122 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

thats1evildude wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Post blight ? Anything you want to do . Beats hanging out in a city practically under Templar martial law when you or your sister are a mage.

That's the thing: there is nothing to do back in Ferelden. Hawke has no armies to raise, no treaties to enforce and no darkspawn to fight. So is Hawke just going to hang out in Denerim for an entire game?

I mean, you go on about Kirkwall sucks, and I agree that it's a pretty terrible place to live. But Hawke is an adventurer. What "adventures" wait for Hawke back in Ferelden?

Whatever the writers write. Fereldon is a big place after all.Make money buy a big house, works whether you are in Kirkwall or anywhere else.

Hawkes motivations are survival iniatially. Then something about getting enough money to be overlooked by the authorites of Kirkwall, well you could just leave Kirkwall, that makes a lot more sense.
 Hawkes not an adventurer, he's some guy who ran from Ostagar (or stayed home if a mage) ran from the blight to another country.

[thats1evildude]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Whatever the writers write.

By that logic, then leaving Kirkwall is even more pointless. You acknowledge that the writers can come up with more adventures for Hawke but tiy somehow believe that leaving the city will allow him to dodge the tragedies in his life?

If the writers dictate that bad things will happen to Hawke, then they will happen. What if you got on a boat to Ferelden and it
sank along the way, causing your mother and sibling to drown?

Modifié par thats1evildude, 23 mai 2012 - 11:21 .

[robertthebard]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I have more than 3 possible ways to express a single conversation line as oppose to 3 voice tones which basically telling the same line in DA 2.

Since this statement is not always true, what's your point?  Sometimes I had a whole wheel of options, and Investigate, which had more.  You are talking in circles here, as no game has unlimited possibilities of what you can say in a conversation.

Well then, let's play Hercules or Power Rangers in DA universe since it's all about fantasy with no sense of believable. Do you know what is the problem with your statement? It is precisely why people cannot immerse into the story. No one could take anything serious if it's bull****. And to me DA 2 is bull**** because it purposely use unreliable narrator to make a ****. 

So you're mad you couldn't play your Warden, so you're fishing for stuff to complain about?  The problem is, your net is so wide, you're including every RPG that's ever been introduced.  I have yet to play any game, by any developer, that 100% of the time let me say what I wanted to say to an NPC/Companion.  If you've played a game that has, please list it in your response.

Who said anything about prologue being restrictive? I said Hawke does not has similar opportunity like the Warden with regards to his background. He is a set preset character who pretend to be player created character. The warden on the other hand is player created character. You define your own character's personality and part of your origins relative to your starting point in the game. Hawke however, is one of the 3 preset personalities whose background is left open for player to intrepret themselves without leaving much choice how this defined personalities could work on such a vague background. Should I repeat it again in case you still don't understand? I could copy and paste it everytime you miss my point.

The warden is a player created character from a limited list.  Play a human that's not a noble or a mage to prove me wrong.  Better yet, roll up an Apostate mage living in the Alienage.  Wait, that's right, you are restricted as a human to either being a noble, or a mage, and if you're a mage, you're restricted to the tower to start.  It's pretty easy to miss your point, as you don't seem to have one.  You are posting how you had unlimited freedom in Origins, yet you didn't, and a search of the early Origin forums will show people weren't happy about not being able to be a human that wasn't a noble or a mage, or a mage that wasn't in the tower.  To me, this is the same song and dance in another game.

First of all, Hawke has no obligation whatsoever to go to Kirkwall and risk his family - which he did loose all of them anyway, since he is a looser and an idiot. In NWN, every recruits volunteer to join the academy because  it's prestiges. No one forced anyone to join the academy. And that's include your character. As for the Warden, my Cousland made a promise to her father that she'll see Rendon Howe to go to hell even if she had to follow the Warden. My Mahariel was sick and it wasn't about Warden's duty. It was about her life and she had no one else to turn to. Hawke, on the other hand,  wouldn't die or the world won't be destroye if he's not going to the insane place like Kirkwall.

Actually, you do, try to not go, and see what happens.  You see, you talk about going to Kirkwall as risking his family, while the darkspawn are actively pursuing them out of Lothering.

And speaking of linearity, none of RPG I've played ever does this.
Coose option A the result is X
Choose option B the result is X
Choose option C the result is still X

So what's the point of having option A,B and C when all results are X? It really ****** me to no end when I found out nothing I choose make any differences.

Stretching here.  I have been noticing today that my dialogs are vastly different when I use one set of responses over another.  NPC's and companions react differently to them, and that reaction sticks throughout, so far as I've gotten.  I can't go into any detail since this is the non-spoiler forum though.

NWN didn't do that. Origins didn't do that. ME 2 didn't do that. NWN 2 didn't do that. Only DA2 did that  You know why? Because DA 2 story presentation is so dumb it's actually set everything in stone because hey, it's already happen and you're looking in the past. Nothing you do could prevent the war or forced Feyneriel not to be a dumb **** who keep going to X place and so many other things.. 

