767 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

ashwind wrote...

I think you will have a love hate relationship regarding Witcher 2 then. You probably hate the combat but will love the RPG elements.

I havent played the Easy mode on Witcher 2 but even on Normal, some find it to be too brutal - especially certain encounters. Mainly because you have to prepare before hand and failing to do so will make things much harder and it has a very poor tutorial - basically doesnt provide enough information to guide 1st time players.

The RPG elements however are just wonderful. I find myself looking for clues and reading journals carefully trying to figure out what is the best course of action. It's journal system is beautiful - god I miss these type of journal... even in Skyrim, the journal system is dumbdown; not streamlined but outright dumbdown 

Easy is very easy. Just get the bomb skill in the alchemy tree and the double reagent (same tree) and you can bomb your way through most of the game. Dark will give Dark Souls a run for its money..

[robertthebard]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Depends on which personality I choose to play. If I am going to play an aggressive Hawke I will pick the aggressive paraphase and be consistent with that choice. If I want to play a aggressive sarcastic Hawke I will make my choice from those two paraphases.

Is "aggressive sarcastic" a complete description of his personality?  What if you want to play an absent-minded Hawke?  Or a devious Hawke?  Or a Hawke who values individual freedom over all else?  How would you select paraphrases then?

And what if your character design is more complex than that?

robertthebard wrote...

There are lots of playstyles that are no longer supported, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, since technology has evolved. 

I don't think that's true.  What other playstyles for computer roleplaying games have stopped being supported?

My complaint here is that this core playstyle - deep roleplaying based on detailed character creation - has always been supported by computer roleplaying games, and then BioWare unceremoniously threw it away.  And worse, they didn't appear to realise they'd done so until we pointed it out.

I'll have to cede that point, since rereading my post, which made perfect sense at the time, it doesn't seem to make much sense now.  However, in the rest of the post that you snipped, I retouched the issue.  Example:

I played all those early first gen shooters, and loved them.  I was much younger, and my twitch gaming was much better then than now, with a couple of decades tacked on to my age since then.  Then my GF brought home BG, and I fell in love with a genre.  I had to have everything BG, I own 2 copies of that game, with it's expansions, and 2 copies of BG 2, and it's expansions, one a collector's edition.  I played PS: T, but couldn't get into it, not sure why now, it's been a long while since I touched it, all the IWD games, got hooked on NWN's, but not to the campaigns, but online, and never looked back.  Five years into playing NWN's, I went off to MMO's for a while, then to Origins.  I picked up other games in the interim, mostly they ended up as boxes for my collection, since I collect game boxes.  Nothing hit me as hard as BG did initially, but as the technology advanced, and games got away from 2d or fake 3d on 2d backdrops, I came to expect more from them.

Now, what this has to do with the topic is simple, for me, if the game is fun, I'm in.  If it can hold my attention for more than the tutorial section, if it has one, like ME/DA series both do, then I can accept that there are flaws in some aspects, and continue to enjoy the game.  Again, I haven't touched ME3, so I cannot comment on it, and as a funny, I didn't play ME until about a month ago.  The reason being, I took it for a shooter, which it kind of is, just not the FPS's that I got into gaming with.  In this light, voiced or non voiced is irrelevent to me, if the game is fun, I'm fine with it.  Now here's the kicker, save the world games are becoming quite cliche to me.  Everybody and their dogs are making them.  I found the "I didn't save the world" aspect of DA 2 compelling, in and of itself, and even if there were no other parts of the game I enjoyed, I could overlook the "where did that come from" moments in dialog.  This comes to playstyles, and I play games to have fun, and to escape from my day to day, which is not fun, considering things in my personal life that I won't go in to.

