626 réponses à ce sujet

[Boss Fog]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

...those first two examples are from the diaglogue wheel and the problems it has; gives you a small text example then flies off in a different direction.

And yes, autodialogue was kinda bad. No way near ME3 bad, but it could at least change it so your were friendly to friends even if your overall personally was agressive/direct.

No they have nothing to do with the dialogue wheel.  They have to do with the voiced PC saying something that doesn't match what is listed which is a problem in the writing, not the cosmetic design of the dialogue wheel.  My point is, if the dialogue wheel didn't list the subtext and listed the exact phrase which your PC uses, you people wouldn't be complaining.  I will agree that what is listed needs to be more in sync with what is actually said.

[Heimdall]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

I'm saying that no one was asking for those changes to be made. When they presented Dragon Age 2 and all the changes they made it was under the premise that they were fixing what was wrong with Origins. Watch the "Developer Diary" videos and you'll see what I mean.

I don't see what you mean.  Never did they say that every change that they made was to fix a specific problem with Origins.  They wanted to tell a more personal story: explains the forced human protagonist.  The wanted more responsive, faster combat: explains the change in combat.  If you're implying that their entire reason for the changes can be found within the phrase of "roughing out the edges of Dragon Age: Origins," (which I believe was just used as a metaphor for changing the combat) then I fear you just may just not prefer the type of rhetoric they used.  All of these changes are for better or worse of course, but I'm definitely not on the same page as "everything they did was to fix a non existant problem in Origins."  I think they just simply wanted to do something different.

I agree and I actually think it might have turned out great if they had devoted a much longer dev cycle to it.

[Nomen Mendax]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

...those first two examples are from the diaglogue wheel and the problems it has; gives you a small text example then flies off in a different direction.

And yes, autodialogue was kinda bad. No way near ME3 bad, but it could at least change it so your were friendly to friends even if your overall personally was agressive/direct.

No they have nothing to do with the dialogue wheel.  They have to do with the voiced PC saying something that doesn't match what is listed which is a problem in the writing, not the cosmetic design of the dialogue wheel.  My point is, if the dialogue wheel didn't list the subtext and listed the exact phrase which your PC uses, you people wouldn't be complaining.  I will agree that what is listed needs to be more in sync with what is actually said.

The dialogue wheel doesn't do anything that can't be done with a traditional dialogue tree in a text box, but takes up more screen space (for the wheel) and makes it impractical to provide full text of responses since the text would be on both the left and the right of the wheel.  It's an inferior UI control object to a text box.  It's only advantage is that some people may find it more visually attractive.

[Nomen Mendax]

Terror_K wrote...
...
The main basic issue is this: BioWare basically pulled the rug out from under the feet of DAO fans. You can't spend years setting up this new IP that's supposed to herald the dawn of a new age of proper, epic fantasy RPGs and then immediately pull a 180 on all of that with the first sequel only about a year after the original came out.
...

I agree with pretty much everything you said in your post except the bit I've shown above. I don't like the direction that Bioware took with DA2 and I'm pretty pessimistic about DA3.  I'm all for constructive criticism of DA2, or even just criticsm.  But I don't see the point of railing at Bioware because they aren't making the games that we want (and to be clear, I'm not aiming that last remark at you).

[wsandista]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
...
The main basic issue is this: BioWare basically pulled the rug out from under the feet of DAO fans. You can't spend years setting up this new IP that's supposed to herald the dawn of a new age of proper, epic fantasy RPGs and then immediately pull a 180 on all of that with the first sequel only about a year after the original came out.
...

I agree with pretty much everything you said in your post except the bit I've shown above. I don't like the direction that Bioware took with DA2 and I'm pretty pessimistic about DA3.  I'm all for constructive criticism of DA2, or even just criticsm.  But I don't see the point of railing at Bioware because they aren't making the games that we want (and to be clear, I'm not aiming that last remark at you).

They didn't make the game they wanted. Terror is right, that's what Dragon Age was supposed to be, that's how it was marketed to hardcore gamers. They abandoned their goals.

Well what they've wanted to make has changed. Instead of making RPGs, they seem intent to make cinematic games with sei-fixed PCs who can have secks with their companions and make "big" choices.

I do agree that DA2 is completely different than what DAO was intended to be, and it doesn't look like DA3 will be any better.

At least there is that thing Obsidian is doing.

Modifié par wsandista, 12 septembre 2012 - 03:01 .

