the iconic looks but I think it should have been handled like with Morrigan in DAO.
- I really disliked having to play a predefined character like Hawke. I wanted the choice to play as an elf or a human.
- I really did not like having to have a character that was strictly a melee rogue or a ranged rogue. In DAO there was a weapon set feature so we could easily change weapons and thus your rogue could use a bow for long distance but when the enemy closed in they could switch to melee
- I did not like the recycled levels. A shame because the levels were generally pretty good in my opinion but they became dull because of the overuse.
- I really did not like that Kirkwall barely changed in the whole 10 years or so.
- I did not like that if you played as a mage you could cast obvious spells right in front of a templar and not worry. In DA2 I didn't feel like being a mage in kirkwall was at all dangerous.
- I disliked that I was forced down a pro-templar path and a pro-mage path before deciding on which on to continue. I felt I should have been able to choose to be pro mage or pro templar from the start. – I did not like having to do meredith's arrest the 3 mages quest if I was a mage.
- I did not like that there was a set group of events that always happened regardless of your choices. I know that DAO had that to some degree but not nearly to the degree that DA2 did. Have choices that really matter, in DA2 I was largely able to experience the whole story once instead of needing to play it several times like in DAO and i preferred DAO because of the replay value.
- I did not like that Anders was able to pull off his chantry attack regardless if i helped or not. At least he should have suffered or had greater visible difficulty if I didn't help him.
- I did not like not having an arcane warrior specialization.
- I also did not like how the conversation system was implemented. I think the player should not be told what would be the romantic or mean response and be able to try and figure it out by looking at the conversation options. I really enjoyed trying to discern what would make Morrigan like me more.
- Lastly, I really did not like the wave combat feature. The faster combat was ok but I liked having the tactical feel of DAO more.

Let me end with this. If I were to just want one thing. It would be:

A modding toolset. – I don't care if it is complex, I can learn how to use it. Mods are what have kept me playing most games more than once such as for DAO, fallout3+, and skyrim.

No modding support, by way of a toolset was in my mind the biggest let down as i felt that Bioware would have continued this great and defining feature.
I would rather play a DA that took several years to develop than one that took under 2. Three or four years, I would gladly wait if it meant a toolset, multiple playable races, and more conversations.

Modifié par ta9798, 30 mars 2012 - 10:57 .

[QueenPurpleScrap]

A couple more thoughts: I like my warriors to be able to use a bow or crossbow. I could see that they might have a more limited ability tree in archery than rogue, but in DAO I frequently had my warriors use a crossbow, at least initially. It's another example of more flexible tactics.

Not enough autosaves in DA2, or at least it felt like it.

Not enough tactical slots. I have mentioned elsewhere I like the 3 custom tactic paths I can create in Origins as well as the ability to toggle.

I just noticed something, maybe it was something I hadn't tried earlier, but NO SPOILERS, here is the general thing. I had a romance. I had to fight my partner after disagreement. LI's body just vaporized, and there was no moment to mourn and nobody commented. It was as if my LI never existed. That doesn't make any sense. In DAO, if you are a Dalish elf and Tamlen shows up, there is a moment (and even that felt incomplete, since my lover never said anything about it, but I digress again). If you are in a situation where you kill somebody you know, sibling or good friend or lover, there should be an acknowledgement of sorts. Going on your merryish way without skipping a beat makes no sense at all.

P.S. Anders is supposed to be this great healer. So why is my spirit healing so much more powerful? I can revive people and they have no injuries. He cannot.

Modifié par QueenPurpleScrap, 05 avril 2012 - 01:30 .

[QueenPurpleScrap]

This may be a small thing, but I do find it annoying. In DA2 I miss being able to hover over a character stat - dexterity for instance - and seeing the base plus how much it is enhanced by items. When I am leveling up my character, I want it based on their stats without ring or armor enhancements.

Also, I prefer not to save my stats until I have chosen my ability. This way if I decide I want more strength I can revamp my attributes accordingly and then save.

And when crafting, I want to see how many of that item I have. In DAO, the more important ones are on my quickbar and I can roughly track them.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

I loved my wardens, most of them. I have a lot. I even liked some of my Hawke's. I don't need to play them again. I feel as if their stories are more or less done, though I would like to know where the Warden disappeared to. I will assume it has something to do with the Warden's activities in DA2, confirmation or clarification in a DA3 codex entry is good enough for me.
As far as Hawke goes, well I never really saw Hawke as being comfortable in the Viscount's role. So no matter which ending you chose, I find it really believable that after a time she/he would decide to disappear from Kirkwall to pursue a more comfortable lifestyle.
That said, I want to play somebody different. I want different backgrounds and race opportunities of course, but maybe somebody not quite so epic as the Warden or the Champion? Somebody who may choose a side because of their beliefs (or maybe because neutral threatens personal survival) and whose activites have a significant impact but who can actually live a reasonably normal life when the dust settles. They may still have adventures (with love interest or others?) but they don't mysteriously disappear. Maybe even give them a slightly irritating habit, different backgrounds different habits, that a companion could comment upon.

