45 réponses à ce sujet

[Jerrybnsn]

Wulfram wrote...


edit: Friendship/Rivalry was different from Approval/Disapproval, and an improvement. 

Was setting the companions relationship to follow you no matter how you behaved or interacted with them an approvement?  I thought the Origins consequence system of the Love/Hate relationship was better in a more realistic sense.

[Realmzmaster]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Wulfram wrote...


edit: Friendship/Rivalry was different from Approval/Disapproval, and an improvement. 

Was setting the companions relationship to follow you no matter how you behaved or interacted with them an approvement?  I thought the Origins consequence system of the Love/Hate relationship was better in a more realistic sense.

So what you are saying is a rival cannot be a friend? You are saying that a person cannot disagree with a position and remain a friend or have  respect? A person can not disapprove of some actions a person takes but still follow because the person is a good leader?

[coles4971]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Differences in battle:
.................- Added closing attacks

You mean the cinematic cutscene to a boss battle?  Sometimes this wasn't a good thing if you were dead and someone else killed the boss, but lo' and behold, its Hawke putting the final death blow to the advesary just as it was scripted to!

What they got rid of from Origins was the cool finishing moves on any enemy, not just the bosses.

No, closing attacks as in when Fenris would slide across the ground to close in to where the enemies were then start hitting them.

It looked stupid.

[LobselVith8]

Realmzmaster wrote...

So what you are saying is a rival cannot be a friend? You are saying that a person cannot disagree with a position and remain a friend or have  respect? A person can not disapprove of some actions a person takes but still follow because the person is a good leader?

If they are ideologically opposed, I can see the problem. I don't see a pro-mage character realistically helping a pro-templar character if the goal goes against their principals and ideals (i.e. what to do about apostates). And vice versa.

[Fast Jimmy]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
snip

So, you name off over a dozen different changes to the core gameplay and then say 'not that big of a change'?

Yes DA2 takes place in Theras, has levels, combat and dialogue. By that same argument, you could say God of War would be a similar game if it took place in Ferelden instead of Olympus. 

Also, combat was not just 'faster animations', it was enemies scaled Ina completely different manner to give the same challenge through out the game but with just more inflated HP totals, it allowed for dodging of attacks by simply moving out of the way (a more arcade option), the use of wave combat in a way that made party placement a moot point and an overall combat experience of running around the area the whole time, either kiting while waiting for cool downs or chasing down enemies who were chasing other companions or running away. 

Im not even going to touch the fact that non-combat skills are completely removed, or that the narrative and dialogue changes deliver a strongly different story-telling feel in a game genre that is hailed as being primarily about story. So yes, the game has features that are the same... and so does every video game action RPG out there. It doesn't change the fact that it was too much of a change and too shoddy of an implementation of said change, to boot. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:19 .

[Fast Jimmy]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

So what you are saying is a rival cannot be a friend? You are saying that a person cannot disagree with a position and remain a friend or have  respect? A person can not disapprove of some actions a person takes but still follow because the person is a good leader?

If they are ideologically opposed, I can see the problem. I don't see a pro-mage character realistically helping a pro-templar character if the goal goes against their principals and ideals (i.e. what to do about apostates). And vice versa.

You can be friends with a rival, absolutely. 

But to expect them to accompany you in activities that directly violate the very source of contention in your friendship? No, that's not realistic. 

I can be friends with someone of an opposite political party. But I would not expect them to come with me and help set up a protest or rally for my political party, that would be an insult to them. So doing a mission for Meredith while Anders is in my party does not make any sort of sense. 

[Wulfram]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Was setting the companions relationship to follow you no matter how you behaved or interacted with them an approvement?  I thought the Origins consequence system of the Love/Hate relationship was better in a more realistic sense.

Well, ideally there might have been both.  And the absence of a way of showing actual dislike was a bit of a problem.

But fundamentally I found a "disagree but still respect or like" added more to the game than a straight "I don't like you"

[AstraDrakkar]

Cultist wrote...

