764 réponses à ce sujet

[FieryDove]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sten's party was attacked at Lake Calenhad, but the darkspawn did not attack the Tower? Why?  

As I saw the last of the creatures cut down...I fell. Sound about right? Sten and group killed them all.

Realmzmaster wrote...

You find the darkspawn in the forest, but they do not attack the elves? Why? The darkspawn do not even attack the werewolves perhaps forcing the elves and werewolves to work together.

Most likely the same reason our party is attacked by anything and everything. The forest protects them and itself. I imagine there is a lot of DS scratching heads wondering why tree's and such are attacking them.

[Vormaerin]

For an entire year? What happened to that huge army at Ostagar? It just vanished off the map. Even if there was just a creeping stain on the world map or something....

The Royal Army is dead and the baronial armies are fighting a civil war, yet the Darkspawn apparently make no progress at all while you spend months wandering about.

Its pretty much par for the course with these games and always has been. Players mostly hate time limits and failure conditions, so they've generally been written out of games. But I think that the least you can do in a "race against time' scenario is not have the kind of sidequests that undercut any sense of urgency.

[Realmzmaster]

FieryDove wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sten's party was attacked at Lake Calenhad, but the darkspawn did not attack the Tower? Why?  

As I saw the last of the creatures cut down...I fell. Sound about right? Sten and group killed them all.

Realmzmaster wrote...

You find the darkspawn in the forest, but they do not attack the elves? Why? The darkspawn do not even attack the werewolves perhaps forcing the elves and werewolves to work together.

Most likely the same reason our party is attacked by anything and everything. The forest protects them and itself. I imagine there is a lot of DS scratching heads wondering why tree's and such are attacking them.

That is funny because the darkspawn are in the forest. I could have sworn my party killed three big ogres and several other darkspawn that were not attacked by anything in the forest. There were no dead darkspawn corpses to be found anywhere. Yes Sten's party killed the ones that attack them. I am talking about why no darkspawn attack the Tower, since many of the mages fell at Ostagar.

Does not answer why the darkspawn army seemed to simply vanish. Did the Archdemon talk a nap for a year? The only reason is because gamers do not like time limits. The gamer can take all the time he or she wants to recruit the army because nothing triggers or continues without the warden being present. I would have like to see a countdown of days at least or the inability to get an ally because say the werewolves wiped out the elves. Or the cultists find a way to over power the Guardian and spoil the ashes.

Or see the darkspawn army attack Redcliffe if the party takes to long doing side quests. There should be some consequence for the choices made. 

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 13 juin 2012 - 08:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

There is more to Ferelden than the areas we visit. I don't see why, if the darkspawn are attacking villages periodically as the Blight slowly advances, we would need necessarily to visit those villages, or have plot-relevant events take place there.

Unless the darkspawn attack everything, and do so in a timely manner, I see not basis for this criticism.

Moreover, we can actually see the Blight advancing. Honnleath is overwhelmed by darkspawn. And we encounter darkspawn periodically when travelling between cities. They're out there. They just don't happen to overrun anything plot-relevant.

[Vormaerin]

Yes, I know I can pretend like anyone cares if I ever deal with the blight. I can pretend all kinds of things. I can pretend that my dwarf gangster actually talks like one, instead of using perfect English like all the text selections.

But I'm not really seeing any good RP reason to be wandering around running errands like the sidequests instead of dealing with the Blight. Seriously, the darkspawn threat is so trivial I can spend a couple weeks travelling to some godforsaken spot to deliver a letter or chop someone's head off? *rolls eyes*

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There is more to Ferelden than the areas we visit. I don't see why, if the darkspawn are attacking villages periodically as the Blight slowly advances, we would need necessarily to visit those villages, or have plot-relevant events take place there.

Unless the darkspawn attack everything, and do so in a timely manner, I see not basis for this criticism.

Moreover, we can actually see the Blight advancing. Honnleath is overwhelmed by darkspawn. And we encounter darkspawn periodically when travelling between cities. They're out there. They just don't happen to overrun anything plot-relevant.

And there lies the point. Nothing plot relevant is threaten. That would bring the sense of urgency home if the party could actually miss out on getting an ally. If the party can spend weeks doing sidequests the Blight is not really a big deal and neither is dealing with Loghain.. 

[batlin]

Vormaerin wrote...

Yes, I know I can pretend like anyone cares if I ever deal with the blight. I can pretend all kinds of things. I can pretend that my dwarf gangster actually talks like one, instead of using perfect English like all the text selections.

