764 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

DuskWarden wrote...

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.

Sorry, but I think that is nonsense.   I'm sure the folks at Lothering don't think its an imminent threat.  The lords at the Landsmeet who lost kin and holdings to the darkspawn certainly seem pretty pleased with the idea of others fiddling around on their side projects while the country gets destroyed.

That's the problem, really.  The game keeps implying the darkspawn are out there wreaking havoc, but then it tells you "Oh sure, spend days or weeks on petty criminal enterprises that have nothing to do with saving the country." 
  
If the darkspawn are just some boogeyman on the distant horizon, fine.   Then present that.   Don't jump back and forth between  "ack, the darkspawn are here!" and  "ho hum, I wonder how much I'll get paid for smuggling dope to the wizards guild?  Its only 3 weeks each way."

[Xewaka]

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

As long as you have no beef with FPS mechanics "dilluting" the RPG (In the sense of, it now depends on player skill, not only on character skill), there shouldn't be a problem. There are some issues with the timeline (How is the East Coast in such bad shape almost two hundred years after the day the bombs fell while the West Coast is already past the post-apocalypse and with an already stablished society?) but Fallout 3 captures the wasteland feel beautifully, and New Vegas has an excellent "frontier pioneer" ambiance.

[AkiKishi]

Xewaka wrote...

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

As long as you have no beef with FPS mechanics "dilluting" the RPG (In the sense of, it now depends on player skill, not only on character skill), there shouldn't be a problem. There are some issues with the timeline (How is the East Coast in such bad shape almost two hundred years after the day the bombs fell while the West Coast is already past the post-apocalypse and with an already stablished society?) but Fallout 3 captures the wasteland feel beautifully, and New Vegas has an excellent "frontier pioneer" ambiance.

Never really understood that arguement as all games are based on player skill. At best the character amends that skill in a positive or negative way.

[sickpixie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Are you unfamiliar with Fallout fansites like No Mutants Allowed, Duck and Cover, and RPG Codex or are you suggesting they're not that signficant when compared to the whole?

Additionally, Troika wanted to license Fallout to make a successor more in line with the first two (and with Activision's backing, oddly enough; apparently they were okay with it being a mid-budget title), but Bethesda won the bidding. Such is life.

[Mercedes-Benz]

I am pretty sure that instead of returning to the Dragon Age: Origins formula, Bioware will try to copy the Skyrim formula and fail miserably at it. I have lost all confidence in Bioware that they can make great games like they used to,

[areuexperienced]

It's been stated repeatedly that BioWare are not doing a Skyrim-esque game. Get over yourself.

[Jerrybnsn]

areuexperienced wrote...

It's been stated repeatedly that BioWare are not doing a Skyrim-esque game. Get over yourself.

Other then them spending a lot of time and effort allowing for customized "iconic" looks, Bioware has repeatedly stated that they have nothing to divulge on what game mechanics will be in DA3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Never really understood that arguement as all games are based on player skill.

Not physical skill.  I've long maintained that any CRPG should be playable by a quadrilpegic - playable slowly, but playable.

The player's job is solely one of decision-making.  So yes, his skill at making decisions is relevant, as his mind populates the character's mind, but the character's physical skills determine his success or failure.

Action combat breaks this.  Action combat has no place in roleplaying.

[Allan Schumacher]

sickpixie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Are you unfamiliar with Fallout fansites like No Mutants Allowed, Duck and Cover, and RPG Codex or are you suggesting they're not that signficant when compared to the whole?

Additionally, Troika wanted to license Fallout to make a successor more in line with the first two (and with Activision's backing, oddly enough; apparently they were okay with it being a mid-budget title), but Bethesda won the bidding. Such is life.

I'm very familiar with those sites.  I have absolutely no clue how representative they are of all the people that loved the first two Fallout games.

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Never really understood that arguement as all games are based on player skill. At best the character amends that skill in a positive or negative way.  