For me, VO isn't a big deal, because despite a few head scratcher moments in dialog/plot/time lines, I enjoyed the game.  For you, it is a problem, and that's fine too.  However, that doesn't mean that the problems you have are fundamental, but preference.  You prefer to lose yourself in your character, and I understand that, I used to do it in real life, as I played a Bard at Ren Faires for years.  I'm not looking for the same level of immersion as you, but I can still find my immersion, and sometimes it even makes it easier, since I have a hard time reading text on a screen.  A fact that can sometimes compound the head scratching, although, as Allen pointed out, it sometimes had me ROFL at reactions, sometimes my reaction to it.  I always come back to this; It's a game, and if I'm not enjoying it, it becomes part of my collection.  I tried Gorasul once, and never even got out of the first room, it never clicked, just like The Witcher has never clicked with me.  Yet some people believe it's the second coming for games.  I just can't get into it, but I don't believe that the reason is fundamental flaws with the game itself, but simply my preferences in gaming, and it may not even be something that I actively dislike about it, because frankly I can't point to any one thing as say w/out a doubt "I don't like this".  This topic, and others like it show that we have people here that like it, don't like it, and are on the fence, so it can't be a fundamental flaw.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And you could totally play a devious Warden in DAO. Conceal information. Lie. Pursue your own goals while appearing to pursue the goals of others. DAO fully allowed that sort of roleplaying.

I played such a Warden in DA.  She was a mage, and upon learning that Alistair was in line to be king, she set about seducing him, doing "good" things even though she didn't really care about them.  Her eventual goal was to put Alistair on the throne, have Alistair's kid, kill Alistair, become regent over her child, and take control of Fereldan.  She wanted to make others suffer as she felt she had suffered as a mage.

At the end of DA, she was well on her way to success...no idea what will eventually become of her.

I think some players think that their character is only lying if the game is aware that they're lying - that any assertion their character makes without an explicit [LIE] tag attached is necessarily truthful.

Those players are wrong.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And you could totally play a devious Warden in DAO. Conceal information. Lie. Pursue your own goals while appearing to pursue the goals of others. DAO fully allowed that sort of roleplaying.

I played such a Warden in DA.  She was a mage, and upon learning that Alistair was in line to be king, she set about seducing him, doing "good" things even though she didn't really care about them.  Her eventual goal was to put Alistair on the throne, have Alistair's kid, kill Alistair, become regent over her child, and take control of Fereldan.  She wanted to make others suffer as she felt she had suffered as a mage.

At the end of DA, she was well on her way to success...no idea what will eventually become of her.

I think some players think that their character is only lying if the game is aware that they're lying - that any assertion their character makes without an explicit [LIE] tag attached is necessarily truthful.

Those players are wrong.

Agreed. 

As awesome as Planescape Torment was, I did NOT like the fact that it gave me the option to say the same line twice, one as a lie option, one unmarked (insinuating truth). 

I should not ba e to tell the game if my character is lying or not. The game shouldn't be making that decision for my character. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

robertthebard wrote...

-snip-

I don't dispute that a voiced protagonist allows a better gameplay experience for some players.  Nor do I dispute that some playstyles are better served by a voiced protagonist than by a silent protagonist.

Similarly, some games and gamers are better served by turn-based combat over shooter combat.  But if a shooter were released with turn-based combat, that would be a fundamental problem with the game, as it would no longer be a shooter.

It might still be good, but it wouldn't be a shooter, as the shooting mechanic is fundamental to the genre.  Just as roleplaying is in roleplaying games.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm going to put on my RPG snob elitist hat for a moment and say I understand that there are players who preferred the voiced protagonist and the more cinematic nature of DA2.

BUT... given that the original game, the more successful game, the more highly critically acclaimed game, the game that laid the framework for the series did not focus on these features to the detriment of more core RPG features, says that the original vision should take precedence, especially of the new feature and approach hurts so many other aspects. 

I get that people like them... but realize that many fans of the original view how they were done in DA2 as an aberation, an error to be fixed. So you are the interlopers here, for lack of a better word.

A new focus on cinematics is the source of the voiced PC, so they can interact in these cinematics (to the detriment of more dialogue choice and freedom). Having set armor and weapons for companions so they can be rendered in these cutscenes is the culprit for non-customizable gear. A focus on same size PCs for the purpose of a cinematic likely had a role in the removal of race options.

So while your opinions are valid... liking a new feature that actively harms the type of game and experience that was created in the first go-round is not a good enough reason for a feature to stay. If the next Madden game had a mode where I could cast magic fireballs that complely removes the need of understanding play calling and player positioning and Ithought it was a blast, I'd still understand when fans of the original actual football game said it doesn't belong.