But I'm not really seeing any good RP reason to be wandering around running errands like the sidequests instead of dealing with the Blight. Seriously, the darkspawn threat is so trivial I can spend a couple weeks travelling to some godforsaken spot to deliver a letter or chop someone's head off? *rolls eyes*

I can't help but wonder what point you're trying to make here. DA:O had inane sidequests yes, but unlike DA2 they were never part of the main plot. Also the ratio of Fed Ex quests in DA:O was pretty insignificant compared to DA2's.

[batlin]

Realmzmaster wrote...

What Vormaerin is saying and I have said in different threads is that DAO had no sense of urgency. Outside of sacking Lothering and Ostagar where else is it shown that the darkspawn are conquering anything. Did the darkspawn army just stop moving and grind to a halt? Where was the attack on Redcliffe which was not far from Ostagar?

DAO was suppose to happen with a year's time. Urgency could have been achieve by having the darkspawn slowly destroy or attack each potential ally. So if party did not hurry and solve that allies problem the darkspawn would attack. The party would then have to help defend the ally or abandon them. The only ones who may hold out would be the dwarves.

Sten's party was attacked at Lake Calenhad, but the darkspawn did not attack the Tower? Why? You find the darkspawn in the forest, but they do not attack the elves? Why? The darkspawn do not even attack the werewolves perhaps forcing the elves and werewolves to work together.

DA2 does not have the same urgency except on a personal level. There is no big bad seeking to destroy the land. This allows for more mundane FedEx quests etc.

DA:O wasn't like a timebomb, there's a good amount of time between when theDarkspawn were amassing their forces and when they would start a full-scale war on the surface, though all the preparations required to amass the army to fight them back would take a huge chunk of that time to accomplish. Like you said, it happens over a year's time. It's like in Lord of the Rings. Sam and Frodo knew that the longer it took to destroy the ring the more likely it would be that Sauron's army overran Middle Earth, but that doesn't mean they had to sprint the entire way to Mordor.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

But I'm not really seeing any good RP reason to be wandering around running errands like the sidequests instead of dealing with the Blight.

So don't run those errands.

If you want to see what those errands are, construct a character specific to have that motivation.  Why are you asking the game to tell you what to do?

Seriously, the darkspawn threat is so trivial I can spend a couple weeks travelling to some godforsaken spot to deliver a letter or chop someone's head off? *rolls eyes*

It's not trivial.  It's just not urgent.  The darkspawn invasion looms, but it is not imminent.

Threats don't need to be immediate to be threats.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

And there lies the point. Nothing plot relevant is threaten. That would bring the sense of urgency home if the party could actually miss out on getting an ally.

Lothering is destroyed.  Leliana and Sten both die if you leave them there.  Several quests can't be completed if you don't complete them on time.

Isn't this exactly what you're asking for?  Why doesn't Lothering count?

[Vormaerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

But I'm not really seeing any good RP reason to be wandering around running errands like the sidequests instead of dealing with the Blight.

So don't run those errands.

If you want to see what those errands are, construct a character specific to have that motivation.  Why are you asking the game to tell you what to do?

Seriously, the darkspawn threat is so trivial I can spend a couple weeks travelling to some godforsaken spot to deliver a letter or chop someone's head off? *rolls eyes*

It's not trivial.  It's just not urgent.  The darkspawn invasion looms, but it is not imminent.

Threats don't need to be immediate to be threats.

I don't want the game to tell me what to do.   I want the plot to be sensible so I can react sensibly to it.   I want rational consequences to my decisions.   If I decide to waste weeks working as a bounty hunter, I want that wasted time to matter.

The invasion was so imminent that the King's army had been facing them in battle for weeks and had even called for the Orlesians to come.    Then... it just takes a nap?

Lothering is a good example of what should have been a continuing game mechanic.   Places should be disappearing off the world map as the game goes on.   Even if most of them are "fake" places you can't actually visit, it would show that something was going on.

As it is, you have Lothering and you have a few comments in the pre-Landsmeet  gossip.   But that gossip is exactly the same whether you rushed to gather your troops in the minimum amount of time or you lollygagged all over the landscape smelling the flowers and doing side quests.

In effect, you are punished for taking the game's plot seriously by having less xp and loot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

I don't want the game to tell me what to do.   I want the plot to be sensible so I can react sensibly to it.   I want rational consequences to my decisions.   If I decide to waste weeks working as a bounty hunter, I want that wasted time to matter.

How can you tell?

