304 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr Fixit]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

The hope is that bigger sales means more money, more money means bigger budgets and bigger budgets means better voicework, more time for the cinematics, and more reward for the talent that makes the games.  Plus, spin off games in the franchise!   All good stuff.

Sure. I only pointed out that a bigger audience doesn't by itself guarantee a better game. Can it be a good thing? Well, of course. More money and all that sweet stuff. But it can't be a primary concern unless you want to become a D&D bard: jack of all trades, master of none.

Pick your focus and do your damndest to deliver.

[Pasquale1234]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
DA2 was a much better game for me and I think it has a much better chance of drawing my FPS friends than DAO ever would have.

But it was a much worse game for BioWare.  Even now, DAO is selling at a higher price than DA2.

It's entirely understandable and desirable for a business to want to attract new customers - but at what cost?  If you're shedding former customers at an equal or higher rate than you're gaining new customers, those business decisions become untenable pretty quickly.  And when the features you're adding to attract the new customers are much more expensive to build than the features they replaced, you're only compounding the problem.

Sales and profit attributed to a single product are but a short term measure of the overall health of a franchise.  BioWare also has some PR hurdles to overcome in their next releases.  In the minds of many consumers, seeing BioWare on the label has moved from instant purchase to wait and see, research, and read reviews.  The shift in customer perception could have some significant financial impacts over the longer term.

[Orc Town Grot]

The first post in this topic is the definition of trolling: A spurious claim, with little-no supporting arguments, while seeking to provoke emotional responses. Citing comparative completion rates (42% against 36%) as PROOF that DA2 was the 'better' or 'better loved' game FAILS. The poster should ask Bioware which game was more satisfactory in terms of pleasing, getting and holding fans/customers. The key point is simply that Origins has around 3 TIMES more content than DA2, over 100 hours to be precise, compared to arround 36. Thus the 36% completion rate for Origins represents somewhere OVER TWICE the number of gaming hours. By that measure (and it can be done statistically, by Bioware which records this information). Speculate as much as you like, but Bioware already knows precisely how many hours each player played, how many replays, what character types and everything else. EVERYTHING. They went on to support the game and its continuing player base with how many...10????? DLCs including the massive Awakening Expansion. DLC was produced more than 2 years after the game was published. DA2 got 5 DLCs, 2 of which as a clump of items represent zeros really.  Replays and demand for DLC was OBVIOUSLY higher for Origins. As another measure of popularity we could do statistical analysis of metacritic user (and critic) reviews, or count out every single comment in every single forum thread on the topic to find further PROOFS (if we need them) about which game was played more relatively or in total, which made more money, and which satisfied a higher number of customers. The thread author has a right to his opinion and his preference. I concede that some gamers may prefer a 30 hour adventure to a 100 hour grind. Origins was far from perfect and must be totally boring to a lot of people. So it goes. It's gratifying that in rushing, reducing, limiting, and 'dumbing down' the game they did succeed in pleasing some demographics. But despite it all, the STATS prove that Origins was more popular, more played more enjoyed and more respected. Most of the hatred for DA2 was a backlash against  what the franchise lost. Ironically, neither the flawed (and boring ) Origins, or its LESS POPULAR child DA2 point the way to future success with DA3. The franchise is stuck in a swamp of bad design decisions accumulated from BIG design mistakes in Origins, that were NOT fixed in DA2. A $300 million design budget for SWTOR was doomed by fatal game design flaws. Mass Effect 3 was a brave effort but finally FAILED to end that franchise in a way that builds the brand.  In all these cases there is no evidence of the leadership vision or savy that COULD save DA3. I can and have warned them at length what is needed, and will elaborate again if anyone out there doesn't already understand it. The answer is NOT in Origins. Not Neverwinter Nights, not WOW. It is in Baldur's Gate (1 + 2 combined)  however. That's where they need to contemplate to save this franchise. Orctowngrot

[MerinTB]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
I don't know many people on this forum that plans on preordering DAIII or even buying it in the first six months of its release.  And that probably because the same team that designed DA2 and dumped on Origins when their game was released is making DAIII.  And with very, very little info about the upcoming third game in the series, nothing has been shown or said that they would make a game like Origins.


So there isn't much hope or faith for DAIII.

Yupyup.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I prefer that the game attract gamers from all walks of life. The more copies sold the more likely I will see future installments. If it attracts Sylyvius the mad's rpg acquaintances and interests RinpocheSchnozberry's FPS friends enough to try a crpg I am all for it.

