942 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr Fixit]

hhh89 wrote...

A city could change a lot in 7 years, and Bioware said during development that Kirkwall will change during years.
Plus, the problem with recycled areas isn't about the same area (example, Lowtown)  that remains the same during the years . It's that different areas in the game, in different part of Kirkwall or outside Kirkwall, are practically the same.

Also, those few areas we had (Hightown, Lowtown, Darktown, Docks) were just tiny. Look at the Darktown or the Docks, for example. They are not that much larger than the mansion map used for that brothel or for Bartrand's estate.

The problem for me isn't the lack of spatial exploration, it's the claustrophobic sameness and invariance of the whole damn game, coupled with the lack of ambient NPCs. The entirety of Hightown, for instance, had only two non-quest-related NPCs you could talk to: Elthina and Bodahn. Other maps are even worse in that regard. I don't think there's a single talkable NPC in the Docks, Darktown and Lowtown (besides Hawke's uncle). People make up the city. No people, no city to speak of, simple as that.

[K_Tabris]

hhh89 wrote...

A city could change a lot in 7 years, and Bioware said during development that Kirkwall will change during years.
Plus, the problem with recycled areas isn't about the same area (example, Lowtown)  that remains the same during the years . It's that different areas in the game, in different part of Kirkwall or outside Kirkwall, are practically the same.

At the same time, some cities remain the same for years at a time. I'm not trying to be difficult, but this is really a minor issue compared with most 

[The Elder King]

NovinhaShepard wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

A city could change a lot in 7 years, and Bioware said during development that Kirkwall will change during years.
Plus, the problem with recycled areas isn't about the same area (example, Lowtown)  that remains the same during the years . It's that different areas in the game, in different part of Kirkwall or outside Kirkwall, are practically the same.

At the same time, some cities remain the same for years at a time. I'm not trying to be difficult, but this is really a minor issue compared with most 

Indeed, but I don't have problems with Kirkwall being the same for 7 years (my problem with the city is that it was small and lifeless). My problem is about using the same area over and over, for different areas that should've been different.

Modifié par hhh89, 28 mars 2012 - 02:41 .

[Realmzmaster]

A city can change and nobody will notice it because the change is not significant enough register on their perception of the city. People walk by places everyday and will not notice stores that are no longer there.

The problem with the recycled areas is that Bioware did not hide it well enough. This problem was evident when you see the same items in the same place on different quests over the seven year span.

[LobselVith8]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The more I deal with DA2's dialogue system, the more I realise that the paraphrases are a much bigger problem than the voice.  The voice still sucks, yes, but the voice is manageable.  But not being able to see what it is I'm choosing is not a surmountable barrier.  for these games to be playable for me, they need to do a vastly better job of letting me know what my character is actually going to say.  The literal content.  The denotative meaning.  That's what the player needs in order to choose the corect option.

Yes, the presence of the voice does dramatically reduce the range of things the PC can say, but the paraphrase prevents the player from choosing within even that range by hiding the options.  How anyone can think RPG dialogue seelction that resembles Let's Make A Deal is a good thing I have no idea.

The standard extablished by BioWare's unvoiced games was certainty.  The player knew with certainty what his character was going to say.  That should be the goal of any "improvement" of the system.

I agree with you, Sylvius. The disconnect between what I intend for my character to say, and what he actually says, is what left me feeling disconnected from Hawke, especially when he said lines that had no resemblance to the dialogue option that I chose for him to say.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Just because there's only one option available doesn't mean you have to choose it.

Actually, sometimes the game chooses for you, if you don't make a choice. I remember that this was specifically explained about dialog in DA:O.

I don't recall such a thing happening. I'm not even sure how it could have, given the dialogue system.

If you exit a conversation without selecting an option, the game chooses an option for you and continues based on that assumption.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Are you claiming a priori knowledge now?  What if there are contradictions?  If your Hawke's new behavior is internally contrtadictory, don't you care?  How can you make decisions for him if his own opinions are incompatible with each other?

I have full control over all the events in my character's history, at any given time, past or present. If I choose to overwrite something, so as to the make the character compatible with what has happened on screen, I can do that. The character can instantaneously become someone else, if I so choose.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 28 mars 2012 - 04:09 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Are you claiming a priori knowledge now?  What if there are contradictions?  If your Hawke's new behavior is internally contrtadictory, don't you care?  How can you make decisions for him if his own opinions are incompatible with each other?