To RobertTheBard - I do agree with you on text size being a SERIOUS issue in games. I have better than 20/20 vision and a 43" gaming flat screen... and I'm STILL finding myself straining to read text descriptions in games these days. It's like they are actively trying to discourage it in games, something that is infuriating to me, since I always have subtitles on so I can skip the voice actors.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 juin 2012 - 04:51 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

-snip-

I don't dispute that a voiced protagonist allows a better gameplay experience for some players.  Nor do I dispute that some playstyles are better served by a voiced protagonist than by a silent protagonist.

Similarly, some games and gamers are better served by turn-based combat over shooter combat.  But if a shooter were released with turn-based combat, that would be a fundamental problem with the game, as it would no longer be a shooter.

It might still be good, but it wouldn't be a shooter, as the shooting mechanic is fundamental to the genre.  Just as roleplaying is in roleplaying games.

But that is just it. The VO does not stop me from roleplaying. It may stop you from roleplaying and break your immersion but that is not the case for me. You see it as a fundamental problem I do not because my ability to role play is not affected. My playstyle takes into account the VO.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And you could totally play a devious Warden in DAO. Conceal information. Lie. Pursue your own goals while appearing to pursue the goals of others. DAO fully allowed that sort of roleplaying.

I played such a Warden in DA.  She was a mage, and upon learning that Alistair was in line to be king, she set about seducing him, doing "good" things even though she didn't really care about them.  Her eventual goal was to put Alistair on the throne, have Alistair's kid, kill Alistair, become regent over her child, and take control of Fereldan.  She wanted to make others suffer as she felt she had suffered as a mage.

At the end of DA, she was well on her way to success...no idea what will eventually become of her.

I think some players think that their character is only lying if the game is aware that they're lying - that any assertion their character makes without an explicit [LIE] tag attached is necessarily truthful.

Those players are wrong.

Agreed. 

As awesome as Planescape Torment was, I did NOT like the fact that it gave me the option to say the same line twice, one as a lie option, one unmarked (insinuating truth). 

I should not ba e to tell the game if my character is lying or not. The game shouldn't be making that decision for my character. 

By the same token the lines in DAO that state you can use cunning should not have cunning in front of them. Whether you are using cunning or not should not matter. The same with persuade. The line should look like any other line. If the character should choose that line then a persuasion or cunning  check is made in the background to decide whether it succeeds or fails. 

[Fast Jimmy]

^
Agreed. There should not be a labeled 'win' dialogue option.

Just like there shouldn't be a labeled 'funny' option. Or a labeled 'romance' option. Or a labeled 'going to start a fight' option. But I think DA2 has more violations of labeling the outcome of their lines more than DA:O. Even with the labels, though, what DA2 may have labeled as funny might have been just totally inappropriate. So they give you the clearly defined labeling... and then don't always deliver its clarity. That's a two-fold problem.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
snip
 

I would not use Madden as an example. There are outside forces that determine the rules and regulations given the license with the NFL. If the NFL rules change to allow fireballs it would be in a Madden game.

Also a quite successful parody of American football was created called Blood Bowl which has many standard fantasy aspects in it.

I will put on my elitist crpg snob suit for a moment. DAO broke many of the conventions found in the BG series which is acclaimed as one of the greatest crpgs series. DAO borrowed conventions from the MMO's and gutted some of the points that made earlier crpgs great.  BG went to realtime with pause instead of turn based. Only allowed the PC character to be created (which is different from Wizardry and Might and Magic. It  minics the Ultimas after III. Ultima III allowed for full party creation). DAO continued the trend by adding voice acting and cinematics.

BG was quite successful, but Bioware changed the formula and went in a different direction. DAO gave up the alignment and reputation system going with an approval/disapproval system. Race rarely mattered in BG, NWN and barely matters in DAO.

I will take my snob suit off. I had fun with the changes in DAO and DA2. I had no problem adapting to them. I still carry my hardcore crpgs club card.

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Agreed. 

As awesome as Planescape Torment was, I did NOT like the fact that it gave me the option to say the same line twice, one as a lie option, one unmarked (insinuating truth). 