 

So play through the NWN's campaign w/out saving Neverwinter.  Play Origins w/out being a Grey Warden.  Go through NWN 2 w/out getting the shard, just hang out in the village and see how far you get through the game.  Every RPG forces you to play through the story.  That's the point of an RPG.

And who decide to tell such story? Whose fault it is if they're not cautious with how the story was told, rush the plot due to limited time and cliff hanger that never get to resolved since they never think ahead something could go wrong like The Exalted March? People had repeatedly asked for self contained story with closure but they never listen because they're too concern with continuity and their DLC - which never materialize anway.   

Do I really need to dignify this with an answer?  The only canon ending to this game rests with BioWare.  They are telling the story.  If I buy a book, and don't like it, I don't read it.  I don't go to the publisher's website, or the author's website and tell them they need to write the story the way I want it.  Go ask Atari what happened to me with their lack of Customer Support on NWN 2.  I figured out I was spitting into the wind trying to help the people that needed it, and uninstalled, and reformatted my harddrive to get their rootkit off my computer, and didn't look back, until early this year, when I got bored, and picked it back up, only to find that, lo and behold, people talking with their wallets worked, and they got rid of it.

[AkiKishi]

thats1evildude wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Whatever the writers write.

By that logic, then leaving Kirkwall is even more pointless. You acknowledge that the writers can come up with more adventures for Hawke but tiy somehow believe that leaving the city will allow him to dodge the tragedies in his life?

If the writers dictate that bad things will happen to Hawke, then they will happen. What if you got on a boat to Ferelden and it
sank along the way, causing your mother and sibling to drown?

It's less restrictive than being stuck in one place because there is no where else to go. This is what people mean by being railroaded.

Never liked the whole familiy dynamic anyway. Liked even less how it was milked for cheap dramatic effect. Given the choice I'd have thrown mother to the Ogre since Carver was at least somewhat useful.
Railroading only works when you are in sync. In White Knight Chronicles something happens and you set off to rescue someone. I wanted to do that anyway, because the alternative is a dull job delivering wine.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

[quote]robertthebard wrote...
Since this statement is not always true, what's your point?  Sometimes I had a whole wheel of options, and Investigate, which had more.  You are talking in circles here, as no game has unlimited possibilities of what you can say in a conversation.[/quote]
More what? The dialogue wheel is structured to accomodate 3 dominant personalities: subtle, humorous and aggresive. Your investigate option always sound subtle. No more and no less. You can't sound sarcastic because the NPC keep thinking you're being humorous, You can't sound bitter because the NPC will think you're angry. That's what DA 2 dialogue is all about. I can imagine a lot of possible way to express a single dialague in Origins to suit my character. I can imagine being nervous. I can imagine being distant. I can imagine being bitter. I can imagine being alone. I can imagine being  distress. I can be a jerk to Rendon Howe at the beginning of Cousland's Origins. Or I can be polite and respect  Rendon Howe for his nobility.  I can imagine a lot of things with just a single line provided by the developer.


[quote]robertthebard wrote...
[quote]Well then, let's play Hercules or Power Rangers in DA universe since it's all about fantasy with no sense of believable. Do you know what is the problem with your statement? It is precisely why people cannot immerse into the story. No one could take anything serious if it's bull****. And to me DA 2 is bull**** because it purposely use unreliable narrator to make a ****. [/quote]

So you're mad you couldn't play your Warden, so you're fishing for stuff to complain about?[/quote]  
 What? What couldn't play my Warden has anything to do with fantasy and believable story? Are you high?
I am ****** because I couldn't create my own character when I was promised by BioWare that, "You're a refugee from Loitering, You are this and that. How you become the champion is up to you bla bla." Every single line described at the back of the box mentioned that you are the character called Hawke. Yet I get a crap third person  preset character called Hawke who never exist in the game's present days. But that's not my point. 


[quote]robertthebard wrote...

The problem is, your net is so wide, you're including every RPG that's ever been introduced.  I have yet to play any game, by any developer, that 100% of the time let me say what I wanted to say to an NPC/Companion.  If you've played a game that has, please list it in your response.[/quote]
That's your opinion. I played the game where I get to create the rules, interaction, setting etc.. with toolset, campaign editor, terran editor, map generator, SDK  etc.. Even if I don't use mod to change the game, Origins, NWN 2 and NWN 1 are still good enough to let me say the dialogue the way I want it to be. You know why? Because of silent protagonist.  But again that's not my point.


Do you know MMORPG? In MMORPG, you interact with real person and not stupid AI. You don't have to pick a dialogue. You type your own dialogue. You can say 100% you want provided you abide the rules. Just play any MMORPG or social networking games like Facebook's games. Still, I don't understand why you bring this up. 

The point is fantasy doesn't mean comical story. Fantasy can be science fiction or middle age or general fiction. What make fantasy interesting is the ability of the writers to make their story believable and not comical. We have medium for comical fantasy. We call it comics. DA's video games has no room for comics fantasy. You won't see power rangers or voltron or mickey mouse in mature rated fantasy video games. 


[quote]robertthebard wrote...