What part of "strict-adherence-to-your-definition-of-roleplaying-isn't-all-one's-looking-for-in-an-RPG" you don't get?

It's the only way I know how to roleplay.  I want to know how other people do it.

So I'm asking you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Adanu wrote...

Personally, I hope Sylvius finds what he is looking for... it's probably not the DA series unless he can look past the flaws.

Probably best to stick to Tabletop DnD for him.

Tabletop requires other players.  The whole point of playing CRPGs is to avoid the need for other players.

I find the suggestion that people who don't like these newer games should return to tabeltop games infuriating, because tabletop games have always been different from CRPGs in this one very important way.  Tabletop games are multiplayer games.

It's the move toward multiplayer in CRPGs that is a move toward tabletop, and it's a move I oppose.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't recall such a thing happening. I'm not even sure how it could have, given the dialogue system.

If you exit a conversation without selecting an option, the game chooses an option for you and continues based on that assumption.

How?

First of all, can you exist a converstation without selecting a relevant option?  And second, if the Warden doesn't actually speak any of the lines why would the player think he has.  That the game reacts identically to how it would had a specific option been chosen is irrelevant.  The Warden's opinions and objectives are set by the player only.  What the game thinks he's doing never matters.

Are you claiming a priori knowledge now?  What if there are contradictions?  If your Hawke's new behavior is internally contrtadictory, don't you care?  How can you make decisions for him if his own opinions are incompatible with each other?

I have full control over all the events in my character's history, at any given time, past or present. If I choose to overwrite something, so as to the make the character compatible with what has happened on screen, I can do that. The character can instantaneously become someone else, if I so choose.

Thank you.  Thank you for trying to answer my question.

If that instantaneous change significantly changes his past i-game behaviour, do you just ignore the possible differences in the game's reaction.  For example, if this change you make retroactively to your character changes how he would have handled a major quest, do you simply ignore the incongruity of having saved Redcliffe when the character you are now playing would not have done so?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How?

You can press esc to exit a conversation. So, you could exit the conversation that ends with you choosing to fight the blight. (otherwise, every single dialog choice you can make has you deciding to fight the blight) But if you do that, the game has you choose to fight the blight anyway, and just lets you skip over the conversation.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If that instantaneous change significantly changes his past i-game behaviour, do you just ignore the possible differences in the game's reaction.  For example, if this change you make retroactively to your character changes how he would have handled a major quest, do you simply ignore the incongruity of having saved Redcliffe when the character you are now playing would not have done so?

The change is always such that previous choices and the current choice are compatible. If that is impossible, then we have an instance of badly structured dialog trees that break roleplaying. If this happens, usualy I'll reload and choose something else.

[Davillo]

Whatever Bioware does they better not take inspiration from ****ty Kingdoms of Amalaur: Reckoning and other trash like Dungeon Siege 3 , if DA:3 game play feel shabby like those games than it's game over.

[AkiKishi]

Davillo wrote...

Whatever Bioware does they better not take inspiration from ****ty Kingdoms of Amalaur: Reckoning and other trash like Dungeon Siege 3 , if DA:3 game play feel shabby like those games than it's game over.

KOA's gameplay was a lot better than DA2.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It's the only way I know how to roleplay.  I want to know how other people do it.

So I'm asking you.

I think the one answered that question for me. Since I am in absolute control of my character, I can always rewrite his motivations whenever I feel like it.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 28 mars 2012 - 07:17 .

[Kate the Owlhearted]

Here is what I want from Dragon Age. I want a game that's awesome and well thought out. What I don't want is a game churned out merely for the sake of churning it out. I just spent spring break playing DA:O and DA:II. So now I am pretty invested in the story. I played Baldur's Gate and I don't miss it. Trying to live up to this being BG is part of the reason DA:II didn't do well. The story was rushed as were the backgrounds. What I don't want is another rushed game. I think I speak for many fans when I say we would rather see an expansion to satisfy us because I would rather they take their time creating DA:III and go the Bethesda route of waiting 5 years to put out a high quality game than put out another rushed game like DA:II. Give us a couple of DLCs and expansions and do what it takes to release a high quality DA:III.

[omnitremere]

Wow I'm really disappointed to hear there won't be additional DA2 content. While I was unimpressed with the game I LOVED the DLC and was really looking forward to more content. But if it makes DA3 even better than I guess I'm for it. Would've been nice to see help Sebastian reclaim Starkhaven though.

[Maria Caliban]

JediHealerCosmin wrote...