Not physical skill.  I've long maintained that any CRPG should be playable by a quadrilpegic - playable slowly, but playable.

The player's job is solely one of decision-making.  So yes, his skill at making decisions is relevant, as his mind populates the character's mind, but the character's physical skills determine his success or failure.

Action combat breaks this.  Action combat has no place in roleplaying.

Physical or mental it's still player skill , not character. One is no more correct than the other.

That's your view and you are welcome to it.But it's no more than that.

[Sweet Dirge]

Vormaerin wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

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.

Sorry, but I think that is nonsense.   I'm sure the folks at Lothering don't think its an imminent threat.  The lords at the Landsmeet who lost kin and holdings to the darkspawn certainly seem pretty pleased with the idea of others fiddling around on their side projects while the country gets destroyed.

That's the problem, really.  The game keeps implying the darkspawn are out there wreaking havoc, but then it tells you "Oh sure, spend days or weeks on petty criminal enterprises that have nothing to do with saving the country." 
  
If the darkspawn are just some boogeyman on the distant horizon, fine.   Then present that.   Don't jump back and forth between  "ack, the darkspawn are here!" and  "ho hum, I wonder how much I'll get paid for smuggling dope to the wizards guild?  Its only 3 weeks each way."

That was biggest problem with the DA:O and the entire Mass Effect series.  No sense of urgency.  I like to actually get into the mindset of the hero and try to make choices my character would actually make in those situations.  A lot of squadmates died in ME2 because with Collector attacks becoming more common I just didn't see the necessity for traveling to the other side of the Galaxy for Tali's or Jacob's loyalty mission.

In my first playthrough of DA:O I only did side missions if they were near where I was going anyway, because it would break immersion to me if I did it another way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Physical or mental it's still player skill , not character. One is no more correct than the other.

Even mental skills should be determined by the character's stats.  How persuasive a character is should be stat-driven.

The player only controls what kinds of decisions the character makes.  How does he make value judgments?  There's no skill associated with that.

Having player skill influence the character's performance violates the coherence of the game's setting.  There is no in-setting reason why Shepard's marksmanship should get worse based on something that happened to the player in a completely separate universe.  If the player suffers a hand injury, Shepard shouldn't become less assurate as a result.

This is why I loved the ability to aim while paused in ME.  Outside of Jade Empire, BioWare hasn't done action combat in any of its roleplaying games.

[Mike_Neel]

Sweet Dirge wrote...

That was biggest problem with the DA:O and the entire Mass Effect series.  No sense of urgency.  I like to actually get into the mindset of the hero and try to make choices my character would actually make in those situations.  A lot of squadmates died in ME2 because with Collector attacks becoming more common I just didn't see the necessity for traveling to the other side of the Galaxy for Tali's or Jacob's loyalty mission.

In my first playthrough of DA:O I only did side missions if they were near where I was going anyway, because it would break immersion to me if I did it another way.

I get where you're coming from but the completionist in me hates urgency. I like being able to play the game at my own pace without a feeling of being rushed. Like the timed ME3 side quests that would expire without warning if you progressed to far. I understand how that could be well received by others however, especially in story immersion where you have a sense of the proverbial blade closing in on your neck, but it's not a sentiment I share. 

I guess it's a personal fault of mine but I always feel like I failed or I didn't win if I let someone die or I don't do every quest that affects the story positively in some way, such as getting more points for galactic readiness because I didn't have enough time to go find some enhanced biotic amplifiers for some nameless Asari. 

[Realmzmaster]

Mike_Neel wrote...

Sweet Dirge wrote...

That was biggest problem with the DA:O and the entire Mass Effect series.  No sense of urgency.  I like to actually get into the mindset of the hero and try to make choices my character would actually make in those situations.  A lot of squadmates died in ME2 because with Collector attacks becoming more common I just didn't see the necessity for traveling to the other side of the Galaxy for Tali's or Jacob's loyalty mission.