Unless you're looking for metagame validation of your choices, in which case I have no interest in the game accommodating you.

The invasion was so imminent that the King's army had been facing them in battle for weeks and had even called for the Orlesians to come.    Then... it just takes a nap?

The King was facing the invasion at Ostagar because that was their chance to defeat the Blight before it really got started.  Once that opportunity had passed, the battle was fought piecemeal until enough forces could be marshalled to stand against the full invading force.  Only by blunting the attack of the darkspawn could the archdemon be induced to appear, and the only way to stop the Blight was to kill the archdemon.

You seem to think the Blight is an endless line of darkspawn that destroys everything in its path.  Why?  I see it as sufficient numbers of darkspawn to overrun villages and spread fear through the countryside, but not to destroy everything.  As the line of darkspawn advances, areas behind them should open up (we even see that in the DA2 intro).

Lothering is a good example of what should have been a continuing game mechanic.   Places should be disappearing off the world map as the game goes on.   Even if most of them are "fake" places you can't actually visit, it would show that something was going on.

Places we couldn't visit weren't on the map at all.  What you describe may well have been occurring, but the game didn't show it to us.

As it is, you have Lothering and you have a few comments in the pre-Landsmeet  gossip.   But that gossip is exactly the same whether you rushed to gather your troops in the minimum amount of time or you lollygagged all over the landscape smelling the flowers and doing side quests.

In effect, you are punished for taking the game's plot seriously by having less xp and loot.

Why are you considering "the game's plot" at all?  Play your character; the plot takes care of itself.

[Vormaerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why are you considering "the game's plot" at all?  Play your character; the plot takes care of itself.

Because I play the game for the story and for the lore and the ability to interact with said story.   I don't need to spend $60 to invent a character and do all the storytelling myself.  I can play actual RPGs where I can have my character actually say and do what my character would actually say and do.  Or I can write another story.

Honestly, why do you even buy a game at all if your ideal is to have one that interacts as little as possible with your mental construct?

RPGs, for me, are a balancing act.  Too much control by the devs and I'll get start wondering why I'm not just reading a book.   Too little and I'll wonder why I bothered taking time away from real RPGing around the tabletop.  I want "Choose your own adventure" books in game form, with cool characters to interact with and cool things to do.  Bioware is one of the few designers that consistently does something like that.  

I'm perfectly capable of rewriting the story in my head and pretending that's what really happened to paper over problems with the story.  But if I'm spending significant resources on that, what did the devs do to justify my money in the first place?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

Because I play the game for the story and for the lore and the ability to interact with said story.   I don't need to spend $60 to invent a character and do all the storytelling myself.  I can play actual RPGs where I can have my character actually say and do what my character would actually say and do.  Or I can write another story.

Honestly, why do you even buy a game at all if your ideal is to have one that interacts as little as possible with your mental construct?

I do want the game to interact with my mental construct.  Games do interact with my mental construct (when viewed from within the mental construct).  What I don't want is for the games to interfere with my mental construct.

When an NPC responds to my PC, that's the game reacting to my mental construct.  That it would react exactly the same way to a different mental construct is immaterial, because the mental construct doesn't know that.

Too much control by the devs and I'll get start wondering why I'm not just reading a book.

Agreed.

Too little and I'll wonder why I bothered taking time away from real RPGing around the tabletop.

I play computer roleplaying games to get a tabletop roleplaying experience without the need to interact with other people.  The requirement to involve other people is what ruins tabletop gaming for me.

I want "Choose your own adventure" books in game form, with cool characters to interact with and cool things to do.  Bioware is one of the few designers that consistently does something like that.  

I'm perfectly capable of rewriting the story in my head and pretending that's what really happened to paper over problems with the story.  But if I'm spending significant resources on that, what did the devs do to justify my money in the first place?

They developed the setting.  They fleshed it out with characters and events (the plot).  They provided you with a mountain of stimulus to which your character can react.

Character-building is hard enough without having to do the world-building, too.  Moreover, I think it's more rewarding to see how a character succeeds or fails if I don't have control over what sorts of challenges he'll face.

[Vormaerin]

Well, as someone who has been DMing and writing stories for over 20 years, I find the world building to be at least as enjoyable as the characters. I don't consider scripted interactions to be at all comparable to real roleplaying. They are much more like story writing, except with less control.

The devs do develop the setting, the plot, and the characters. I want them to stop undermining it by letting mages walk the streets unmolested, by having my dwarves, elves, and humans all speak and be treated identically, and introducing plot elements (like side quests) that directly counter the thematic elements of the main storyline. False options that destroy the setting if you don't mentally handwave them away in some fashion.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 15 juin 2012 - 07:29 .