If it draws a larger audience that is always good for a business. If the larger audience likes the game that is good for long-term sustainability of the franchise because they become part of the important core players.

I, like you, cannot wait for gaming to hvae just one homogenized genre in 5 years time. It will be glorious. Just imagine! Every game being...wait for it... EXACTLY THE SAME!!

**** YEAH!!!! 

[Emzamination]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Corto81 wrote...


The sad thing is, DA3 is likely gonna blow as well, the voiced protagonist alone means no race selection, less content because how much time and money voicing the protagonist takes, and the returning conversation wheel with the little pictures in case you're too dumb to understand and read through the text in games like BG and DA:O.

...

Yet BW is sticking to the DA2 recipe. The "CoD" recipe.
Utterly amazing.

I don't know many people on this forum that plans on preordering DAIII or even buying it in the first six months of its release.  And that probably because the same team that designed DA2 and dumped on Origins when their game was released is making DAIII.  And with very, very little info about the upcoming third game in the series, nothing has been shown or said that they would make a game like Origins.


So there isn't much hope or faith for DAIII.

I fully plan on pre-order not only because I've loved the series so far but also so I don't have to pay extra for Day 1 dlc

Also you're slightly wrong, IIrc, there are slightly more women on the writing team than men this time around so it's safe to assume the team has been repurposed.

[ggghhhxxxpuf]

I'll never understand this "discrimination" against some type of gamers, be the CoD crowd or console crowd or whatever, plain unfair.

The more the merrier, isn't it?
So much unnecessary drama.

[Emzamination]

ggghhhxxxpuf wrote...

I'll never understand this "discrimination" against some type of gamers, be the CoD crowd or console crowd or whatever, plain unfair.

The more the merrier, isn't it?
So much unnecessary drama.

You do remember the backlash when the ME team tried to make Me3 the new CoD right? The discrimination is sad but mandatory.

[upsettingshorts]

Corto81 wrote...

Apart from faster movement, DA2 was a mess:
- cartoony combat
- enemy waves
- recycled areas
- awful companions (all of them one-dimensonal, most of them emo, dumb or naive, none of them nearly as deep or likeable or polarizing as someone like Leliana or Alistair or Morrigan)
- ridiculous story twists... I mean, some of it's worse than Diablo 3... And that's saying a LOT
- choices didn't matter at ALL
- no exploration
- "MMO" quests... nothing that will last more than 15 minutes, in case your casual CoD player can't manage the length it took to do something in BG or DA:O
- poor companion customization
- (to most) shallow and unlikeable main protagonist, and to me, it never felt mine, unlike the warden, Hawke is BW's toon...
- no race to choose from
- etc etc

See what I mean about DA3 crystalizing things and DA2's "we had no choice" compromises being lumped in with deliberate design philosophy decisions?

There's some stuff in here BioWare changed deliberately, with pros and cons (like companion customization).  There's some stuff in here that's entirely your-mileage-may-vary (such as the companions' writing), there's some stuff in here I'll argue till I'm blue in the face that Corto81 has completely wrong (stuff worth arguing about), and there's stuff in here that BioWare had to do to get the game onto shelves and for no other reason (enemy waves, recycled areas).

Just to demonstrate what I mean further:

• Companion customization being reduced to null was done to promote unique looks for each character.  That DA3 is expanding upon this premise by reintroducing some customization will, I think, be an improvement.  But it's something they wanted to do and there's something to be gained from it.  Something plenty of folks don't care about per se, but that's not the point.
• I don't understand how any observant, critically thinking person can say that DA2's characters are suddenly more shallow or less likable than any in BioWare's history.  Personally I view this as a presentation problem.  You had to get to know them differently, and couldn't interrogate them at will and at length any time you wanted.  BioWare's writers have conceded that front-loading the dialogue more might have fixed this.  I'm guessing this is also why Carth is considered to have been "whiny" and a guy who "whines" near constantly about dead Duncan (even having to be reminded of whatever personal tragedy went down in your origin) is never criticized for it.  Whereas DA2 characters are constantly asking Hawke how much being forced out of Ferelden meant to them... hmm.....
• The whole of "your choices didn't matter" arguments simply infuriate me.  Almost all of them are inevitably begging for epilogue cards to tell them which plot flags they set.  Give me a break.  The rest define "choices that matter" as stuff like... choosing the King of Orzammar.  A decision you make whose consequences you never get to experience and serve only to ensure that future content won't be able to support both choices without glossing over the difference.  See, there are arguments about some of these things.  Continuing on...
• Whether or not the protagonist is "shallow and unlikable" or even "to most" is up for debate.  Personally I think with protagonists you get what you put into them.  As someone who hates silent protagonists (in games where everyone else is voiced), I never felt like the Warden was much of a character and as such was never attached to what came off to me as a shell.  Others have a hard time getting into the role when there's a voice, and likewise can't get into the character. However, if Hawke was shallow and unlikable, that's your fault.  It's also my fault that the Warden was shallow and emotionless.  We get what we put into them, that we're more able to put something into a protagonist when they're presented a certain way is a different argument.
• Ridiculous story twists?  Such as?  I'm guessing this will be another case of YMMV.  Or giving other games with equally ridiculous story twists a pass because you bought-in to them and not DA2.
• HOWEVER
• THERE IS LITERALLY NO PRO-ARGUMENT FOR RECYCLED AREAS AND WAVES-FALLING-FROM-THE-SKY.  NOBODY LIKED IT.  NOT EVEN BIOWARE.  THERE IS NO ARGUING ABOUT IT.  YET PEOPLE LIST IT AS SOMETHING ANYONE WHO LIKED DA2 MUST HAVE PREFERRED.  NO.  IT'S IN THE GAME BECAUSE IT WAS MADE IN TEN FREAKING MONTHS.

Emzamination wrote...

You do remember the backlash when the ME team tried to make Me3 the new CoD right? The discrimination is sad but mandatory.

You mean how ME3's multiplayer was well-received critically (much to the surprise of critics) and making them a ton of money?  Or how ME3's combat has more depth than ME2's?  About the only sustained criticism I've heard about ME3 is of course everything about the endings, the preponderance of fetch quests, and their having overdone autodialogs.  Nothing about combat, except from people who wanted ME1's back.  

What are you even talking about?   

Not to mention, the CoD-crowd stuff is the worst kind of meme.  Can you even remember the article it's derived from?  Or what the BioWare representative even said?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 août 2012 - 05:19 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Emzamination wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Corto81 wrote...


The sad thing is, DA3 is likely gonna blow as well, the voiced protagonist alone means no race selection, less content because how much time and money voicing the protagonist takes, and the returning conversation wheel with the little pictures in case you're too dumb to understand and read through the text in games like BG and DA:O.

...

Yet BW is sticking to the DA2 recipe. The "CoD" recipe.
Utterly amazing.

I don't know many people on this forum that plans on preordering DAIII or even buying it in the first six months of its release.  And that probably because the same team that designed DA2 and dumped on Origins when their game was released is making DAIII.  And with very, very little info about the upcoming third game in the series, nothing has been shown or said that they would make a game like Origins.


So there isn't much hope or faith for DAIII.

I fully plan on pre-order not only because I've loved the series so far but also so I don't have to pay extra for Day 1 dlc

Also you're slightly wrong, IIrc, there are slightly more women on the writing team than men this time around so it's safe to assume the team has been repurposed.

Actually,  you can't avoid paying for day 1 dlc anymore.  You now have to purchase the $80 special edition for that.  I pre ordered ME3 a year before it came out, and to my surprise when I picked it up,....nothing, nada, nope, zip.  That's what I get for going on a media blackout for a game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

The hope is that bigger sales means more money, more money means bigger budgets and bigger budgets means better voicework, more time for the cinematics, and more reward for the talent that makes the games.  Plus, spin off games in the franchise!   All good stuff.

So far, spending more money on the games has made them worse, not better.  BioWare's older games - which I think are superior - were cheaper to develop.   Spending more hasn't made the games better.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I do not care if you make a good game I care nothing about because I will not be spending my money on it.

You're ignoring opportunity costs.  Only a finite number of games are produced.

Opportunity costs do not matter to me in this regard because I can only play a finite number of games. Since I play from many different genres wargames to rpgs I have games on my shelves that can keep me going for next 20 years or more.
I still replaying  WWII Eastern front battles. I working on the battle of Kursk right now. I will be assuming the role of either Montgomery or Rommel at the battle of Tobruk. I will then plkay the Battle of the Ardennes using the games by HPS and Talonsoft. So even if no games are produce from now on I am good.

[Realmzmaster]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I prefer that the game attract gamers from all walks of life. The more copies sold the more likely I will see future installments. If it attracts Sylyvius the mad's rpg acquaintances and interests RinpocheSchnozberry's FPS friends enough to try a crpg I am all for it.