The warden is a player created character from a limited list.  Play a human that's not a noble or a mage to prove me wrong.  Better yet, roll up an Apostate mage living in the Alienage.  Wait, that's right, you are restricted as a human to either being a noble, or a mage, and if you're a mage, you're restricted to the tower to start.  It's pretty easy to miss your point, as you don't seem to have one. 
  
You are posting how you had unlimited freedom in Origins,[/quote] 
That because I CREATE my warden and my story. That's what David Gaider's meant by co-writing the story at the PAX. He knows it. He knows some players are writing their own story with the game's parameter. But I'm more than working within the game's parameter. I change those parameters and adapt it through my custom made single player campaign in Origins. I can't do that with Hawke because Hawke is not my character. His story is not my story and his idiot way of solving things is not the way I think how things works. It is waste of time. 


[quote]robertthebard wrote...




yet you didn't, and a search of the early Origin forums will show people weren't happy about not being able to be a human that wasn't a noble or a mage, or a mage that wasn't in the tower.  To me, this is the same song and dance in another game.[/quote]
 They have the option to use the mods or play with toolset. Origins doesn't required high end PC to run. Most people have their own PC and I know most XBOX users will buy PC version, anyway  just to enjoy the mods. Origins, NW 2 and NW 1 allow modding just for you to CREATE your own character and adventure. The Elder Scrolls did the same things. Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas has huge comunity.  You know why? Because the devs understand that they cannot provide everything to everyone. Therefore, it's up for the players themselves to be innovative and creative with the tools they provided although it is not required in a RPG..

In the end, It's all depend, whether you have the passion to make it happen or not. I don't have that passion for DA2. Not because lack of playable races and origins but because I dislike Hawke and his dumb story. So no, it's not an issue at all. It become the issue if the game doesn't allow you to create your character either through in-game's features or through other application like toolset. It become a serious issue in DA 2 compare to origins.


[quote]robertthebard wrote...





[quote]First of all, Hawke has no obligation whatsoever to go to Kirkwall and risk his family - which he did loose all of them anyway, since he is a looser and an idiot. In NWN, every recruits volunteer to join the academy because  it's prestiges. No one forced anyone to join the academy. And that's include your character. As for the Warden, my Cousland made a promise to her father that she'll see Rendon Howe to go to hell even if she had to follow the Warden. My Mahariel was sick and it wasn't about Warden's duty. It was about her life and she had no one else to turn to. Hawke, on the other hand,  wouldn't die or the world won't be destroye if he's not going to the insane place like Kirkwall.[/quote]

Actually, you do, try to not go, and see what happens.  You see, you talk about going to Kirkwall as risking his family, while the darkspawn are actively pursuing them out of Lothering.[/quote]
As long as they keep running, the darkspawn won't actively pursuit them because they're heading north to Redcliff or Denerim while you're going south toward's Konkari Wild. Even if you don't want to run away, you still can ask Flemeth for temporary shelter until you can find other place safer than Kirkwall. 


[quote]robertthebard wrote...

Stretching here.  I have been noticing today that my dialogs are vastly different when I use one set of responses over another.  NPC's and companions react differently to them, and that reaction sticks throughout, so far as I've gotten.  I can't go into any detail since this is the non-spoiler forum though.[/quote]
I'm not talking about NPC response to your dialogue. I don't give a damn to one line variable NPC's response for each conversation. They're still the same regardless of your tone. They won't kick your butt for being a jerk because they're programmed to help you progress the story no matter what. I'm talking about choice, effect and consequences.


[quote]robertthebard wrote...

So play through the NWN's campaign w/out saving Neverwinter.  Play Origins w/out being a Grey Warden.  Go through NWN 2 w/out getting the shard, just hang out in the village and see how far you get through the game.  Every RPG forces you to play through the story.  That's the point of an RPG.[/quote]
There're a lot of variables to play around finding 4 ingredients in NW. There's Lady Aribeth and her judgement. It's about justice and at the same time it's about unspoken love between my character and her which was clearly shown in the end. 

There're more than just geting the shard and hang out in the village in NW 2. It's about finding your past, your mother and your connection with the shard.  It's about finding who you are and it's was revealed in the end.

There're more than gathering the army and saving the world in Origins. It's about revenge or it's about  sacrificing yourself and what it meant to you. Or it's about becoming the king/queen and many other other things which is also shown in the end game. 

That's the point of RPG

There is nothing there in DA 2 except killing everyone and "gone,  like the warden". That's not the point of RPG. 

The point in RPG is that you make a choice, it's matter and it has the consequences.  


[quote]robertthebard wrote...

Do I really need to dignify this with an answer?[/quote]
No. I don't expect you to. 


[quote]robertthebard wrote...

The only canon ending to this game rests with BioWare.  They are telling the story.  If I buy a book, and don't like it, I don't read it.  I don't go to the publisher's website, or the author's website and tell them they need to write the story the way I want it.  Go ask Atari what happened to me with their lack of Customer Support on NWN 2.  I figured out I was spitting into the wind trying to help the people that needed it, and uninstalled, and reformatted my harddrive to get their rootkit off my computer, and didn't look back, until early this year, when I got bored, and picked it back up, only to find that, lo and behold, people talking with their wallets worked, and they got rid of it.[/quote]
Isn't that what you are doing now? Going to the dev's website and comment on my post?

