402 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Tirigon wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


The guy is special forces. You would need the IQ of a houeplant to not know shooting a fuel tank would not result in boom.

Someone standing next to a window + renegade interupt... not really rocket science.

Some guy coughing his guts up + paragon

Actually, shooting a fuel tank is rather unlikely to cause an explosion, outside of Michael Bay movies anyhow.

Someone watches Mythbusters?

[Mr Fixit]

Izsera wrote...

And in that scenario basically the entire premise of a roleplaying computer game is thrown out of the window, in the first ever dialogue I can just say "What the hell?! I had assumed my character didn't know how to speak or walk and crawled around naked everywhere! This is completely out of character for what I had assumed was the situation. I refuse this experience!"

That is an interesting point to make. Original Fallout made it possible to create a character with low intelligence that could only speak in grunts, more or less. The entire dialogue tree changed based on his intelligence.

So it surprises me that to some BG is an unparalleded roleplaying experience, when it was severely limiting compared to, for instance, Fallout. Not to me, mind you, I adore both games, but it's interesting to note how arbitrary some of those points are.

[Tirigon]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Someone watches Mythbusters?

Rarely.

It is common knowledge. Well, like in fact everything the Mythbusters put to test:innocent:

[bEVEsthda]

Korusus wrote...

"We decided to remove companions since our internal statistics showed that 75% of known DA2 players only use companions 33.124% of the time, now we have more time to develop Day 1 DLC"

That has an uncanny ring of recent EABiowarespeak about it. Oh, the pitfalls of 'metrics'. I would have wished I could trust them to interpret it in a constructive way.
 

[AkiKishi]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Izsera wrote...

And in that scenario basically the entire premise of a roleplaying computer game is thrown out of the window, in the first ever dialogue I can just say "What the hell?! I had assumed my character didn't know how to speak or walk and crawled around naked everywhere! This is completely out of character for what I had assumed was the situation. I refuse this experience!"

That is an interesting point to make. Original Fallout made it possible to create a character with low intelligence that could only speak in grunts, more or less. The entire dialogue tree changed based on his intelligence.

So it surprises me that to some BG is an unparalleded roleplaying experience, when it was severely limiting compared to, for instance, Fallout. Not to me, mind you, I adore both games, but it's interesting to note how arbitrary some of those points are.

Fallout 3 starts you off as a baby.

[Mr Fixit]

BobSmith101 wrote...


Fallout 3 starts you off as a baby.

I played F3, but I don't quite remember. Is the grunt-speech still there?

[bEVEsthda]

"Worst thing"?

That would be to make it the "spiritual successor" to DA2.

(In fact, anything that rings like sequel to DA2 rather than DA:O would be bad.)

[AkiKishi]

Mr Fixit wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


Fallout 3 starts you off as a baby.

I played F3, but I don't quite remember. Is the grunt-speech still there?

Not sure I've never made a lopsided characters like that.



New Vegas apparently does (See above)

[Mr Fixit]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Not sure I've never made a lopsided characters like that.



New Vegas apparently does (See above)

Nice to see. Though it's a pity NPC responses don't change. Now here's a good example that voice-acting really can detract from a game.

[rolson00]

eyesofastorm wrote...

They already took the franchise in a direction where I wouldn't follow. They can't do worse... only better. And I wish that thought was as encouraging as it should be.

 i am reminded of the scene where padme tell anikan that hes going down a path she cant follow.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Multiplayer
Make it Origin mandatory.

Modifié par Shinian2, 31 mars 2012 - 12:54 .

[grimkillah]

Shinian2 wrote...

Multiplayer
Make it Origin mandatory.

Hate to break it to you but Multiplayer is 100% in DA3, so for PC it will be Origin mandatory.

[nightscrawl]

grimkillah wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...

Multiplayer
Make it Origin mandatory.

Hate to break it to you but Multiplayer is 100% in DA3, so for PC it will be Origin mandatory.

Source? If you have no source, at least use something like "most likely."

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

grimkillah wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...

Multiplayer
Make it Origin mandatory.

Hate to break it to you but Multiplayer is 100% in DA3, so for PC it will be Origin mandatory.

That settles that then.

Didn't buy ME3, wont buy DA3 either.

[grimkillah]

nightscrawl wrote...

grimkillah wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...

Multiplayer
Make it Origin mandatory.

Hate to break it to you but Multiplayer is 100% in DA3, so for PC it will be Origin mandatory.

Source? If you have no source, at least use something like "most likely."

kotaku.com/5863668/surprise-dragon-age-getting-multiplayer

[lx_theo]

grimkillah wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

grimkillah wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...

Multiplayer
Make it Origin mandatory.

Hate to break it to you but Multiplayer is 100% in DA3, so for PC it will be Origin mandatory.

Source? If you have no source, at least use something like "most likely."

kotaku.com/5863668/surprise-dragon-age-getting-multiplayer

Those are rumors... Apparent "Leaks". Which are not reliable.