If it draws a larger audience that is always good for a business. If the larger audience likes the game that is good for long-term sustainability of the franchise because they become part of the important core players.

I, like you, cannot wait for gaming to hvae just one homogenized genre in 5 years time. It will be glorious. Just imagine! Every game being...wait for it... EXACTLY THE SAME!!

**** YEAH!!!! 

What is this sarcasm? Interesting but ineffective. My opinion is my own and I do not have to agree with yours.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 17 août 2012 - 06:23 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts,

In regards to saying that choices don't matter in DA:O, and that what we see on an epilogue slide could never be supported I a future game, I have two comments.

1) Unless Bioware were to remove import flags and decision carry per altogether and choose which choices will be made canon, a stance I stand very strongly for. However, your actual choice has no influence on how this plays out, unless your choice is the one they choose as canon. That being said...

2) ...if Bioware is not going to be able/not wanting to account for every choice variation with large amounts of custom content, then the only way we can see these choices matter is in game, with different dialogue and character/NPC reactions, and endings (carried out best with epilogue slides that can account for a number of different outcomes with minimal work and budget). So, of that's the only way to account for choice, then why belittle it? It's a lot of fun, can lead to a lot of different character and role playing reasons, a lot of interesting story arcs and, of course, replayabilty.

And while I know DA2 is your favorite of the two, the fact that there were not many choices at all that affected anyone outside of how your companions react, this was a big detractor for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Companion customization being reduced to null was done to promote unique looks for each character.  That DA3 is expanding upon this premise by reintroducing some customization will, I think, be an improvement.  But it's something they wanted to do and there's something to be gained from it.  Something plenty of folks don't care about per se, but that's not the point.

I fail to see what was gained from removing character customisation.  Honestly, what did we get out of it?  What did we get that we couldn't have had from sortable character portraits or a tactical camera?  If the point was to make the companions more recognisable on the battlefield, then there were already ways to do that in earlier BioWare games that didn't involve the loss of customisation.

Furthermore, there was certainly nothing gained from mandatory iconic appearances.  If they'd used optional iconic outfits (like Morrigan's) that scaled with the character (like much of DA2's equipment did), then anyone who wanted iconic apperances could have had them without saddling the rest of us with that design.

I posit, then, that the fixed appearance companions were themselves a result of the short development cycle.  There were so many ways BioWare could have achieved similar results at less cost to the players, but they would have taken longer to do.

I don't understand how any observant, critically thinking person can say that DA2's characters are suddenly more shallow or less likable than any in BioWare's history.  Personally I view this as a presentation problem.  You had to get to know them differently, and couldn't interrogate them at will and at length any time you wanted.

Specifically, you had to interrogate them on their schedule, and their schedule wasn't ever made known to Hawke.  You could only ever know when your companions were willing to talk to you by metagaming.

BioWare's writers have conceded that front-loading the dialogue more might have fixed this.  I'm guessing this is also why Carth is considered to have been "whiny" and a guy who "whines" near constantly about dead Duncan (even having to be reminded of whatever personal tragedy went down in your origin) is never criticized for it.

I think the voice actors have something to do with that, as well.  I don't think Rapael Sbarge can ever not sound whiny - he has in everything I've seen him in.  I like him both as an actor and as a voice-actor, but he has a whiny tone of voice.  Steve Valentine, though, always sounds roguish, even when whining.

The whole of "your choices didn't matter" arguments simply infuriate me.  Almost all of them are inevitably begging for epilogue cards to tell them which plot flags they set.  Give me a break. 

People want denouement at the end of their narrative.  They want to know they made a difference.  Is that so surprising?

I hold that choices aren't even allowed in DA2, but that's a different issue.

Whether or not the protagonist is "shallow and unlikable" or even "to most" is up for debate.  Personally I think with protagonists you get what you put into them.  As someone who hates silent protagonists (in games where everyone else is voiced), I never felt like the Warden was much of a character and as such was never attached to what came off to me as a shell.  Others have a hard time getting into the role when there's a voice, and likewise can't get into the character. However, if Hawke was shallow and unlikable, that's your fault.  It's also my fault that the Warden was shallow and emotionless.

 
I don't think Hawke was necessarily shallow.  I think he was unknowable.  His behaviour never made any sense to me, even when I was ostensibly in control of him.  I never knew why he was doing the things he was doing.  I tried to create that myself, only to have the game routinely tell me I was wrong.  But then it never filled in those gaps for me.