In my first playthrough of DA:O I only did side missions if they were near where I was going anyway, because it would break immersion to me if I did it another way.

I get where you're coming from but the completionist in me hates urgency. I like being able to play the game at my own pace without a feeling of being rushed. Like the timed ME3 side quests that would expire without warning if you progressed to far. I understand how that could be well received by others however, especially in story immersion where you have a sense of the proverbial blade closing in on your neck, but it's not a sentiment I share. 

I guess it's a personal fault of mine but I always feel like I failed or I didn't win if I let someone die or I don't do every quest that affects the story positively in some way, such as getting more points for galactic readiness because I didn't have enough time to go find some enhanced biotic amplifiers for some nameless Asari. 

\\

I understand being a completionist in regards to quests, but in certain quests the lack of urgency is keenly noticeable. For example the Connor situation. The PC could choose to go to the Circle and nothing bad was going to happen at Redcliffe. In fact you could perform multiple quests with no consequence. The situation would still be the same when you got back. So if you are a competionist that is ideal, but for some it breaks immersion and reasonableness. A demon has been using a village as its play toy and nothing happens while the PC goes off to the Circle.

[Vormaerin]

Mike_Neel wrote...

I get where you're coming from but the completionist in me hates urgency. I like being able to play the game at my own pace without a feeling of being rushed.

Its not a requirement that you feel rushed.  What's being asked for is quests that fit with the situation.   Don't present players with lollygagging quests in a situation where dilly-dallying is not appropriate.

Have some consequences if you do flake off.   If you start the redcliffe battle and then wander away or you finish another quest line without finishing Lothering, stuff happens.   More of that. 

Less of  "The darkspawn are burning the South March as we speak, but I was wondering if you could take a month to deliver some notes to my errant apprentices?"     Quests like that should be used in stories like Hawke's that are not "urgent".

[AkiKishi]

Vormaerin wrote...

Mike_Neel wrote...

I get where you're coming from but the completionist in me hates urgency. I like being able to play the game at my own pace without a feeling of being rushed.

Its not a requirement that you feel rushed.  What's being asked for is quests that fit with the situation.   Don't present players with lollygagging quests in a situation where dilly-dallying is not appropriate.

Have some consequences if you do flake off.   If you start the redcliffe battle and then wander away or you finish another quest line without finishing Lothering, stuff happens.   More of that. 

Less of  "The darkspawn are burning the South March as we speak, but I was wondering if you could take a month to deliver some notes to my errant apprentices?"     Quests like that should be used in stories like Hawke's that are not "urgent".

I don't think it's quite as bad as you make out. Most quests being either local or something you can do on the way to something else. Traveling is where the real time is taken up and since that is not tracked you can travel up and down the map as much as you like without any impact at all.

[Sweet Dirge]

Mike_Neel wrote...

I get where you're coming from but the completionist in me hates urgency. I like being able to play the game at my own pace without a feeling of being rushed. Like the timed ME3 side quests that would expire without warning if you progressed to far. I understand how that could be well received by others however, especially in story immersion where you have a sense of the proverbial blade closing in on your neck, but it's not a sentiment I share.

I guess it's a personal fault of mine but I always feel like I failed or I didn't win if I let someone die or I don't do every quest that affects the story positively in some way, such as getting more points for galactic readiness because I didn't have enough time to go find some enhanced biotic amplifiers for some nameless Asari.

Kind of my point.  In ME3 the quest for finding the human ambassador's son is only able to be done after starting the mission set on Tuchunka.  In order to finish the quest you must leave the planet, fly off to another sytsem, do some fighting, return to the Citadel.  If you stay on Tuchunka and finish all the missions there you lose the ability to finish it next time you return to the Citadel.  But why would Shepard leave in the middle of a prolonged set of missions?

I love sidequests, the more the better.  That's probably the only thing I liked about Dragon Age II; you had all the lack of urgency to do side quests.  If only it had a sense of urgency for main quests, though... but I digress.