Not nearly 100% confirmation. Not even close to most likely. Not to mentoion, at the stage of development DA3 would have been at that point, even if they were considering it, it could have easily have been scrapped by now or by launch. Like many other features they will inevitably have to do.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I don't have an issue with them adding multiplayer per se.. just if it's forced on you like ME3 apparently was. I'd want it to be totally separate from the single player game.

It looks like ME3 was designed to promote multiplayer in the single player game. You don't HAVE to play it but if you want the 'best' ending you need to have played multiplayer.

[LolaLei]

Lol shhh guys you'll give Bioware ideas!

[ianvillan]

CrustyBot wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Rushing the game and removing any kind of tangible connection with classical RPGs in the name of "innovation".

CrustyBot wrote...

Johnny Jaded wrote...

Have David Silverman make it.

Now that's a scary thought.

Scratch that, I'd wanna see a game made by him.

You're so cruel: I won't sleep tonight. I will be haunted by buttons and awesomes.

Btw, is it not what's happening allready ? Just joking but I would like to know what kind of relation exist between the marketing guys and the creative guys in reality during the creation of a game like DA3. Who decides what? What kind of feedback and controll does marketing have on the project?

I mean, I remember that one of the reason for the removal of the Origins feature was linked to marketing (it's easier to sell a game with a clear protagonist).

Now your dreams can haunt you while you're awake too. You can thank me later.



As for the removal of Origin Stories, considering Dragon Age 2's story and considering it's short development time, it's not surprising they were removed.

I think marketing probably has some influence over the game's development, but I can't imagine them "forcing" anything over the creative team that the creative don't either: already support or are ambivalent about. For example, the lego chunking of enemies in combat definitely seemed to me a marketing driven design decision. Origin Stories just seemed to be a natural cut considering the development time frame they were given.

Of course, none of us are privy to the development process, so all I'm doing is giving LOTS OF SPECULATION.

In either case, I wish we had Origins back. From my perspective, it was easily the most innovative or unique aspect of the franchise and I wished that the concept was expanded to become more relevant in the story, not removed altogether.

I personally do think that marketing has a major impact in the design of the game, If you look at some of the things they changed in DA2 you can see marketings influence on it.

The change to companion armours was so they could have iconic characters for adverts and for fans to dress as at conventions, I dont see one gameplay reason to change the companion customisation other than marketing saying to do it.

The whole art style was changed to make the world more reconisable in magazines or in trailers, was changing the way the Elves looked a developer decision or marketing so it could be Hot Rod Samurai.

You had David Silverman in interviews saying hoe the mages circle was too detailed with lots of books in it, or how the Brecilian forest was too different style too a cave etc, so in DA2 we have bland looking areas and not much detail in the different parts you go too.

Why the change to the Mass Effect style dialogue wheel, was it for a better game or so Mass Effect fans and media outlets could reconise it.

You also have the sped up combat with over the top animations and buckets of blood with each hit. This seems more a marketing decision then a developer one, Iam not sayind Origins was perfect but with some tweaking it could of been made better. All we heard in interviews was about the shuffle to get into position so the change to that was good but why the other changes to the combat, The old style of combat was more believable in the Dragon Age universe.

Even the start of the game being exagerated was in my opinion pointless and just there to so they could release it in the demo to encourage the more casual players to the game. 

[Adanu]

Tesclo wrote...

More of the same tbh. The more Bioware dumbs down their games the more people are going to be pissed off and hate them for it. Stop treating us like we're 3 year olds. People don't want endless button mashing with the occasional cutscene. That's not why people play Bioware games. If you want that go play Call of Duty. People play Bioware games for the rich story. Always have always will.

ISPeak for yourself, I play to have massive boss fights with big dragons

[yeldarbnotned]

Removing the character creator and going with a set protagonist.

[Dejajeva]

Dumb question from a drooling console player: Technically, shouldn't controlling your party during combat be breaking immersion from playing your character? Because you didn't create your companions and you don't play them or make decisions for them throughout the rest of the game. I mean it's an honest question. Do classic rpg's even have party based combat? I've never played a game besides DA that has party based combat, so I don't know.

[Carmen_Willow]

thats1evildude wrote...

Simplify romances into a) buy an amulet, give amulet to love interest and then c) get married.

Turn the series into a dance sim.

So This!!


And have your partner have what- three lines -- for the entire rest of the game!

[Carmen_Willow]

Dejajeva wrote...

Dumb question from a drooling console player: Technically, shouldn't controlling your party during combat be breaking immersion from playing your character? Because you didn't create your companions and you don't play them or make decisions for them throughout the rest of the game. I mean it's an honest question. Do classic rpg's even have party based combat? I've never played a game besides DA that has party based combat, so I don't know.

I play on console too, but I would really miss being able to set up the tactics for my companions.  That said, once I set the tactics, I let them run unless something really isn't working.  It is rare that I talke over for my companions.