[Androme]

- Stick to what you told us you would do with armor and character appearance.

Looks perfect.

- Bring back skills such as coercion, poison-making, herblorism, etc.

Because it's boring to just walk up to a piece of paper on a table in your party camp/house (whatever it's gonna be in the future) and order 40x Elfroot Potions. And Coercion just made the game so much more fun.

- plz Morrigan

plz

[cccalihan]

Definitely most of us would like to play as Kossiths in the third game.

[Leiermann]

Silent protagonist must be in DA3 for a good role.
No more dialogue wheel, it's "cheap", horrible and bad taste.
Not multiplayer..
Not more experiments, or DAO way or DA2 way. Both will not work...
.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

I don't know if this is a bit late for Bioware devs to consider, but I was thinking about specialty abilities. I remember them saying (I think) that if they wanted to do more reactions and consequences to a specific skill set (blood mage, for instance) then it would be very difficult to have a second ability.

I beg to differ. It would be more complicated, and I think the point is well taken taken blood mage and spirit healer really are conflicting abilities (though I have combined those before in DAO, hehe). But I see nothing conflicting in being a blood mage and keeper or spirit healer and keeper. You simply let the first ability dictate what abilities are availabe in the future. There is no reason all abilities have to be so extreme as to cut off other paths. This would give a player the option of playing a mage who is blood, healer, or a more neutral role.
Same with warrior. Templar might be incompatible with berserker or spirit warrior but none of those need be incompatible with champion.
Rogue is a little more difficult, but one could argue that assassin with its stealth would not be consistent with the bard specialty and its noise.
I know my examples are all DAO. I'm currently playing DAO on both PS3 and the PC. I play more DAO than DA2 and remember it better. If I play DA2 it's either because of a mod I want to try (in which case I might not finish) or because I want to see the results of my DAO playthrough in DA2. I still find DAO compelling, something I haven't felt for DA2.

[Amycus89]

QueenPurpleScrap wrote...

I don't know if this is a bit late for Bioware devs to consider, but I was thinking about specialty abilities. I remember them saying (I think) that if they wanted to do more reactions and consequences to a specific skill set (blood mage, for instance) then it would be very difficult to have a second ability.

I beg to differ. It would be more complicated, and I think the point is well taken taken blood mage and spirit healer really are conflicting abilities (though I have combined those before in DAO, hehe). But I see nothing conflicting in being a blood mage and keeper or spirit healer and keeper. You simply let the first ability dictate what abilities are availabe in the future. There is no reason all abilities have to be so extreme as to cut off other paths. This would give a player the option of playing a mage who is blood, healer, or a more neutral role.
Same with warrior. Templar might be incompatible with berserker or spirit warrior but none of those need be incompatible with champion.
Rogue is a little more difficult, but one could argue that assassin with its stealth would not be consistent with the bard specialty and its noise.
I know my examples are all DAO. I'm currently playing DAO on both PS3 and the PC. I play more DAO than DA2 and remember it better. If I play DA2 it's either because of a mod I want to try (in which case I might not finish) or because I want to see the results of my DAO playthrough in DA2. I still find DAO compelling, something I haven't felt for DA2.

I've been thinking something similar, in that I would like being able to "mix and match"specializations in the same way as DA:O. Especially if you take it one step further and make it so that bloodmage/keeper, keeper/bloodmage, pure bloodmage are three completely different abilities, where you can mix and match the upper and lower half of a skill tree (upper part being primary talents, lower half secondary talents). It would lead to a lot of different possible builds without too much effort.


However, it might make it a lot harder when it comes to making NPCs react towards you properly. Bioware has stated that they want the specializations to matter a lot more storywise as well (which I gladly support), which might make something described as above harder to do. And if I have to choose, I rather have the surroundings react to me, instead of all the templars ignoring me when I throw some blood magic around them.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

Amycus89 wrote...

QueenPurpleScrap wrote...

I don't know if this is a bit late for Bioware devs to consider, but I was thinking about specialty abilities. I remember them saying (I think) that if they wanted to do more reactions and consequences to a specific skill set (blood mage, for instance) then it would be very difficult to have a second ability.

I beg to differ. It would be more complicated, and I think the point is well taken taken blood mage and spirit healer really are conflicting abilities (though I have combined those before in DAO, hehe). But I see nothing conflicting in being a blood mage and keeper or spirit healer and keeper. You simply let the first ability dictate what abilities are availabe in the future. There is no reason all abilities have to be so extreme as to cut off other paths. This would give a player the option of playing a mage who is blood, healer, or a more neutral role.
Same with warrior. Templar might be incompatible with berserker or spirit warrior but none of those need be incompatible with champion.
Rogue is a little more difficult, but one could argue that assassin with its stealth would not be consistent with the bard specialty and its noise.
I know my examples are all DAO. I'm currently playing DAO on both PS3 and the PC. I play more DAO than DA2 and remember it better. If I play DA2 it's either because of a mod I want to try (in which case I might not finish) or because I want to see the results of my DAO playthrough in DA2. I still find DAO compelling, something I haven't felt for DA2.