Either the game needs to fill in those gaps itself, or it needs to let me do it.  DA2 did neither.

At no point did I know Hawke well enough to know whether he was shallow or likeable.

We get what we put into them, that we're more able to put something into a protagonist when they're presented a certain way is a different argument. 

I still have no idea how to play this game.  I don't understand at all how I'm supposed to make decisions on Hawke's behalf.  I'm still waiting for some instruction.

THERE IS LITERALLY NO PRO-ARGUMENT FOR RECYCLED AREAS AND WAVES-FALLING-FROM-THE-SKY.  NOBODY LIKED IT.  NOT EVEN BIOWARE.  THERE IS NO ARGUING ABOUT IT.

 
I think I could make an argument for recycled areas (not the waves - the waves were dreadful).  They'd need to be better areas, but I think reusing areas is a defensible design choice.

About the only sustained criticism I've heard about ME3 is of course everything about the endings, the preponderance of fetch quests, and their having overdone autodialogs.  Nothing about combat, except from people who wanted ME1's back. 

Because ME1's was better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Opportunity costs do not matter to me in this regard because I can only play a finite number of games.

That's a fair point.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I fail to see what was gained from removing character customisation.  Honestly, what did we get out of it?  What did we get that we couldn't have had from sortable character portraits or a tactical camera?  If the point was to make the companions more recognisable on the battlefield, then there were already ways to do that in earlier BioWare games that didn't involve the loss of customisation.

You have completely missed the point.

This is not the time or place to get into an argument about the value of unique looks for companions.  All that needs to happen is to acknowledge that arguments in favor of it exist.  

That you fall under the people I referred to that saw no value in it is utterly irrelevant to my post.  Unless you're going to deny the existence of anyone seeing value in it, there's no argument to be had here.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

I posit, then, that the fixed appearance companions were themselves a result of the short development cycle.  There were so many ways BioWare could have achieved similar results at less cost to the players, but they would have taken longer to do.

The fact they're mostly keeping it - with some expansion, sure - in Dragon Age 3, if their art blogs on the subject are to be taken seriously, says otherwise.

However if you're arguing that an unlimited development cycle would result in many unique looks, sure.  But by that measure literally anything could be in a game, and it would never come out.  Cost/benefit and whatnot.  BioWare (and posters like myself and others) see value in companions retaining their own looks.  That others do not, again, isn't relevant to the point I'm making.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

Specifically, you had to interrogate them on their schedule, and their schedule wasn't ever made known to Hawke.  You could only ever know when your companions were willing to talk to you by metagaming.

Again, this isn't really the point of my post.  The point of my post was to highlight that all criticisms of Dragon Age 2 get lumped together when they really ought not be.

There are polarizing topics, like VO.  
There are your-milage-may-vary topics, like writing quality.  
There are objectively bad things that nobody liked, not even BioWare, like repeated environments.

That posters like the one I quoted put them all in one big list like anyone who approves of DA2 signs off on all of them equally and without reservation is a prejudicial detriment to discussion.  There's also the frustrating tendency of posters like that to, by doing this, deny that counter-arguments toward any issues raised even exist.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...  

People want denouement at the end of their narrative.  They want to know they made a difference.  Is that so surprising?

I hold that choices aren't even allowed in DA2, but that's a different issue. 

No, it's just not the same thing.  "Choices that matter" is a planned topic for that thread I mentioned the other day where we try to define terms.  At this point it's completely meaningless as every single poster on the BSN has their own idea of what it refers to, myself included.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...   

At no point did I know Hawke well enough to know whether he was shallow or likeable.

Replace Hawke with The Warden and that was my experience in DAO.  And around and around we go.  Again, not the point of my post though.  

Sylvius the Mad wrote...    

I still have no idea how to play this game.  I don't understand at all how I'm supposed to make decisions on Hawke's behalf.  I'm still waiting for some instruction.

For you the first step would be to possess an entirely different outlook on life and human interaction.  For others, there's less involved.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...    

I think I could make an argument for recycled areas (not the waves - the waves were dreadful).  They'd need to be better areas, but I think reusing areas is a defensible design choice.

Mike Laidlaw basically threw up his hands, with regards to the repeated enviroments, and said that they had no other choice aside from scaling back content to match the number of environments they could create.  So in order to retain quest content but deal with the fact they had no time/resources to make additional environments, they stuck them in the same environment.  That was the only benefit.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...   

Because ME1's was better.

Sure, if you hate action combat and put no stock in verisimilitude. 