I dislike ME series because or binary paragon/renegade Shepard. I never send a single post about it in ME's forum. I just ignore it. When ME 3 was released, I couldn't care less. Even until now, I'm not interested with ME.
I dislike fix character like Ezio and Geralt. I never post anything at their respective forums. I just don't care.

The thing is I love Dragon Age. I love Dragon Age Origins and I want the dev to continue to make the game I love. I  only hate DA 2 because DA 2 is not like Origins in almost every single major aspect.  If I don't like Dragon Age in the first place, I wouldn't be wasting my monthly broadband's quota with this forum. And yes, I will continue to monitor DA 3's development. If it turns out to be something like DA 2  in term of choice that doesn't matter, passive PC, a story to be told by others, plague with tons of autodialogues, restrictive companions interaction etc.. I'll be gone from this forum and find other devs who do cater to my RPG need. DA 3 will the last chance for BioWare to prove themselves they can do a lot better than DA 2 or Origins or Neverwinter Nights. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 24 mai 2012 - 02:21 .

[robertthebard]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...  Wall of text cut for clarity

I can do a lot of things with the NWN/NWN2/Origins toolset too.  The problem is, I'm not a developer releasing a game.  I'm a builder, sort of, building stuff to play around with.  I'll take your lack of providing me the name of a game that actually allows you to say whatever you want to NPC's as an admission that you have never played one.  I'll take your admission of using mods to mean that you couldn't variate from the initial game rules without the mods, and we can call it a day.

There is nothing different in this game from any other RPG, other than, for the sake of the story that BioWare wanted to tell with this game, you are limited to Human.  If you're not crazy about the story, cool, that does not translate into "The game is bad", it simply means that you don't like it, and that's fine.  It's bad to you, that's obvious from your posts, but that's the only thing that's obvious; you don't like the game.  Nobody can force you to, and nobody wants to, least of all me.  It's not like this is an MMO, and I have to deal with you in game while I'm playing.  Now, I'm going back to enjoying myself in this game, since I do find it enjoyable.

[Vormaerin]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

There is nothing there in DA 2 except killing everyone and "gone,  like the warden". That's not the point of RPG. 

The point in RPG is that you make a choice, it's matter and it has the consequences.  

That's only because you chose not to invest your imagination in the game the way you did with all your other examples.   

Some people prefer their roleplaying to be "I imagine a character of my own devising and rely on the writers not to infringe on that too much with their story."   Others prefer that the game provide an actual role for you get into and enjoy, relying on the writers to make that role and story worth adopting.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

robertthebard wrote...

I can do a lot of things with the NWN/NWN2/Origins toolset too.  The problem is, I'm not a developer releasing a game.  I'm a builder, sort of, building stuff to play around with.

I'm not a game developer either. I'm a builder like you too. I love building games which are mostly strategy games like The Sim City series, 4X empire building games like Master of Orions and simulation games like The Sims series. But I'm a storyteller too. When I play strategy games like Sid Mier's Civilazation or The Settlers or Microsoft's Rise of the nations, I create my story as well. Story drive me to play even the most boring sandbox's games on earth. I can strive on making my own story using every tools the games can provided. I don't like to be restricted with developer's story no matter how good the story is. Good story however, inspire me to create my own story and I can't have that with restricted linear story. Which is why I only buy moddable BioWare games like NWN and Dragon Age. ..
   

robertthebard wrote...

I'll take your lack of providing me the name of a game that actually allows you to say whatever you want to NPC's as an admission that you have never played one.

No. You only mention the game that allow you to say 100% what you want. You didn't mention, "to NPC". Therefore I give you any MMO games.

robertthebard wrote...


I'll take your admission of using mods to mean that you couldn't variate from the initial game rules without the mods, and we can call it a day.

Then you must have miss this:

Sacred_Fantasy wrote..
Even if I don't use mod to change the game, Origins, NWN 2 and NWN 1 are still good enough to let me say the dialogue the way I want it to be. You know why? Because of silent protagonist.

robertthebard wrote...



There is nothing different in this game from any other RPG, other than, for the sake of the story that BioWare wanted to tell with this game, you are limited to Human.

Let me see. Unreliable third person narrator using frame narrative is not what other RPG had in mind. Alpha Protocol uses frame narrative and it's first person narrative. You view the story from Thorton's own perspective. Assasin's Creeds uses frame narrative. You view the story from Ezio's own perspective. This 2 games doesn't exaggerate the story to make the story a ****. This 2 main protagonists constantly remind you, the player, that they exist in the past and present. They want you  to view the character as your own despite being a fixed character. DA 2's however, make a poor case of preset character mainly because Hawke want to pretend to be player created character. And worst, it never answer the question whether Hawke is already dead or still exist making you unsure what the heck are you roleplaying. It's similiar to telling a good story but in the end it's nothing but a dream - which is frustrating and a  waste of time to bother with.  

robertthebard wrote...