[ElitePinecone]

Sidequests do form a not-insignificant portion of plot content and, well, 'stuff' in the games, though. Removing them would require a significantly adjusted storytelling structure, not least because many of the sidequests give the writers freedom to explore parts of the setting that simply aren't relevant to the main story. If we're using a fairly broad definition, sidequests would also include much of the character interaction - and in my opinion that's one of the strongest parts of Bioware's games.

I dislike fetch quests as much as the next person, and I think the games could have reflected class/species choices better, but to expect masses of new content for some player decisions with no understanding of the work required to actually make that happen seems faintly unreasonable.

I mean, it's fine on forums to be *very* strict in your requests for what Bioware does in their games, but I think the chances of them ever actually happening would be small.

[LightningSamus]

Alot of games this gen are made to please a wider audience.

Fallout 3 itself was and and it got more people into the series while the fans who played the original Fallout games were disappointed as the gameplay had changed and that Bethesda was ruining their franchise.
A lot of SP games have added MP to expand their audience, this is how the industry is going.

I see the point in wider audience, companies do not always make money on their games and other competitors will steal their sales.

Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. expanding the audience is a bad thing it's just that they need to keep their original fans happy too an d do it right.

It's hard to please everyone

[AkiKishi]

LightningSamus wrote...

Alot of games this gen are made to please a wider audience.

Fallout 3 itself was and and it got more people into the series while the fans who played the original Fallout games were disappointed as the gameplay had changed and that Bethesda was ruining their franchise.
A lot of SP games have added MP to expand their audience, this is how the industry is going.

I see the point in wider audience, companies do not always make money on their games and other competitors will steal their sales.

Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. expanding the audience is a bad thing it's just that they need to keep their original fans happy too an d do it right.

It's hard to please everyone

I never felt that way , but I did prefer Obsidians take on things with New Vegas.

Some of the stuff people were saying like "Make it turnbased" was just outright unreasonable.

[AkiKishi]

batlin wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

Yes, I know I can pretend like anyone cares if I ever deal with the blight. I can pretend all kinds of things. I can pretend that my dwarf gangster actually talks like one, instead of using perfect English like all the text selections.

But I'm not really seeing any good RP reason to be wandering around running errands like the sidequests instead of dealing with the Blight. Seriously, the darkspawn threat is so trivial I can spend a couple weeks travelling to some godforsaken spot to deliver a letter or chop someone's head off? *rolls eyes*

I can't help but wonder what point you're trying to make here. DA:O had inane sidequests yes, but unlike DA2 they were never part of the main plot. Also the ratio of Fed Ex quests in DA:O was pretty insignificant compared to DA2's.

He means like in ME3 where the Reapers are taking over the galaxy and you are wandering around searching for missing dog tags and the like.
Without a time limit like FO , this is always going to be the case because things like travel time is not accounted for.

Considering FO patched out the time limit because of complaints I would not hold my breath for such a feature.The Atelier series is the only one I can think of that still makes use of a day based time limit.

Here are Chris Avellones thoughts on the matter.

http://forums.obsidi...on-time-limits/

[Vormaerin]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Sidequests do form a not-insignificant portion of plot content and, well, 'stuff' in the games, though. Removing them would require a significantly adjusted storytelling structure, not least because many of the sidequests give the writers freedom to explore parts of the setting that simply aren't relevant to the main story. If we're using a fairly broad definition, sidequests would also include much of the character interaction - and in my opinion that's one of the strongest parts of Bioware's games.

I dislike fetch quests as much as the next person, and I think the games could have reflected class/species choices better, but to expect masses of new content for some player decisions with no understanding of the work required to actually make that happen seems faintly unreasonable.

I mean, it's fine on forums to be *very* strict in your requests for what Bioware does in their games, but I think the chances of them ever actually happening would be small.

1)  You have no idea whehter I understand the work involved or not, so comments that imply that you do and people with different requests don't is lame.   In fact, resource cost has been a frequent element in certain of my arguments.

2) At no point did I say anything about getting rid of sidequests.   I am advocating creating sidequests that fit the thematic elements of the game.   In DAO, its a race to save the nation from the horde of faceless evil.  Every day that you delay is more civilians dead or driven from their homes.   So side quests that involve days or weeks of random travel just to earn a few coins make little sense.    However, lots of quests like that could have fit quite well with the story in DA2.