Command and Conquer franchise. A decade-old RTS series with huge fanbase. C&C:Tiberian Dawn announced. Key features - no more base building no more "traditional" RTS mechanic. Make way for innovation! Community
outrages, pleading EA to stick with the "traditional" playstyle. Official response followed - fans and community can't understand the great idea, the new horizons. Don't stand on the way of innovation.Release time. Biggest disaster that finished the franchise, even bigger than Duke Nukem Forever. C&C degraded to the point where the only sequel in production is a flash-game for social networks. Starcraft 2, on the other hand, remained as a king of RTS by promoting "traditional" gameplay.
Master of Orion 3 - same story, "innovations" turned disastrous and killed the franchise.
Heroes of Might and Magic - too numerous no mention - fails when innovaions implemented, success when "traditional" gameplay got refined.
Civilization V - completely reworked mechanics, combat system and oversimplified mechanics. Complete disaster, depleted playerbase, even after expansion. 
See the pattern? Same stories can be repeated forever, yet...
Deus Ex: HR - developers repeated their previous game success by refining Deus Ex 2 and avoiding radical changes. Result - huge financial success.
Portal 2, Dead Space 2, New Vegas, Starcraft 2, Skyrim. All fared perfectly. And of course - Dragon Age: Origins, successing BG2.
The point of this is not to forbid or prevent innovation, but DO NOT FIX WHAT IS NOT BROKEN!
Refine it, remove worst aspects, empathise the best. And players will be happy. They'll buy and praise the game.

Hmm, This subject is a double edged sword. On one hand innovation can be a good thing, because without it we would have never have been able to play the DA games we already have. We would still be playing "Pong" and "Asteroids"  without innovation. On the other hand I can understand that applying new ideas to a game can, and does often end up as a failure. Anytime a game company applies a new concept to a game they are taking a gamble. I suppose in the gaming industry, that goes with the territory.

[Jerrybnsn]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Wulfram wrote...


edit: Friendship/Rivalry was different from Approval/Disapproval, and an improvement. 

Was setting the companions relationship to follow you no matter how you behaved or interacted with them an approvement? 

So what you are saying is a rival cannot be a friend? You are saying that a person cannot disagree with a position and remain a friend or have  respect?

Those are called sychophants, not friends.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

So what you are saying is a rival cannot be a friend? You are saying that a person cannot disagree with a position and remain a friend or have  respect? A person can not disapprove of some actions a person takes but still follow because the person is a good leader?

If they are ideologically opposed, I can see the problem. I don't see a pro-mage character realistically helping a pro-templar character if the goal goes against their principals and ideals (i.e. what to do about apostates). And vice versa.

You can be friends with a rival, absolutely. 

But to expect them to accompany you in activities that directly violate the very source of contention in your friendship? No, that's not realistic. 

I can be friends with someone of an opposite political party. But I would not expect them to come with me and help set up a protest or rally for my political party, that would be an insult to them. So doing a mission for Meredith while Anders is in my party does not make any sort of sense. 

You have a point but Anders would help a  character capture blood mages (apostates or not)(which is one of the quests Meredith asks Hawke to undertake). Merrill would not. Blood mages would cast all mages in a bad light and could be a source of trouble for other mages that do not resort to that type of magic. So common ground could be found.
No system is going to accurately represent naunces in relationships.  A friend can disagree with another firend and still remain friends. The approval/disapproval system does not take that into consideration. 
I think the writers should have made Anders, Aveline and Sebastian sit out certain quests, but then others would state that Bioware is taking away control over who can and cannot be in the party. The writers would have to write a scene where Anders or whoever explains his/her refusal to accompany Hawke.

The problem with the Friendship/rivalry system is that you cannot make an enemy of a companion to the point the companion would leave or attack the PC. 

So each system has its shortcomings.

[Atakuma]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Wulfram wrote...


edit: Friendship/Rivalry was different from Approval/Disapproval, and an improvement. 

Was setting the companions relationship to follow you no matter how you behaved or interacted with them an approvement? 

So what you are saying is a rival cannot be a friend? You are saying that a person cannot disagree with a position and remain a friend or have  respect?

Those are called sychophants, not friends.

You need to have a look at a dictionary, because that is not what a sychophant is.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

You have a point but Anders would help a  character capture blood mages (apostates or not)(which is one of the quests Meredith asks Hawke to undertake). Merrill would not. Blood mages would cast all mages in a bad light and could be a source of trouble for other mages that do not resort to that type of magic. So common ground could be found.
No system is going to accurately represent naunces in relationships.  A friend can disagree with another firend and still remain friends. The approval/disapproval system does not take that into consideration. 
I think the writers should have made Anders, Aveline and Sebastian sit out certain quests, but then others would state that Bioware is taking away control over who can and cannot be in the party. The writers would have to write a scene where Anders or whoever explains his/her refusal to accompany Hawke.