If you're not crazy about the story, cool, that does not translate into "The game is bad", it simply means that you don't like it, and that's fine.  It's bad to you, that's obvious from your posts, but that's the only thing that's obvious; you don't like the game.  Nobody can force you to, and nobody wants to, least of all me.

Finally something you can understand. I'm not the only one who think the game is bad. Most of what I had wrote concern other people as well. Choices that don't matter, Silent protagonist vs Voiced Protagonist, Story presentation and immersion, Hawke as PC etc.. were among the most heated topics debated a year ago.  

robertthebard wrote...

It's not like this is an MMO, and I have to deal with you in game while I'm playing.  Now, I'm going back to enjoying myself in this game, since I do find it enjoyable.

You know part of what makes MMO interesting is real interaction with real human. But part of what make real interaction a **** is, real people behaviour as well. We're not dealing with mature audience only we have to deal with kids who enjoy making the life of other people miserable on the net.  But good luck to you with DA 2 I'll be waiting for DA 3 news while making my Warden-Morrigan's story in Skyrim.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Vormaerin wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

There is nothing there in DA 2 except killing everyone and "gone,  like the warden". That's not the point of RPG. 

The point in RPG is that you make a choice, it's matter and it has the consequences.  

That's only because you chose not to invest your imagination in the game the way you did with all your other examples.

How to have an immersion if the game/story keep disconnecting me with  time skip and Varric-Cassandra's interrogation's scenes PLUS ridiculous autodialogues PLUS unreliable narrator?  I've played other frame narrative story and I've read other frame narrative's novels as well but none are that bad like DA 2. Every good frame narratives will always tie main protagonist to present days to ensure that whatever happen in the past  is real. Hawke, however, never comes back from the past. Instead, he ended with cliffhanger. Not sure if it's intentional by BioWare. Part of me suspect BioWare wanted people to speculate about it. and keep the interest  - which end up negatively.
 

Vormaerin wrote...

Some people prefer their roleplaying to be "I imagine a character of my own devising and rely on the writers not to infringe on that too much with their story."   Others prefer that the game provide an actual role for you get into and enjoy, relying on the writers to make that role and story worth adopting.

I agree. Therefore there must be choices for player. And not just illusion of choices. A lot of things can be tolerated and satisfied if the BioWare doesn't bend so much on linearity. I know BoWare favor linearity. DAO is still linear but it has various endings that vary greatly from each other.  If I can't create my own story, then I prefer the options to choose the paths of the story - which was not given to me with DA 2.

[Allan Schumacher]

schalafi wrote...

Maybe it was supposed to add drama, but I think it was just another method of cost cutting.

In many ways it would have been cheaper and easier to not have a specific sibling die based upon your character choice, though it would have required rewrites of the story since the sibling's death is required.

Though since it's a key part of the plot, the ultimate in cost savings would have been to not pay any thought to the party make up and just have one of the siblings always die.  We wouldn't have had to implement any of their dialogues, stories, Hawke's sibling specific responses, nor any of the alternative dialogues that factor in for NPCs that made unique responses to your sibling.  With all those are cascading expenses such as localization and additional QA.  I can't think of any valid "cost cutting" mechanisms that come in by providing some level of mutually exclusive choice that wouldn't be made significantly cheaper by just cutting out the mutually exclusive choice altogether.

You're worried about spoilers this long after, really?  I think the people that may affect at this stage are very few. lol

While the game has been out for a while and the chances of seriously ruining the game for someone is limited, keep in mind that this section of the forum does explicitly state "NO Spoilers allowed."  This means that it's a reasonable assumption for someone reading these threads to not read spoilers for DA2 (and ME3 for that matter).  Try to keep them to a minimum and if you feel it's necessary, just warn people about impending spoilers.

[Allan Schumacher]

Reidbynature wrote...

You're assuming I hate Hawke and everything related to him. You're wrong. I just didn't like how Bethany or Carver's stories panned out.

You're also assuming that I think Bioware killed them solely because of party balancing. I don't think that either. I partly think they misjudged how to handle their deaths. I believe that it being connected to something as random as the player characters chosen class does devalue it because something like that should come from something more meaningful like being forced to save one sibling because you are incapable of saving both at the time or something like that.

Party balancing was still a factor.  As was the fact that it provided some level of replayability as they are mutually exclusive, without significant additional costs (I think most can understand that true mutual exclusivity with sweeping changes and divergent gameplay is very expensive).  Though there was also story reasons for this distinction as well, because keeping the dialogues the same would not have made as much sense.

Gamers shouldn't have to go "oh I'll play this class so Bethany survives this playthrough", it should be done in game as part of the rpg experience. Also, I don't think either characters personal storyline or even Hawke's storyline did enough with the death and left me feeling unconvinced of its impact on the family.  It need not take away from Hawke being helpless since he would still not have the power to save everyone, but the system as it was implemented just leaves the choice of who dies to something outside of the game rather than removing it altogether.