There are also things about ME1's combat that are objectively worse no matter where you stand subjectively.  For example, shooting a humanoid (or any other) enemy in the foot does the same amount of damage as shooting them in the head.  The AI and enemy varieties are also deficient.  There are things about ME2 and 3 I greatly prefer as well, but I acknowledge that even though many might consider them objective improvements (such as diverse weapon handling characteristics) they're clearly action-combat staples and not everyone appreciates that.  Then there's the overheating vs. thermal clips debate, which is a polarizing subject.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 août 2012 - 07:05 .

[standardpack]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...We're talking about human beings expressing their likes and dislikes.  Logic doesn't come into play. :lol:

... until someone tries to use data to "prove" the validity of their opinion.

Which is the entire premise of this thread.

This sums up quite nicely what I wanted to say. 

And even still it's numbers from ONE survey.  I could argue that Bioware made more money off of DAO then it did from DA2, among many other survey results comparing the two games.  Which numbers would they care about more?  Neither, they take into account ALL data like this to come to a conclusion. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You have completely missed the point.

This is not the time or place to get into an argument about the value of unique looks for companions.  All that needs to happen is to acknowledge that arguments in favor of it exist.  

That you fall under the people I referred to that saw no value in it is utterly irrelevant to my post.  Unless you're going to deny the existence of anyone seeing value in it, there's no argument to be had here.

That's exactly what I'm doing.  Unless someone can point to the actual benefit gained from unique looks, I have no reason to believe they exist.  BioWare's stated benefit was the ease of identifying party members on the battlefield, but, as I've said, since that could have been achieved using pre-existing features their argument doesn't hold water.

The fact they're mostly keeping it - with some expansion, sure - in Dragon Age 3, if their art blogs on the subject are to be taken seriously, says otherwise.

That expansion matters.  That we'll be able to modify the apperance of our companions by equipping armour to them is the very definition of customisation.  What they've described on their art blog is the DAO system with extra resources (so each piece looks different not just on each race/gender combination, but on each character).

I love the system they've proposed for DA3.  If they're not going to bother having us modify each armour piece to fit a new person (a feature that was originally intended in DAO before it was cut), then it makes perfect sense to have each piece morph to suit the wearer.  Again, DAO's armours already did that with different races and genders.

I would describe the DAO and DA3 systems as very similar, while the DA2 system is different in kind.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

Specifically, you had to interrogate them on their schedule, and their schedule wasn't ever made known to Hawke.  You could only ever know when your companions were willing to talk to you by metagaming.

Again, this isn't really the point of my post.  The point of my post was to highlight that all criticisms of Dragon Age 2 get lumped together when they really ought not be.

I was elaborating.

Replace Hawke with The Warden and that was my experience in DAO.  And around and around we go.

Right, and I agree with you that it was your playstyle that made it so.  You even seem to understand what playstyle would work to make the Warden a complete character, but it's not a playstyle in which you're particularly interested.

But I don't understand the playstyle you use that allows the player to know Hawke.  That's the difference.  I seem to explained my position to you, but I don't yet fully understand yours.  I get that you don't want to populate Hawke's mind fully.  I get that you don't want to have the majority of the gameplay take place in your head.  But I don't understand the mechanics of what you actually do.

For you the first step would be to possess an entirely different outlook on life and human interaction.

My outlook is reasoned.  If something is learnable, I should be able to learn it.

Mike Laidlaw basically threw up his hands, with regards to the repeated enviroments, and said that they had no other choice aside from scaling back content to match the number of environments they could create.  So in order to retain quest content but deal with the fact they had no time/resources to make additional environments, they stuck them in the same environment.  That was the only benefit.

That's a significant benefit.

Sure, if you hate action combat and put no stock in verisimilitude.

I do hate action combat.  And ME1's combat, like all RPG combat, is an abstraction.  I fail to see how verisimiltude would add anything to it.

Moreover, the ability to aim while paused, which persisted throughout the ME series, ensured that combat remained an abstract RPG exercise the entire time.

There are also things about ME1's combat that are objectively worse no matter where you stand subjectively.  For example, shooting a humanoid (or any other) enemy in the foot does the same amount of damage as shooting them in the head.

 
That one I will grant.  Your position does seem to assume that the visual display of where the enemy was hit is an accurate representation of the in-game reality, but even without that I can see value is more precise hit resolution.  But also, the ability to aim while paused made shooting things in the head a trivial exercise.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 août 2012 - 12:01 .