I've been thinking something similar, in that I would like being able to "mix and match"specializations in the same way as DA:O. Especially if you take it one step further and make it so that bloodmage/keeper, keeper/bloodmage, pure bloodmage are three completely different abilities, where you can mix and match the upper and lower half of a skill tree (upper part being primary talents, lower half secondary talents). It would lead to a lot of different possible builds without too much effort.


However, it might make it a lot harder when it comes to making NPCs react towards you properly. Bioware has stated that they want the specializations to matter a lot more storywise as well (which I gladly support), which might make something described as above harder to do. And if I have to choose, I rather have the surroundings react to me, instead of all the templars ignoring me when I throw some blood magic around them.

I understand your point. And I agree that strong reactions to who you are and what you do should matter (one reason I like Origins is that it matters what you are - and I feel this could have gone even further). But not all paths have to have strong reactions. I was thinking that if you choose something like bloodmage you wouldn't later be able to add spirit healer. Choosing bloodmage would block you from selecting certain paths as secondary, and therefore you could still have those reactions to using blood magic. And as a player you would be able to individualize your bloodmage even further. I think it would enhance the replayability factor as well. Besides, anytime you're using 'unsanctioned' magic, I think the templars should react. For instance, why was there virtually no reaction to Mage Hawke, with or without blood magic?

Are they saying all paths should have strong and specific reactions? Or just select ones? I don't know. If the reactions are keyed to using a type of spell, then I think it would be easier. But that's my two cents for the moment.

[Fallstar]

QueenPurpleScrap wrote...

I don't know if this is a bit late for Bioware devs to consider, but I was thinking about specialty abilities. I remember them saying (I think) that if they wanted to do more reactions and consequences to a specific skill set (blood mage, for instance) then it would be very difficult to have a second ability.

I beg to differ. It would be more complicated, and I think the point is well taken taken blood mage and spirit healer really are conflicting abilities (though I have combined those before in DAO, hehe). But I see nothing conflicting in being a blood mage and keeper or spirit healer and keeper. You simply let the first ability dictate what abilities are availabe in the future. There is no reason all abilities have to be so extreme as to cut off other paths. This would give a player the option of playing a mage who is blood, healer, or a more neutral role.
Same with warrior. Templar might be incompatible with berserker or spirit warrior but none of those need be incompatible with champion.
Rogue is a little more difficult, but one could argue that assassin with its stealth would not be consistent with the bard specialty and its noise.
I know my examples are all DAO. I'm currently playing DAO on both PS3 and the PC. I play more DAO than DA2 and remember it better. If I play DA2 it's either because of a mod I want to try (in which case I might not finish) or because I want to see the results of my DAO playthrough in DA2. I still find DAO compelling, something I haven't felt for DA2.

More options are always nice, but if it comes down to a choice between one specialization which the world reacts to, and two which might get one or two lines of dialogue, I'd go with the first. In DAO you are a Warden, and it's a blight, the important people aren't really going to worry about a comparatively little thing like being a blood mage or reaver. So why not give you more options to customize your character. In DA2 however, those choices really did need to have consequences (due to the heavy involvement of magic/blood magic in the storyline, and the story being far more personal in scope), but they didn't. I'd like to see that rectified in future titles.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 24 juillet 2012 - 07:59 .

[Amycus89]

Well, it WOULD actually be an improvement if they only reacted if you actually used a spell or ability like blood magic. In origins when they commented on my use of blood magic, I sometimes found it a bit odd those times when I did indeed have the talents, but didn't use it throughout the whole circle quest (what, do I have a large sign screaming BLOOD MAGE above my head?).

I agree with Duskwarden though:
" if it comes down to a choice between one specialization which the world reacts to, and two which might get one or two lines of dialogue, I'd go with the first"

If they do only give us one specialization to choose from though, I hope that the talent tree will be much larger than in DA2. I'm not saying DA2 did badly in THIS regard, but if we only get one specialization to choose from in DA3...

[QueenPurpleScrap]

I am not disagreeing about having some real reations to what you do or who you choose to be. I like that, they could have gone further with it in DAO in my opinion. For instance, what if I chose to be a Blood Mage while Alistair was my LI? That could have been a great little scene.

But anyway, I am all for better and different reactions based on my character build, whether as human, elf, dwarf or something else, as blood mage, spirit healer, templar, etc. I just don't believe it has to be incredibly complicated to allow for a second specialty. Unless they plan on having significant reactions, discussions and dialog for every single specialty (which does not mean a random comment or two over the course of the game).

I am willing to admit I could be wrong, since I don't have much experience in this area. One of the reasons I started this forum was for people to continue to be able to state their preferences for the future as well as any thoughts/criticism of the previous games and DLC in a thoughtful manner. I'm glad to see that so many are interested and have responded. I hope the devs are reading because I think a lot of good ideas and concerns have been expressed.