I would love to see in Dragon Age III if they rewarded and punished players for lolligagging during imprortant quests.  Or offered choices.  Sidequests related to certain missions that offer rewards at the detrement to the outcome of the quest.

[NKKKK]

Although for all of Dragon Age 2's faults, I still can think of many games that are worse.

Yes, you're right, but the expectation we had from your company turned a stumble into an earthquake.

[ElitePinecone]

NKKKK wrote...

Although for all of Dragon Age 2's faults, I still can think of many games that are worse.

Yes, you're right, but the expectation we had from your company turned a stumble into an earthquake.

That would probably point to a lowering of fans' expectations to more reasonable and realistic ones being just as necessary as an arguably higher quality product on the part of the developers. Some happy medium between soaring expectations and pesky things like a budget of time and money would be ideal. I liked DAII enough - I was frankly amazed that it was so polished for its time in development - but I'm sympathetic to the disappointment some felt given its potential as a sequel to Origins. 

(More explanation of the realities of game development would also help, though modern marketing hardly makes it easy to be anything but bombastic about future projects.)

I mean, what marketing there was for DAII did seem to cause consternation (I'm thinking mostly about the 'appeal to a wider audience line', although the response seemed hyperbolic), and it was never, as far as I know, pointed out officially that the development time of the sequel was so constricted. Perhaps if someone from Bioware had made clear the disparity between Origins' and II's development cycles, the initial comparisons wouldn't have been so biting. 

At the very least, it seems prudent to try and douse unrealistic expectations *before* release with some plain-talking or by just pointing out the realities of game development ("look, don't expect miracles, it's only been in development for [x] months"), because unmet expectations and negative comparisons with Origins comprised a fair chunk of criticism, as far as I saw. In the long-run that can't be good for the series as a whole. 

[Jonathan Seagull]

ElitePinecone wrote...

At the very least, it seems prudent to try and douse unrealistic expectations *before* release with some plain-talking or by just pointing out the realities of game development ("look, don't expect miracles, it's only been in development for [x] months"), because unmet expectations and negative comparisons with Origins comprised a fair chunk of criticism, as far as I saw. In the long-run that can't be good for the series as a whole. 

I think it's somewhat of a no-win situation.  If the developers themselves start saying "Don't expect too much" before a game is even released, that's going to communicate bad things to a lot of people.  Rather than taking it as a genuine cue to be reasonable, they're going to take it as "the game isn't that good."  While I do definitely think that expectations (among other things) can often result in unfair criticism, I'm not sure deflating expectations would have a positive result.  Though I do agree with the idea of maintaining honest and open communication during development, which I think the devs here are making a genuine effort to do.

[Mercedes-Benz]

areuexperienced wrote...

It's been stated repeatedly that BioWare are not doing a Skyrim-esque game. Get over yourself.

They stated a lot of things about Mass Effect 3 which proved to be false. I don't trust anything they say/write anymore.

[Vormaerin]

BobSmith101 wrote...


I don't think it's quite as bad as you make out. Most quests being either local or something you can do on the way to something else. Traveling is where the real time is taken up and since that is not tracked you can travel up and down the map as much as you like without any impact at all.

No, its that bad.   The apostate association, the mercenaries, and the assassin missions all require a lot of travel.  Go find some guy by the Circle, go to Redcliffe, go to the Dalish Forest, go to random spots in the wild.  I can't recall about the thief ones.   Several of the cleric ones have some travel also.

The lyrium smuggling quest involves going from the dwarf town to the Circle and back.  The dwarf girl even says that's three weeks during her separate quest to make that run.

[bzombo]

I think the bottom line in this whole discussion should be to look at DAO's sales and DA2's sales. Next, look at the major differences between the two games and what the major gripes have been. That should help Bioware understand what its core audience is and what it expects. Stop trying to create the next Call of Duty game. DAO was Bioware's game. DA2 was EA's game. Just sayin'.