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

Upsettingshorts wrote…

For you the first step would be to possess an entirely different outlook on life and human interaction. For others, there's less involved.

But I don't understand the playstyle you use that allows the player to know Hawke. That's the difference. I seem to explained my position to you, but I don't yet fully understand yours. I get that you don't want to populate Hawke's mind fully. I get that you don't want to have the majority of the gameplay take place in your head. But I don't understand the mechanics of what you actually do.

I agree – I'm also genuinely curious about Upsettingshorts' experience of playing Hawke, because I love imagining vivid personalities and outlooks for my Wardens, but I could never figure out a way to play Hawke that really felt satisfying.

Modifié par jillabender, 18 août 2012 - 01:05 .

[Renmiri1]

jillabender wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

Upsettingshorts wrote…

For you the first step would be to possess an entirely different outlook on life and human interaction. For others, there's less involved.

But I don't understand the playstyle you use that allows the player to know Hawke. That's the difference. I seem to explained my position to you, but I don't yet fully understand yours. I get that you don't want to populate Hawke's mind fully. I get that you don't want to have the majority of the gameplay take place in your head. But I don't understand the mechanics of what you actually do.

I agree – I'm also genuinely curious about Upsettingshorts' experience of playing Hawke, because I love imagining vivid personalities and outlooks for my Wardens, but I could never figure out a way to play Hawke that really felt satisfying.

????

Playing Hawke feels natural to me. Well I should say playing Paragon or Sarcastic Hawke feels natural.. Playing the "Direct" Hawke feels very wrong because I disagree with most of what she says.

Just think of Hawke as the inverse Warden. The Warden loses everything he holds dear, twice, and has to take on responsibility for a legendary task, pretty much in the first 2-3 hours of the game. But there is nothing left for the Warden to do. All his friends and family are gone to him/ her. His life as he had known is over. He has no one left to protect but a clueless whinny man child.

Hawke does not lose all her family. He/she loses one sibling and their family's land but life as Hawke knew is not over, there are still another sibling and an elderly mother to care for. In contrast wih the Warden, Hawke is getting BACK to the place he/she grew up, after leaving for adventure. This return is not forced or unavoidable, Hawke choses to return, to protect  his/her loved ones. The Warden has no choice but leave exiled or conscripted. Hawke choses to go back. He / she choses to let the mother drag them to Kirkwall. 

But because of that choice, Hawke has most other choices taken from her/ him. The Warden has nothing to lose when he/she goes to fight the Archdemon. Hawke has a family to care for, that he/she has chosen to return to and save from the Blight, i.e. their loss is unnaceptable for him/ her. Hawke is every bit the skilled warrior / rogue / mage that the Warden is, but he/she can not go fight an Archdemon. Because people depend on him/her. There are no larger than life battles and kings, arls and queens to deal with. Not because Hawke is inferior to the Warden, but because Hawke has opted to saddle himself / herself to fragile non combatant people he/she loves. Instead of saving humanity in Thedas, Hawke has to settle her sights in saving her loved ones in a city. Because he/ she decides that leaving his/ her loved ones at fate's mercy is not acceptable. The Warden doesn't leave anyone behind. But he Warden doesn't have anyone to leave behind. Hawke does. Would the Warden have acted differently if he/she had a family alive needing him / her ? My Warden would. Your Warden ? Being that he/she riskes life and limb to save perfect strangers it is a safe bet that your Warden would be at least very thorn if he/she had to chose between saving Thedas or saving family.

I start putting myself in Hawke's shoes, running away form the impending Darkspawn horde with a fragile non-combatant mother and two younger siblings, having to keep them alive. And your mother insists on going to a Templar infested city on another country! Then all you find there is a weasel of an uncle that isn't worth the smelly clothes he is wearing. Is this that hard to RP ?

If you were in that sittuation, you would need to lower your expectations and standards a bit, to get work where you could. Your uncle wasn't going to provide for you and your family! The Deep Roads expedition is a gamble that can take you out of  Lowtown, but you have to save enough money to afford a place on it. Again very straight forward, plain and simple survival in a bad situation.

While you are saving money to brave the Deep Roads you meet people and you make friends and enemies, which set you up for Act 2. You finally get your mother into a better house but now you lost contact with your sister or brother. You want to leave the templar infested blighted city but your mother won't hear of it and you spent most of your money on the old family house. Besides your friends and allies form Act 1 are all needing all kinds of help so you help them as best you can and try to not get them or yourself killed. Your own wishes matter little because, like most of us in RL, you have friends and family to care for and you have little ability to just go out in the world killing Archdemons and being a world hero.  You have to stay in this city, you can not stop the zealots and the qunari from provoking each other, all you can do is try to shield your loved ones from the brunt of the crisis created by others.