The problem with the Friendship/rivalry system is that you cannot make an enemy of a companion to the point the companion would leave or attack the PC. 

So each system has its shortcomings.

Agreed, agreed.

My mind can't help but seem to scream out that the system that works like where you antagonize people and it makes them leave you is a more realistic system than the one where you can make enemies of every single of your life-long friends and have them still lay their life down for you. Where being constantly mean to a companion gets you more loyalty than being occassionally nice, occassionally mean. 

But I agree it is much harder to write a story where any given companion could be gone, missing or dead, so there's that aspect as well. I'd rather have deeper interactions with my companions than being able to exile or murder knife them at will.

Then again, I'd say the companion interaction in DA2 was more limited than DA:O. You can label that as a design change or a result of not enough polish (like so many of the hotly contested features of DA2), but either way it has come up as something the Bioware team will address in The Next Big Thing.

[Jerrybnsn]

Atakuma wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Wulfram wrote...


edit: Friendship/Rivalry was different from Approval/Disapproval, and an improvement. 

Was setting the companions relationship to follow you no matter how you behaved or interacted with them an approvement? 

So what you are saying is a rival cannot be a friend? You are saying that a person cannot disagree with a position and remain a friend or have  respect?

Those are called sychophants, not friends.

You need to have a look at a dictionary, because that is not what a sychophant is.

People that will follow you no matter how crappy you treat them?  I think that the sycophant is a good description for those type of companions.

sycophant-- A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people. [Latin scophanta,.

Botticelli's illustration of Dante's Inferno shows insincere flatterers grovelling in excrement in the second pit of the eighth circle

[Arthur Cousland]

I think Sebastian sitting out in the fade had as much to do with him being a dlc character than anything else, but I'd like to see more examples of companions refusing to go along during quests that oppose their beliefs.

[Cultist]

[quote]KiddDaBeauty wrote...
It's actually quite true. The difference is mostly in "feel" from many small parts adding up to a greater whole - the systems themselves are almost exactly the same.

Differences in battle:
- Glancing blows instead of misses
- Faster walk speed
- Faster attack animations
- Added closing attacks[/quote]
Entire concept of tactical planning was cut out. Removed entirely option to prepare your attack as eneies came in waves only.

[quote]Differences in level up:
- Lists became trees
- Powers got upgrades
- Skills were cut[/quote]
Level scaling. Enemies leveled up with you, so no matter what level is - you still have to grind through each and every enemy in the same way as before. Thus, attributes does not matter.

[quote]Differences in dialogue:
- Dialogue wheel instead of dialogue list
- Voiced protagonist instead of silent[/quote]
Generally only 3 options in a dialogue. "Yes", "no" and "investigate". General dumbing down of dialogue and conversation concept. Severe reduction of possible choices.

[quote]Differences in party management:
- Helm/Torso/Legs parts of the inventory locked for companions[/quote]
In attempt to remove flaws of Origin crafting system, DA2 eliminated crafting entirely. Party members are shallow and forgettable, without own personality. They will accept your every decision, and eveb most offensive acts from hawke will not turn them on you.

[quote]Differences in world map travel:
- Day/night cycle
- Uh... and the image in the background is of a city instead of a landscape? This is the exact same[quote]
Repetitive areas, already been said a thousand times. kirkwall does not change a bit in 10 years.

[Kidd]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So, you name off over a dozen different changes to the core gameplay and then say 'not that big of a change'?

To me it's not that big of a change, no. The heart of the game play is still there. What ends up happening though is because of several small changes, you tend to approach the game in a very different manner. You don't have to do that though, but yes it comes pretty naturally. I approach it differently as well, as much as I like to say DA2 was not that different from DAO.

Cultist wrote...

Level scaling. Enemies leveled up with you, so no matter what level is - you still have to grind through each and every enemy in the same way as before. Thus, attributes does not matter.

Enemies scaled with you in DAO too, did they not? It's not like you were stomped hard if you went for the Urn as soon as you could, yet if there was no level scaling in effect, it really should have. There's a good ~10 level difference of a party that decides to take the Urn quest last and the one that goes for it right after Redcliffe.

Generally only 3 options in a dialogue. "Yes", "no" and "investigate". General dumbing down of dialogue and conversation concept. Severe reduction of possible choices.