The way I see it is, this is metagaming and is something that gamers will do regardless of how we present our choices.  People will complain that it's arbitrary, but at its core all of our plot decisions could be considered "arbitrary" with how people use the word.  People will feel "forced" into particular dialogues to romance the character they want, and they'll feel forced into particular choices in order to get the big plot outcome that they want, and so forth.  There's nothing we can do to prevent people from deciding what they want to do with their gameplay before playing.  Even the most open ended games are still ultimately deterministic, due to the nature of them being video games.


I don't mind the way it plays out, though if I were to do something different, I would have just provided a better story reason for why the class choice makes a difference.

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...



Party balancing was still a factor.

Completely off topic but I just wanted to jump in and say that's one of my biggest issues with the Dragon Age games, how you have to balance your party and take along certain companions or else you're screwed. One of the things I love about Mass Effect is that it doesn't suffer this problem. In all three games I can take which ever squad mate I want and it won't have a detrimental effect on my gameplay. This means I can pick who I bring with me on missions based on story reasons and squad members personalites. This in turn means the games story ends up being a lot more fun. I wouldn't have enjoyed ME2 as much for example if I was forced to bring Miranda with me instead of Garrus so I could have a balanced squad.

I guess what I'm really trying to say here is, going forward into DA3 can you perhaps design the game so that it downplays the importance of companion characters classes and group roles (tank, heals and DPS) and instead design a system where we can take the companions we like and not have our gameplay suffer for it? Not only would it make the game funner because we'd be playing with companions we like but it would also mean the devs don't have to write story encounters around party balance.

[Dave of Canada]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Completely off topic but I just wanted to jump in and say that's one of my biggest issues with the Dragon Age games, how you have to balance your party and take along certain companions or else you're screwed.

I'd say to play the other difficulties. Dismissing class balance screws up everything on tougher difficulties in a team-based class-centric game.

[robertthebard]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...



Party balancing was still a factor.

Completely off topic but I just wanted to jump in and say that's one of my biggest issues with the Dragon Age games, how you have to balance your party and take along certain companions or else you're screwed. One of the things I love about Mass Effect is that it doesn't suffer this problem. In all three games I can take which ever squad mate I want and it won't have a detrimental effect on my gameplay. This means I can pick who I bring with me on missions based on story reasons and squad members personalites. This in turn means the games story ends up being a lot more fun. I wouldn't have enjoyed ME2 as much for example if I was forced to bring Miranda with me instead of Garrus so I could have a balanced squad.

I guess what I'm really trying to say here is, going forward into DA3 can you perhaps design the game so that it downplays the importance of companion characters classes and group roles (tank, heals and DPS) and instead design a system where we can take the companions we like and not have our gameplay suffer for it? Not only would it make the game funner because we'd be playing with companions we like but it would also mean the devs don't have to write story encounters around party balance.

Party balancing is needed.  If you're playing a mage, do you want to be the tank?  Do you really want to take 4 tanks into a long fight?  I hope you have tons of cash for Stam pots, and a better availability than what we have now.  In MMO's the basic party structure is tank/heal/CC/dps.  It's not arbitrarily decided, these are the roles that need to be filled.  There is no story reason to have them filled, it's so that the group has an easier time with harder content.  While most of the encounters in this game can be done with just about anyone, some of the quests require certain members because it's part of their story arc.  This is what keeps them interesting.  Now, in Guild Wars, you can just hire people to fill those roles, and you never have to interact with them at all.  I can sum that up in one word:  Boring.

The current system allows you to take whomever you choose, barring companion specific content, and frankly, there aren't a lot of those.  Merrill had 40 someodd points to distribute for one of her quests, because I was playing w/out mages.  So it's not like I'm forced to always have certain companions in my party at all times.  If I'm not playing a rogue, I need to bring one, but if I am, I really don't.  If I'm playing a mage, I don't need to bring one, and if I'm a tank, or a dps warrior, I can leave them out.  So I don't see what the problem is.

[TEWR]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Party balancing was still a factor. As was the fact that it provided some level of replayability as they are mutually exclusive, without significant additional costs (I think most can understand that true mutual exclusivity with sweeping changes and divergent gameplay is very expensive).

Why was party balancing so important when the gameplay was already unbalanced in the first place? Killing off a sibling doesn't automatically fix it. At best, it's a bandaid trying to cover up an amputation.

As for the replayability, sure it provides some, but replayability should be tied more to choices in the main game IMO rather then deciding that "Sibling A should be alive because I'm playing this class".

If the sibling's death was left up to the player's choice in some fashion -- it could be done without seeming weird -- it'd be a different matter.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Though there was also story reasons for this distinction as well, because keeping the dialogues the same would not have made as much sense.

Having dialogue associated with the whole family being alive would've been great, IMO. It would've allowed for the player to really see more interaction between everyone -- Leandra, Carver, Bethany, Gamlen and Hawke -- and really feel a connection to the family.

Not to mention that I think having both siblings alive would've enhanced the Mage-Templar conflict, as I said a page or so ago.