I should not ba e to tell the game if my character is lying or not. The game shouldn't be making that decision for my character. 

It was a requirement based on the way TNO's alignments would shift.  Sometimes you didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate that you were lying, and all that was behind it was the intent.  One off line of dialogue where the player decides if he wants to be honest or not.

[AkiKishi]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Agreed. 

As awesome as Planescape Torment was, I did NOT like the fact that it gave me the option to say the same line twice, one as a lie option, one unmarked (insinuating truth). 

I should not ba e to tell the game if my character is lying or not. The game shouldn't be making that decision for my character. 

Three reasons.

1. Aligment in AD&D
2. You can get spotted when lying. Which will change how things play out.
3. While it is kind of obvious what is and is not a lie, it makes it very clear to the player so they can't blame failure on lack of infomation.

[Scott Sion]

If it comes at the cost of me not being able to chose my race then no. Skyrim, Legend of Zelda, Fable, Kingdom of Amalur; all great games that have a main character that isn't voiced.

A voiced player character is nice, but if it comes at the price of limited gameplay then its not worth it.

[robertthebard]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

-snip-

I don't dispute that a voiced protagonist allows a better gameplay experience for some players.  Nor do I dispute that some playstyles are better served by a voiced protagonist than by a silent protagonist.

Similarly, some games and gamers are better served by turn-based combat over shooter combat.  But if a shooter were released with turn-based combat, that would be a fundamental problem with the game, as it would no longer be a shooter.

It might still be good, but it wouldn't be a shooter, as the shooting mechanic is fundamental to the genre.  Just as roleplaying is in roleplaying games.

Agreed.

Agreed.

However, as we can see, roleplaying isn't adversely affected for every one, or isn't affected to the degree that turn based would adversely affect shooters, especially MP shooters.  I would never consider, for example, playing a turn based style MMO.

@Jimmy:  The cutscene tools take the party as they are to insert them, to wit:   Leliana's Song.  So unless BioWare has specifically stated that DA's engine won't support that, which considering the linked video I sincerely doubt, appearances weren't set according to that.  In DA2 I couldn't change the armor of any of the companions, but only Varric was stuck with his weapon, and considering there's a story reason behind it, even if he'll never tell us, I don't have a problem with that.  Since the engine will support appearance for the cut scenes, and since PC's were also affected, depending on class, by the inability to equip certain weapons/types of weapons, warriors and bows, I don't think it's a cutscene issue, even though I do agree that no bows for warriors is off.

[Fast Jimmy]

robertthebard wrote...

@Jimmy:  The cutscene tools take the party as they are to insert them, to wit:   Leliana's Song.  So unless BioWare has specifically stated that DA's engine won't support that, which considering the linked video I sincerely doubt, appearances weren't set according to that.  In DA2 I couldn't change the armor of any of the companions, but only Varric was stuck with his weapon, and considering there's a story reason behind it, even if he'll never tell us, I don't have a problem with that.  Since the engine will support appearance for the cut scenes, and since PC's were also affected, depending on class, by the inability to equip certain weapons/types of weapons, warriors and bows, I don't think it's a cutscene issue, even though I do agree that no bows for warriors is off.

True, their tools do allow them to place Companions/PCs/NPCs at will for cutscenes. However, the team has also stated that things like plate armor, which is bulkier by definition, would have the risk of obscuring a character's face in a scene, or a weapon strapped to their back could "phase through" the armor, creating a ridiculous appearance.

In addition, scenes where a character could be much shorter (as in, say a dwarf race) would affect the angle of what direction an NPC's head woudl be facing. After all, would it not look weird that every cutscene had the person staring at the area two feet above your head? Other than re-writing every cutscene animation to account for the fact that your character is shorter, there would be no way to suspend this type of gaff, which would happen often when you allow the type of freedom we see in DA:O. When playing DA:O, where you PC gets shown very rarely in conversation and discussions with NPCs were more the standard "talking head" style of dialogues, this wasn't an issue at all.