3) I didn't advocate masses of new content to support the origins, because I don't see that much effort being reasonable. If I'm wrong about that, then great.  More power to it.  I advocated not putting in content you can't support.   If I had a Harvard educated Boston Brahmin origin and a Latino East LA ghetto origin and 99% of the dialogue and NPC reactions were identical, I'd say that was BS.  If its worth the resources, spend the resources.  If its not, then don't put false options in the game.

4) The point of feedback is feedback, not the expectation that David Gaider is going to replace all his opinions with my own.  Its Bioware's responsibility to take all that crazy talk from Sylvius and my insightful, well reasoned posts (:P) and filter it through their experiences and desires to make the best game they can.

[AkiKishi]

Vormaerin wrote...

3) I didn't advocate masses of new content to support the origins, because I don't see that much effort being reasonable. If I'm wrong about that, then great.  More power to it.  I advocated not putting in content you can't support.   If I had a Harvard educated Boston Brahmin origin and a Latino East LA ghetto origin and 99% of the dialogue and NPC reactions were identical, I'd say that was BS.  If its worth the resources, spend the resources.  If its not, then don't put false options in the game.

This is what I think the purpose of the origins were. It's not D&D where you have source material. The only way you knew what life was like for a particular archtype is because of the origin story. It was never about writing six different paths through the game.

In that respect you could say the origins have now served their purpose.

[Vormaerin]

BobSmith101 wrote...

He means like in ME3 where the Reapers are taking over the galaxy and you are wandering around searching for missing dog tags and the like.
Without a time limit like FO , this is always going to be the case because things like travel time is not accounted for.

Considering FO patched out the time limit because of complaints I would not hold my breath for such a feature.The Atelier series is the only one I can think of that still makes use of a day based time limit.

Literal time limits aren't going to be popular.  But you can write sidequests that reflect a sense of urgency and not make it seem like the darkspawn aren't really trying.  Some of the DAO and ME3 quests did that.  Others, especially in DAO, did the opposite.  You can also add increasing levels of ambient encounters as time goes on without ever actually reaching the point of "doom".    

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Some of the stuff people were saying like "Make it turnbased" was just outright unreasonable.

They were halfway there with VATS.

No request to eliminate action components from RPG combat are ever unreasonable.

[Allan Schumacher]

LightningSamus wrote...

Alot of games this gen are made to please a wider audience.

Fallout 3 itself was and and it got more people into the series while the fans who played the original Fallout games were disappointed as the gameplay had changed and that Bethesda was ruining their franchise.
A lot of SP games have added MP to expand their audience, this is how the industry is going.

I see the point in wider audience, companies do not always make money on their games and other competitors will steal their sales.

Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. expanding the audience is a bad thing it's just that they need to keep their original fans happy too an d do it right.

It's hard to please everyone

I just want to comment that I'm a huuuge fan of the first two Fallout games, and I have no beef with Fallout 3.  In fact I really enjoyed it.  It's presentation wasn't quite as enjoyable as the first two for me, but I don't feel it was ruining the franchise (a "true" Fallout 3 wasn't on the horizon and possibly would never happen anyways).

Fallout New Vegas is a fantastic game IMO, and I just recently loaded up all the DLC and Sawyer's mod for it.  So fun!

Maybe I'm an outlier, but I feel many fans of the original Fallout games still enjoyed Fallout 3 and really enjoyed New Vegas.

[Fallstar]

Vormaerin wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

He means like in ME3 where the Reapers are taking over the galaxy and you are wandering around searching for missing dog tags and the like.
Without a time limit like FO , this is always going to be the case because things like travel time is not accounted for.

Considering FO patched out the time limit because of complaints I would not hold my breath for such a feature.The Atelier series is the only one I can think of that still makes use of a day based time limit.

Literal time limits aren't going to be popular.  But you can write sidequests that reflect a sense of urgency and not make it seem like the darkspawn aren't really trying.  Some of the DAO and ME3 quests did that.  Others, especially in DAO, did the opposite.  You can also add increasing levels of ambient encounters as time goes on without ever actually reaching the point of "doom".    

I can't speak for ME, but in DA the Blight is not an imminent threat. The archdemon hasn't even come above ground yet, aside from an elevated number of darkspawn and the darkspawn army from Ostagar slowly spreading, there is no real sense of urgency until the Archdemon shows itself above ground. And since your dreams as a Grey Warden handily give you semi regular updates on the Archdemon's progress, there's no reason not to assume that you have enough time to do side quests.