[bzombo]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Mike_Neel wrote...

Sweet Dirge wrote...

That was biggest problem with the DA:O and the entire Mass Effect series.  No sense of urgency.  I like to actually get into the mindset of the hero and try to make choices my character would actually make in those situations.  A lot of squadmates died in ME2 because with Collector attacks becoming more common I just didn't see the necessity for traveling to the other side of the Galaxy for Tali's or Jacob's loyalty mission.

In my first playthrough of DA:O I only did side missions if they were near where I was going anyway, because it would break immersion to me if I did it another way.

I get where you're coming from but the completionist in me hates urgency. I like being able to play the game at my own pace without a feeling of being rushed. Like the timed ME3 side quests that would expire without warning if you progressed to far. I understand how that could be well received by others however, especially in story immersion where you have a sense of the proverbial blade closing in on your neck, but it's not a sentiment I share. 

I guess it's a personal fault of mine but I always feel like I failed or I didn't win if I let someone die or I don't do every quest that affects the story positively in some way, such as getting more points for galactic readiness because I didn't have enough time to go find some enhanced biotic amplifiers for some nameless Asari. 

I understand being a completionist in regards to quests, but in certain quests the lack of urgency is keenly noticeable. For example the Connor situation. The PC could choose to go to the Circle and nothing bad was going to happen at Redcliffe. In fact you could perform multiple quests with no consequence. The situation would still be the same when you got back. So if you are a competionist that is ideal, but for some it breaks immersion and reasonableness. A demon has been using a village as its play toy and nothing happens while the PC goes off to the Circle.

There's where the role playing comes in. In game, decide that the risks are too great to leave for the circle and return, and that it must be done quickly. You can complete it without leaving.

[Realmzmaster]

bzombo wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Mike_Neel wrote...

Sweet Dirge wrote...

That was biggest problem with the DA:O and the entire Mass Effect series.  No sense of urgency.  I like to actually get into the mindset of the hero and try to make choices my character would actually make in those situations.  A lot of squadmates died in ME2 because with Collector attacks becoming more common I just didn't see the necessity for traveling to the other side of the Galaxy for Tali's or Jacob's loyalty mission.

In my first playthrough of DA:O I only did side missions if they were near where I was going anyway, because it would break immersion to me if I did it another way.

I get where you're coming from but the completionist in me hates urgency. I like being able to play the game at my own pace without a feeling of being rushed. Like the timed ME3 side quests that would expire without warning if you progressed to far. I understand how that could be well received by others however, especially in story immersion where you have a sense of the proverbial blade closing in on your neck, but it's not a sentiment I share. 

I guess it's a personal fault of mine but I always feel like I failed or I didn't win if I let someone die or I don't do every quest that affects the story positively in some way, such as getting more points for galactic readiness because I didn't have enough time to go find some enhanced biotic amplifiers for some nameless Asari. 

I understand being a completionist in regards to quests, but in certain quests the lack of urgency is keenly noticeable. For example the Connor situation. The PC could choose to go to the Circle and nothing bad was going to happen at Redcliffe. In fact you could perform multiple quests with no consequence. The situation would still be the same when you got back. So if you are a competionist that is ideal, but for some it breaks immersion and reasonableness. A demon has been using a village as its play toy and nothing happens while the PC goes off to the Circle.

There's where the role playing comes in. In game, decide that the risks are too great to leave for the circle and return, and that it must be done quickly. You can complete it without leaving.

I also play table top cRPGs and you can bet if a choice like this is presented in a tabletop game the DM would make sure there is a probability that something could go wrong. The probability would be decide by the roll of the dice. The choice would be nothing happens at Redcliffe and the party gets back in time, the demon destroys the village while the party is gone, Tegan and company are forced to kill Connor or Jowan performs the ritual with either good or bad results. DAO has no consequence if you go to the Circle.