[AkiKishi]

Direwolf0294 wrote...
Completely off topic but I just wanted to jump in and say that's one of my biggest issues with the Dragon Age games, how you have to balance your party and take along certain companions or else you're screwed. One of the things I love about Mass Effect is that it doesn't suffer this problem. In all three games I can take which ever squad mate I want and it won't have a detrimental effect on my gameplay. This means I can pick who I bring with me on missions based on story reasons and squad members personalites. This in turn means the games story ends up being a lot more fun. I wouldn't have enjoyed ME2 as much for example if I was forced to bring Miranda with me instead of Garrus so I could have a balanced squad.

I guess what I'm really trying to say here is, going forward into DA3 can you perhaps design the game so that it downplays the importance of companion characters classes and group roles (tank, heals and DPS) and instead design a system where we can take the companions we like and not have our gameplay suffer for it? Not only would it make the game funner because we'd be playing with companions we like but it would also mean the devs don't have to write story encounters around party balance.

Companions in ME are completely trivial. That would not suit a tactical combat game at all.

[Allan Schumacher]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Party balancing was still a factor. As was the fact that it provided some level of replayability as they are mutually exclusive, without significant additional costs (I think most can understand that true mutual exclusivity with sweeping changes and divergent gameplay is very expensive).

Why was party balancing so important when the gameplay was already unbalanced in the first place? Killing off a sibling doesn't automatically fix it. At best, it's a bandaid trying to cover up an amputation.

It's not like we went into preproduction saying "Lets make really unbalanced combat" and then had the clairvoyance to then alter our story and some of our design decisions at the start when combat balance sees most of its attention towards the end of the project.

Having dialogue associated with the whole family being alive would've been great, IMO. It would've allowed for the player to really see more interaction between everyone -- Leandra, Carver, Bethany, Gamlen and Hawke -- and really feel a connection to the family.

This is akin to saying "more content would be great" which I don't think you'd find any person that would disagree with that sentiment.  There's a constant adversarial undertone between Hawke and the sibling that requires one to be a mage, the other not to be.  We could have done a myriad of things differently with the story (which is always good feedback), but in the end the writers and the rest of the team try to implement the idea.  Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't.

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
This is akin to saying "more content would be great" which I don't think you'd find any person that would disagree with that sentiment.  There's a constant adversarial undertone between Hawke and the sibling that requires one to be a mage, the other not to be.  We could have done a myriad of things differently with the story (which is always good feedback), but in the end the writers and the rest of the team try to implement the idea.  Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't.

While I would say in theory that having both siblings alive and each picking a different side, meaning you would at some point have to fight one or the other would make for a more powerful story. Carver was such a douche that it would have been too much of an easy choice anyway.

Killing Jill in Fire Emblem because she rejoined her father was one of the hardest things I've done in a game. She felt more like family than anyone in DA2. The Ogre did the job for me in any case ,which was a complete waste of potential.

[Sejborg]

 Restrictions are fun! 

[TEWR]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This is akin to saying "more content would be great" which I don't think you'd find any person that would disagree with that sentiment. There's a constant adversarial undertone between Hawke and the sibling that requires one to be a mage, the other not to be. We could have done a myriad of things differently with the story (which is always good feedback), but in the end the writers and the rest of the team try to implement the idea. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't.

I think being a Mage was only a tiny bit of that adversarial position. I got more of a "I'm overshadowed by his prowess and never able to do anything to move out because of it" simply because of who the sibling was.

Considering that you always gain Rivalry as a result of the prologue, no matter what your class, Hawke's being a Mage didn't seem to really change much other then just how much of a douche the sibling was. Take out the Magehood and you'd still have a douchey sibling.

Just slightly less.

The other sibling really didn't even have an adversarial position due to what class the player was. That sibling's position was more self-lamenting rather then "Grrrr... you big meaniehead! Harumph!".

At any rate, the die has long since been cast.

BobSmith101 wrote...

Killing Jill in Fire Emblem because she rejoined her father was one of the hardest things I've done in a game. She felt more like family than anyone in DA2. The Ogre did the job for me in any case ,which was a complete waste of potential.

Yea, Jill did feel more like a part of my (extended) family in PoR then anyone in my family in DAII did.

I always felt bad for Shiharam's -- and Jill's -- situation . Especially when Jill comes face-to-face with the endgame boss, only to find out that it was just a Tuesday for him. Shiharam was an honorable man, even more so in Radiant Dawn when you learn some more about him.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 mai 2012 - 08:24 .

[jbrand2002uk]

First off the whole Dual Wield Warrior/Arcane Mage issue:
The whole problem with the DWW was that because you could use all the same weapons as a rogue and all the animations were the same it lacked distinction making the whole idea pointless the only real difference being the rogue could pick locks and the DWW couldnt.

Regarding the Arcane Mage i notice many who argue for it also detract on DA2 for lack of logic and realism,so if one of those peeps couls answer this,why does a mage need to use a bow when they already have long range magical attacks both individual and AOE ones far more potent then any bow and arrow combo they wouldn't its illogical which brings me on to part 2 they dont need a sword because their staff is equally if not more effective particually if it has a blade intergrated into it.