I honestly don't see how we have less dialogue options. Usually there's 4-5 options on the DAO list, where ~3 forward the dialogue and ~2 are questions which return you back to the same list (investigate options). Showing us which are investigate options and which bring the script further along is a good thing, methinks. Of course, I will readily admit the three tone system became pretty formulaic - in DAO the dialogue isn't written to formula like that, which is its strength.

(note, you can write like that with a dialogue wheel, the wheel in no way makes that impossible, nor does a list ward you against it - just a disclaimer for DA3)

Party members are shallow and forgettable, without own personality. They will accept your every decision, and eveb most offensive acts from hawke will not turn them on you.

I agree they should be able to say No more. Friendship/rivalry is a great idea in theory to me, and at times it is done incredibly well, but there's also parts that feel weird indeed. Forgettable? I certainly didn't feel as much.

Repetitive areas, already been said a thousand times. kirkwall does not change a bit in 10 years.

These things are unrelated to world map travel. And yes, the staticness of Kirkwall is a massive missed opportunity. Placing the entire game in a single city over a seven year period is one of those many things DA2 experimented with that I think are incredibly cool ideas yet pulled off pretty badly. 

[jillabender]

KiddDaBeauty wrote…

Enemies scaled with you in DAO too, did they not? It's not like you were stomped hard if you went for the Urn as soon as you could, yet if there was no level scaling in effect, it really should have. There's a good ~10 level difference of a party that decides to take the Urn quest last and the one that goes for it right after Redcliffe.

Actually, enemies in DA:O are scaled at least partly by quest area, so it's definitely possible to get annihilated in the Deep Roads, for example, if your party heads there too soon. I believe there's a page on the Dragon Age Wiki that explains the scaling by quest area.

Modifié par jillabender, 09 juillet 2012 - 11:03 .

[Cultist]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
I honestly don't see how we have less dialogue options. Usually there's 4-5 options on the DAO list, where ~3 forward the dialogue and ~2 are questions which return you back to the same list (investigate options). Showing us which are investigate options and which bring the script further along is a good thing, methinks. Of course, I will readily admit the three tone system became pretty formulaic - in DAO the dialogue isn't written to formula like that, which is its strength.

(note, you can write like that with a dialogue wheel, the wheel in no way makes that impossible, nor does a list ward you against it - just a disclaimer for DA3)

The entire dialogue system was more complex in DAO. DA2 gave us 3 way to say "Yes". There were no complex conversation, that lasted more  than 3-4 "dialogue hubs". Yes, DAO got save investiagion-like question, but in DA2 you knew that not a single question in Investigate branch will ever lead to anything other than just an information. It cannot lead you to quests. The general purpose of the dialogues in DA2 is to be prelude to battle.

I agree they should be able to say No more. Friendship/rivalry is a great idea in theory to me, and at times it is done incredibly well, but there's also parts that feel weird indeed. Forgettable? I certainly didn't feel as much.

Forgettable may be subjective and just my impression, but Friendship\\Rivalry system resulted in nothing actually - both could be romanced, both will stay with you at the end. It's like you tell Wynne that you will turn all mages into abominations, and use Blood Magic on children and she'll tell you "Okaaaay, I don't like it but will help you.". Or the same when you desecrate ashes right in from of Leliana and she'll reply "I hate you for desecrting remains of our most venerated saint but gladly will help you"

These things are unrelated to world map travel. And yes, the staticness of Kirkwall is a massive missed opportunity. Placing the entire game in a single city over a seven year period is one of those many things DA2 experimented with that I think are incredibly cool ideas yet pulled off pretty badly.

Removed travel. Removed travel events - except for one with Fenris when you are woth him go to dalish.

[Kidd]

jillabender wrote...

Actually, enemies in DA:O are scaled at least partly by quest area, so it's definitely possible to get annihilated in the Deep Roads, for example, if your party heads there too soon. I believe there's a page on the Dragon Age Wiki that explains the scaling by quest area.

Thank you! I found some good reading in there! ^^ This helps the world feel more alive, truly. It also somewhat makes the game more linear... difficult tradeoff =) Personally I like no level scaling at all so I just got more respect for DAO.

[David Gaider]

Suggest using one of the existing threads to complain in-- which address a specific feature-- as opposed to yet another general complaint one.