Also, to add to the topic: most of the time we have no fricking idea what the hell we want.

I know exactly what I want.

[eyesofastorm]

Maria Caliban wrote...

JediHealerCosmin wrote...

Also, to add to the topic: most of the time we have no fricking idea what the hell we want.

I know exactly what I want.

Hi.

[Maria Caliban]

Adanu wrote...

He's just being an overanalytical troll who can't understand how to play within constraints. Ignore himm he's beenl ike this for years.

He's not a troll. Why do you persist in calling him one?

eyesofastorm wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I know exactly what I want.

Hi.

Good afternoon.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 28 mars 2012 - 08:16 .

[Adanu]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Adanu wrote...

He's just being an overanalytical troll who can't understand how to play within constraints. Ignore himm he's beenl ike this for years.

He's not a troll. Why do you persist in calling him one?

EVery single point made to him he twists in some way to suit his view and doesn't acknowledge progress or time passing.

He's looking for a game that does not exist outside of old Forgotten realms editions. He and people like him will never like DA, and everyone here 'debating' with him doesn't get that.

Modifié par Adanu, 28 mars 2012 - 08:15 .

[John Epler]

Sylvius can be frustrating to have discussions with, but he's not a troll. Let's avoid throwing that word around where it doesn't apply.

[eyesofastorm]

Maria Caliban wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I know exactly what I want.

Hi.

Good afternoon.

How you doin'?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You can press esc to exit a conversation. So, you could exit the conversation that ends with you choosing to fight the blight. (otherwise, every single dialog choice you can make has you deciding to fight the blight) But if you do that, the game has you choose to fight the blight anyway, and just lets you skip over the conversation.

But you don't actually choose that.  What reason do we have to believe that the the Warden actually made a selection?

The game behaves as if he did.  But did he?

The change is always such that previous choices and the current choice are compatible. If that is impossible, then we have an instance of badly structured dialog trees that break roleplaying. If this happens, usualy I'll reload and choose something else.

On of my complaints with DA2 was that it did this repeatedly throughout the game.

DAO did it far less frequently.  The obvious example is the Joining.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Davillo wrote...

Whatever Bioware does they better not take inspiration from ****ty Kingdoms of Amalaur: Reckoning and other trash like Dungeon Siege 3 , if DA:3 game play feel shabby like those games than it's game over.

I would agree that they should not, under any circumstances, pursue click-to-attack action combat.

Reckoning, Diablo, The Witcher - they all have fundamentally the same combat design, and it's terrible.

[Pzykozis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Davillo wrote...

Whatever Bioware does they better not take inspiration from ****ty Kingdoms of Amalaur: Reckoning and other trash like Dungeon Siege 3 , if DA:3 game play feel shabby like those games than it's game over.

I would agree that they should not, under any circumstances, pursue click-to-attack action combat.

Reckoning, Diablo, The Witcher - they all have fundamentally the same combat design, and it's terrible.

Personally for me Witcher and 2 (and they are different from Diablo not much different in core from Amalur though, but better) is better than DA Combat wise but opinions be opinions. I'd love to see a Witcher-esque game in the DA world. But that's kind of dream game territory.

And thus there was no concensus.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 28 mars 2012 - 08:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Adanu wrote...

EVery single point made to him he twists in some way to suit his view and doesn't acknowledge progress or time passing.

Progress is subjective.  The passage of time, on its own, is irrelevant.

I'm not twisting people's comments.  I'm just not accepting their assumptions about game design or the conventions of the genre.  But I also want to make sure that they are aware of what their assumptions are, so I ask questions in an attempt to get them to acknowledge those assumptions so we can talk about them.

I've learned that if I simply point out people's assumptions they'll get defensive and deny they're making assumptions at all, so instead I approach the problem indirectly.

John Epler wrote...

Sylvius can be frustrating to have discussions with, but he's not a troll. Let's avoid throwing that word around where it doesn't apply.

I imagine the cinematics guy finds me more frustrating than most.  Possibly because I don't understand the decision that first put cinematics in a roleplaying game at all.  If I don't understand that, I can't accept their presence as necessary.

You're working from an understanding of game design that rests upon established conventions within the industry, and I'm asking people to question those conventions going back 15 years or more.  I see many of the currently established conventions as mistakes.

Moreover, I do not accept that differences of opinion are immutable.  Each of our opinions is based upon something.  If I can change that thing upon which the opinion is based, I can change the opinion.  Going after the opinion itself isn't going to get me anywhere.