With the greatest of respect for SacredFantasy alas he is one of many that highlights and lambasts DA2 for its faults, faults which are also in DAO in most cases to a greater extent and who's general answer is "because it DAO and it won many awards its ok" and if there's one thing that irks me its critics with "Double Standards"

[Sacred_Fantasy]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

With the greatest of respect for SacredFantasy alas he is one of many that highlights and lambasts DA2 for its faults, faults which are also in DAO in most cases to a greater extent and who's general answer is "because it DAO and it won many awards its ok" and if there's one thing that irks me its critics with "Double Standards"

"Double Standard"? LOL. Why, Thank you. If  "double standards" is what you preceive than "double standards" score is what DA 2 gets from metacritics.  At any rate, I think you can't deny that DA2 was rated significantly lower than DAO.  DAO raised the bar and DA 2 failed to meet that bar.

jbrand2002uk wrote...
Regarding the Arcane Mage i notice many who argue for it also detract on DA2 for lack of logic and realism,so if one of those peeps couls answer this,why does a mage need to use a bow when they already have long range magical attacks both individual and AOE ones far more potent then any bow and arrow combo they wouldn't its illogical

I don't favor mage class. I favor close combat and high defense. You know why mage sucks despite being powerful? Their spells takes too long to cool down, their mana easily exhausted and the mages themselves are too weak for close combat due to lack of def and hp. Their long range advantage is their biggest disadvantage too - If you manage to dodge and fast enough to close a mage. In such situation, the best a mage could do is kiting. It's so obvious and pathetic  in PvP and I hate that. But to answer your question, why some mage equip with bow is to take down any approaching enemies before they get close to you while your spell is cooling down and/or while you're running out of mana.. Therefore you don't have to run and kite like a chicken ( like most mages do in PvP ). It's logical to survive first than waiting for your spell's cool down ( CD ). Let's face it, mage is not build for hand-to-hand combat. Neither does an archer. That's task belong to tanker or other melee damage dealer. .

jbrand2002uk wrote...

which brings me on to part 2 they dont need a sword because their staff is equally if not more effective particually if it has a blade intergrated into it.

Their staff is not designed to kill without spells. Their primary damage output is from spells and not directly from the weapon itself like a sword. That's why mage's damage output is based on their INT and not STR like warrior or DEX like rogue. 

 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 27 mai 2012 - 02:39 .

[wsandista]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

First off the whole Dual Wield Warrior/Arcane Mage issue:
The whole problem with the DWW was that because you could use all the same weapons as a rogue and all the animations were the same it lacked distinction making the whole idea pointless the only real difference being the rogue could pick locks and the DWW couldnt.

Maybe I missed the part where the Warrior could backstab enemies in DAO, or where Rogues could use Perfect Striking. If they want to make the style more diverse between classes, then they should give them separate Dual-Wield trees. Rouges can have one that focuses on disabling enemies, while Warriors get one that focuses on pure DPS.

Regarding the Arcane Mage i notice many who argue for it also detract on DA2 for lack of logic and realism,so if one of those peeps couls answer this,why does a mage need to use a bow when they already have long range magical attacks both individual and AOE ones far more potent then any bow and arrow combo they wouldn't its illogical which brings me on to part 2 they dont need a sword because their staff is equally if not more effective particually if it has a blade intergrated into it.

Swords and bows were more powerful than staffs in DAO, and there is a limited amount of mana and spells have cooldowns.

The point is customization freedom. If I want to have a mage who meets the attribute requirements decked out in full plate brandishing a greatsword, why shouldn't I be able to?

With the greatest of respect for SacredFantasy alas he is one of many that highlights and lambasts DA2 for its faults, faults which are also in DAO in most cases to a greater extent and who's general answer is "because it DAO and it won many awards its ok" and if there's one thing that irks me its critics with "Double Standards"

Most of us do give specific examples, you just ignore them and spout a large amount of non-nonsensical text.

You really dislike proper grammar, don't you.

Modifié par wsandista, 27 mai 2012 - 04:03 .

[Mark of the Dragon]

I dont want class specialization restrictions. For example every mage companion and main should have access to have every mage specialization. For example any mage should be able to be a spirit healer if you so choose.

Secondly dont restrict the weapons each class can use. If your companion is a warrior you should choose if he is a sword and shield warrior or a two handed sword wielder.

[Realmzmaster]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

I dont want class specialization restrictions. For example every mage companion and main should have access to have every mage specialization. For example any mage should be able to be a spirit healer if you so choose.

Secondly dont restrict the weapons each class can use. If your companion is a warrior you should choose if he is a sword and shield warrior or a two handed sword wielder.

What you are saying is fine if you get to create all the companions. Bioware games do not do that. The companion already comes with a specialization. Now if what you are saving that if you wish to say make for example  Sten who is a two handed warrior into a sword and shield warrior without removing points already in the two handed tree that is fine. You can spend the extra points making the companion what every you want. You simply to not get to change the starting attributes and skills.

If you are saying that you want to reassign the points from two handed to sword and shield and the companion's backstory is that the companion never uses a shield then there would be a problem or a wizard is adverse to using a particular magic tree like spirit healer. Also the further in the game when you pick up the character then the less ability you have to alter the companion.