Make no mistake, there are other reasons to limit gear, races and such. However, these weren't sufficient reasons in DA:O. The only thing that changed and caused all of these stripping of RPG functionality was an increased focus on the cinematic approach. By attempting to make the series more like a movie, they have done just that - made it feel more like a passive movie experience than an engaging role playing video game.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 juin 2012 - 01:00 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
snip
 

I would not use Madden as an example. There are outside forces that determine the rules and regulations given the license with the NFL. If the NFL rules change to allow fireballs it would be in a Madden game.

Also a quite successful parody of American football was created called Blood Bowl which has many standard fantasy aspects in it.

I will put on my elitist crpg snob suit for a moment. DAO broke many of the conventions found in the BG series which is acclaimed as one of the greatest crpgs series. DAO borrowed conventions from the MMO's and gutted some of the points that made earlier crpgs great.  BG went to realtime with pause instead of turn based. Only allowed the PC character to be created (which is different from Wizardry and Might and Magic. It  minics the Ultimas after III. Ultima III allowed for full party creation). DAO continued the trend by adding voice acting and cinematics.

BG was quite successful, but Bioware changed the formula and went in a different direction. DAO gave up the alignment and reputation system going with an approval/disapproval system. Race rarely mattered in BG, NWN and barely matters in DAO.

I will take my snob suit off. I had fun with the changes in DAO and DA2. I had no problem adapting to them. I still carry my hardcore crpgs club card.

The problem with this logic is that each of these series you mentioned that "broke" the CRPG mold and were still successful STILL stayed true to their overall formula and plan in sequels. BG and BG2 were nealy identical in design, gameplay, philosophy, character interaction, etc. DA:O and DA2 were not. Similar, yes. But picking up DA2 might as well have been picking up a new IP, with a lore and backstory I was already familiar with.

I tend to agree with others that if DA2 had instead been marketed as "Dragon Age: Kirkwall" or "Dragon Age: Rise to Power" and not a true sequel, the expectations would have been different and the backlash less intense. I didn't expect Dragon Age: Legends to mirror DA:O play, because it was marketed as an online, stand alone game that helped explore the lore of Thedas more. That was totally fine - DA2, under a different moniker and spin, could have done the same. Instead, it was pushed as a true sequel to the series, which in design philosophy and feel, it is not.

EDIT: Also - the reason you were allowed to design the stats of your entire party in other games was so that it allowed you to play multiple party set ups. If the game gave you a fighter, a rogue a cleric and a wizard standard, there would be no experimentation with tactics or other party builds. This has been solved long ago with giving you more available companions than can fit in your party, allowing you to have an all-mage party if you so desire (Mage Hawke, Merril, Anders and Bethany... for Act 1 at least). The way the Bioware games unfold, I am not conscripting my party to go an expedition, but rather I meet these characters organically, with classes and the foundations for their stats already laid. And that's something I'm fine with, since we are still allowed to experiment with party builds and level progression with those characters.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 juin 2012 - 01:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

robertthebard wrote...

However, as we can see, roleplaying
isn't adversely affected for every one, or isn't affected to the degree
that turn based would adversely affect shooters, especially MP
shooters.  I would never consider, for example, playing a turn based
style MMO.

You can't just discard the roleplaying defeinition we established earlier in the thread.  I'm referring specifically to
deep character-based roleplaying, where the PC's every decision is based upon the player's design of him.

That used to be permitted.  That's generally how tabletop roleplaying works.  But the voice+paraphrase system has destroyed it.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

True, their tools do allow them to place Companions/PCs/NPCs at will for cutscenes. However, the team has also stated that things like plate armor, which is bulkier by definition, would have the risk of obscuring a character's face in a scene, or a weapon strapped to their back could "phase through" the armor, creating a ridiculous appearance.

This is certainly true.  If you put Fenris in heavy armour, his face routinely clips through his pauldrons in DA2's cutscenes.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 juin 2012 - 04:31 .

[robertthebard]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

However, as we can see, roleplaying
isn't adversely affected for every one, or isn't affected to the degree
that turn based would adversely affect shooters, especially MP
shooters.  I would never consider, for example, playing a turn based
style MMO.

You can't just discard the roleplaying defeinition we established earlier in the thread.  I'm referring specifically to
deep character-based roleplaying, where the PC's every decision is based upon the player's design of him.