Helping friends brings you into a head with the Qunari and you end up saving the city, finally getting some respect. We get to Act 3, again unable to leave Kirkwall. Your mother is gone but now the long standoff between mages and Templars is getting to a boiling point and you find your friends right in the middle of it all. Can you be like Isabella and just leave ? You will lose all your hard eaerned respect and most of your hard earned money. So you stick around and try to help your friends and LI.

Is this so hard to RP ?

I know saving the world sounds more epic, but sometimes saving a single person can be every bit as heroic.  

Modifié par Renmiri1, 18 août 2012 - 02:48 .

[labargegrrrl]

if DA2 held more interest than DAO, it was in the form of rabid purists who b*tch nonstop in the forums about wanting the same game twice.

[Renmiri1]

labargegrrrl wrote...

if DA2 held more interest than DAO, it was in the form of rabid purists who b*tch nonstop in the forums about wanting the same game twice.

Twice ? DAO is a very good game but it's plot is very cliche and has been done hundreds of times. 

Assembling a team of companions with elves and mages to battle evil.  Frodo and Bilbo Baggins have done it 50 years ago! 

Granted, few of the "LoTR inspired" stories and games have been as good and as creative as DAO, but the fact remains that it is a overused plot. I loved DAO but DA2 is much more creative and nuanced. I'm glad I got to play both.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 18 août 2012 - 02:55 .

[labargegrrrl]

Renmiri1 wrote...

labargegrrrl wrote...

if DA2 held more interest than DAO, it was in the form of rabid purists who b*tch nonstop in the forums about wanting the same game twice.

Twice ? DAO is a very good game but it's plot is very cliche and has been done hundreds of times. 

Assembling a team of companions with elves and mages to battle evil.  Frodo and Bilbo Baggins have done it 50 years ago! 

Granted, few of the "LoTR inspired" stories and games have been as good and as creative as DAO, but the fact remains that it is a overused plot. I loved DAO but DA2 is much more creative and nuanced. I'm glad I got to play both.

yeah, that was kinda part of my point there.   probably should have clarified that.  in purple.

[jillabender]

Renmiri1 wrote…

*snip*

Is this so hard to RP ?

Thanks for sharing that – I enjoyed reading about why you related to Hawke as a character, and I now feel that I have a bit more of an understanding and appreciation of why some people found it natural to play as Hawke.

I don't mind the idea of playing a character who fits your description of Hawke – a reluctant hero who's caught up in turmoil not of his or her making, and whose main concern is looking after his or her loved ones as best he or she can.

I think part of my difficulty with some of the characters I tried to role-play in DA2 was that I had been expecting that Hawke would take a more active role in either helping the mage underground or working for the templars, when in fact, the story seems to have been written for Hawke to be a bystander reluctantly drawn into the conflict.

Perhaps the reason that I didn't find playing Hawke as satisfying as playing the Warden is that the version of Hawke that you described is the only version of Hawke who seems to fit well into the story of DA2, and consequently, I never really felt ownership of the character. I had fun playing Hawke, but I wasn't able to take an active role in defining his or her character.

I love reluctant heroes, but in an RPG, I find it more meaningful to play a character who's reluctant to get involved in a conflict because I imagine him or her that way, not because the game was written for him or her to be that way.

Perhaps it wouldn't be quite accurate to say that I felt I wasn't given enough to go on with regard to Hawke's motivations – it might be more accurate to say that I didn't always feel I was allowed to understand how Hawke was affected by the events of the story. For some reason, I wasn't able to use my imagination to imagine Hawke changing and growing as a character the way I do with my Wardens. Perhaps I just wasn't motivated to use my imagination in that way when playing Hawke because he or she felt more like Bioware's character than mine.

In the end, it probably comes down to the fact that when I play an RPG, I prefer for defining my character to feel like a collaborative effort between me and the writers. I don't mind the idea of playing an RPG that gives me a pre-defined character to play, but if I'm given a pre-defined character, I prefer for that character to be more detailed and fleshed-out than Hawke was. When it comes right down to it, I'm just not motivated to provide important details for a character who's not mine. Of course, there's always the possibility that a game will come along that will change my mind.

Modifié par jillabender, 21 août 2012 - 07:40 .