That used to be permitted.  That's generally how tabletop roleplaying works.  But the voice+paraphrase system has destroyed it.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

True, their tools do allow them to place Companions/PCs/NPCs at will for cutscenes. However, the team has also stated that things like plate armor, which is bulkier by definition, would have the risk of obscuring a character's face in a scene, or a weapon strapped to their back could "phase through" the armor, creating a ridiculous appearance.

This is certainly true.  If you put Fenris in heavy armour, his face routinely clips through his pauldrons in DA2's cutscenes.

Nor am I trying to discard anything.  I am simply pointing out that, in the example given, there is a major difference between fundamental problems, and problems with preference.  If DA2 played out exactly like the comic at the beginning of ME2, I'd have to concede that you are correct.  It doesn't, though.  I have never claimed that your issue isn't a problem, for you, and others that share your view.  Instead, I have pointed out that, because it's not an issue to some, and less of an issue to others, it's not a fundamental problem.  I can understand the need to have something you see as a major issue be viewed as such by everyone, but it's not.  I certainly had issues with some of the choices, or rather, what some of the choices produced compared to expectations, but I also realize that the expectation was my own.  Thus, the issue with it is also my own, not a fundamental problem with the game.  That others feel the same way says that implementation could have been better, but it still doesn't boil down to a fundamental problem.  Perhaps it's simply being stuck on semantics?

Regarding the clipping issues, even with the equipped gear from a default install, you'll get them.  I was recently running an ME2 game, and was laughing at the bun on the back of FemShep's head clipping through her helmet, in a non-cutscene.  Clipping issues are going to happen until the technology catches up with what people expect.  It was happening in NWN's, and NWN's 2 to equal degrees as it does now.  If it's immersion breaking in DA 2, it should certainly be in DA: O, and it happened there as well.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

snip

DAO and DA2 are similar. If you have the same lore, backstory and basic mechanics it is not a new IP. The IP is the lore, backstory and mechanics. The IP is the world of Thedas. Now if you are talking about the gameplay  that is only part of the IP. The basic mechanics have not changed. The combat speed has increased, but it is on the level of BG and NWN.
DAO was slower than the BG and NWN series in terms of speed. If you are talking about the wave system then I agree with you it was poorly executed. Combat animations to me are just eye candy.

The mathematics behind the attack have already been calculated.  DA2 could have used more refinement and a better Act III. Now if you are talking about the voice acting I simply see PC voice acting as an evolution. It use to be none of characters spoke expect in text, battle cries or a one line ribbing of the PC. Like Jaheria saying We need better leadership when the PC made a bad decision in her eyes. 
DAO had the NPCs all speaking their lines. Now some view the PC speaking as immersion breaking for me it is the other way the lack of the PC speaking is immersion breaking especially when a spoken reply would make sense.

Cinematics can be done in game without cutscenes as far as I am concerned. The same with killing blow animations which are nice eye candy but unnecessary (IMHO)

DAO still broke many of the conventions that lead to better strategic play as did BG. Turn based with initiative  combat is better suited to strategic play than the realtime with pause system used in BG, NWN, DAO or DA2.

DAO prove to be a successful experiment or as Sylvius the Mad would say an acceptable compromise. DA2 did not workout as well for some gamers, for others it did. The experiement proved to be less successful for many. I would rather see Bioware try and fail than never to try something else. Otherwise DAO may never have happened.

[Urazz]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Well yeah, spoken words stick with you longer than written words. It's just how our minds work.

Is this actually true? It's been a looooooong time but I thought studies showed that people had better retention rates when reading something compared to listening to something.

I think it varies on what method is more memorable.  I think in entertainment and more casual topics, spoken words are more memorable.  In more serious aspects like learning something, written words have more impact.

[Sylvius the Mad]

robertthebard wrote...

Regarding the clipping issues, even with the equipped gear from a default install, you'll get them.  I was recently running an ME2 game, and was laughing at the bun on the back of FemShep's head clipping through her helmet, in a non-cutscene.  Clipping issues are going to happen until the technology catches up with what people expect.  It was happening in NWN's, and NWN's 2 to equal degrees as it does now.  If it's immersion breaking in DA 2, it should certainly be in DA: O, and it happened there as well.

The clipping issues were one of the justifications given by BioWare for the fixed companion apperances.  Animating cutscenes is harder and allows the cinematic designers less freedom if they need to allow for all of the possible armour a character might be wearing, as opposed to them knowing exactly what the character will be wearing.

Fenris often cranes his neck left and right in his cutscenes (Something Aveline does not do), and it works fine with his armour, but in heavier armour it's something I'm sure BioWare wouldn't accept in their game (I had no problem with it).

[Leoroc]

I have a bigger issue with the limit to diplomatic/humorous/aggressive. I think in some places it feels shoehorned. It also restricts the writers. I would like to see 6-8 tones even if only 2-4 are an option based on the context.

Murder knife is a tone.

[robertthebard]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Regarding the clipping issues, even with the equipped gear from a default install, you'll get them.  I was recently running an ME2 game, and was laughing at the bun on the back of FemShep's head clipping through her helmet, in a non-cutscene.  Clipping issues are going to happen until the technology catches up with what people expect.  It was happening in NWN's, and NWN's 2 to equal degrees as it does now.  If it's immersion breaking in DA 2, it should certainly be in DA: O, and it happened there as well.

The clipping issues were one of the justifications given by BioWare for the fixed companion apperances.  Animating cutscenes is harder and allows the cinematic designers less freedom if they need to allow for all of the possible armour a character might be wearing, as opposed to them knowing exactly what the character will be wearing.

Fenris often cranes his neck left and right in his cutscenes (Something Aveline does not do), and it works fine with his armour, but in heavier armour it's something I'm sure BioWare wouldn't accept in their game (I had no problem with it).

I never saw that post, possibly one of the disadvantages to coming late to the game, as I did.  However, I could understand that, if they're wanting to go more cinematic, they'd want to reduce the breaks as much as possible.  The new armor system is likely being designed with that in mind, as well as allowing for more follower customization.

[DahliaLynn]

I've been reading through various Dialogue wheel /Voiced  vs. Silent protagonist threads, and generally feel that there is a direct relationship between how one prefers to play their characters to their choice of voiced versus silent. Do you prefer to play as yourself? or as a separate character?

I decided to post a poll to find out how many people feel one way or the other, and find out if this relationship stands true (at least in this forum). 

How do you prefer to play your characters?

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:01 .

[SirGladiator]

I think sometimes things get a bit deceptive, as if its truly 'voice or no voice' which was never the case. In DAO your main character had a voice, said plenty throughout the game, and you even got to pick what kind of voice you wanted. They simply didnt say the actual lines during the cutscenes. That tradeoff enabled you to say exacty what you wanted to say, and have it sound exactly the way you wanted it to sound, in your mind. It was a pretty good deal, DA2 certainly wasn't an improvement over that. If you could pick exactly what you wanted to say, that at least would be an improvement, but the whole 'dialogue wheel' 3 options, good bad or sarcastic, is simply a downgrade over the original, this isnt Mass Effect where something like that can work. You need more than those few options in the DA universe for it to live up to its full potential, and as DA is obviously much more of an RPG, you really do need to know exactly what you're saying before you say it, voiced or otherwise.

As Ive stated before, the best thing they could do, if they're intent on using VO, is to start the game with the character silent, then at the end of the beginning portion of the game, based on the choices you've made up to that point, that determines which of the two or three possible voices your character has. We all know that different VAs do 'good' better, 'bad' better, and 'sarcastic' better, so give us two or three different VAs, so that we arent stuck with a VA that is really good at being bad, but sucks at being good, or vice-versa (I dont know if they want to keep 'sarcastic' as an option, it seems like one could be good or bad and still be sarcastic, I dont think it necessarily needs its own separate option/VA). Having multiple VAs would not only make the voicework superior because it would be playing to each VA's strengths and avoiding his/her weakenesses, but it would also give the players more of a feeling of control, that they are indeed dictating what and how things are being said. Obviously it would take a bit more of an effort to have 4 VAs instead of 2, but I'm pretty certain it could be done without too awful much difficulty.