[Boss Fog]

Nomen Mendax wrote...
The dialogue wheel doesn't do anything that can't be done with a traditional dialogue tree in a text box, but takes up more screen space (for the wheel) and makes it impractical to provide full text of responses since the text would be on both the left and the right of the wheel.  It's an inferior UI control object to a text box.  It's only advantage is that some people may find it more visually attractive.

Now I've never done a screen by screen comparison, but I always figured the checklist and wheel both take up more or less the same amount of space.  The amount of dialogue listed wouldn't be a problem if what was listed was the first few words of actual spoken dialogue.  But honestly, I find the whole dialogue wheel vs checklist argument so inqonsiquential in the grand scheme of things I don't even know why people rage over it.

BrotherWarth wrote...

When did I say "I hate circles!"?
The dialogue wheel necessitates abbreviated dialogue options, which is where the problems come from. If they just had the entire line written out for you then what would be the point of the wheel?

 

I didn't say you said that.  Like I said above, the listed options need to be more in sync with what's actually said.   I don't see a problem if this were the case.

[Boss Fog]

BrotherWarth wrote...

It would still be the "I'm nice, I'm sarcastic, or I'm mean!" dialogue system, which is stupid and simplistic.

It's the same system as before except there's an icon, whoopdy ****.  Compared to all the other problems, this seems rather minimal.

Modifié par TelvanniWarlord, 12 septembre 2012 - 03:21 .

[Allan Schumacher]

They didn't make the game they wanted.

This statement is ambiguous. Though the way I read it I don't know if I like where it was going....

[KiwiQuiche]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

It would still be the "I'm nice, I'm sarcastic, or I'm mean!" dialogue system, which is stupid and simplistic.

It's the same system as before except there's an icon, whoopdy ****.  Compared to all the other problems, this seems rather minimal.

Addmittedly you do get diplomatic, charming, violent responses, but only once in a blue moon. It's fairly constrained with on 3 base personalities.

[Boss Fog]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

It would still be the "I'm nice, I'm sarcastic, or I'm mean!" dialogue system, which is stupid and simplistic.

It's the same system as before except there's an icon, whoopdy ****.  Compared to all the other problems, this seems rather minimal.

Addmittedly you do get diplomatic, charming, violent responses, but only once in a blue moon. It's fairly constrained with on 3 base personalities.

It appears constrained because there's an icon categorizing it.  Need I remind you that there are also the investigative options which pop up quite a bit whenever there's something to learn.  In DA:O, it  was more or less the same thing except it was just up to you to guess what sort of response you're delivering by looking at the phrasing.  Typically there were only 3, sometimes 4 options available to you at a time.  If there were more, they were investigative.  The only difference is they were all on screen at the same time.

[Terror_K]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
...
The main basic issue is this: BioWare basically pulled the rug out from under the feet of DAO fans. You can't spend years setting up this new IP that's supposed to herald the dawn of a new age of proper, epic fantasy RPGs and then immediately pull a 180 on all of that with the first sequel only about a year after the original came out.
...

I agree with pretty much everything you said in your post except the bit I've shown above. I don't like the direction that Bioware took with DA2 and I'm pretty pessimistic about DA3.  I'm all for constructive criticism of DA2, or even just criticsm.  But I don't see the point of railing at Bioware because they aren't making the games that we want (and to be clear, I'm not aiming that last remark at you).

It's not about "railing at BioWare because they aren't makking the games that we want" so much as it is "railing at BioWare because they aren't making sequels that fit the tone and consistency of the original games."

Simply put, had BioWare made a game that was essentially in exactly the same style as DA2, but it wasn't a Dragon Age game and was based on an entirely new IP, then I wouldn't have had any major issues with it. DA2's biggest problems can be boiled down the the fact that it was trying to masquerade as a Dragon Age game --even worse as the second Dragon Age game-- but that it went out of its way to deliberately turn its back on most of the key factors that made Dragon Age: Origins great and the key factors of what the Dragon Age IP was created to do and be.

One direct example of this is Jade Empire. It's probably BioWare's least statistical and deep RPG to date, but that's fine because it was never intended to be anything else beforehand. It was supposed to be a more action-oirented RPG-Lite affair that was easier to get into. Dragon Age 2 was following up from a game that was supposed to be a return to BioWare's roots, supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, supposed to be an epic, fantasy RPG for PC gamers, etc. and, like I said before, it was not only none of these things, but made a direct and intentional effort to go against these things at every turn. All because BioWare want to try and broaden appeal and bring in the mainstream casual gamer.

And, again, no... this isn't about entitlement or elitism or anything like that. It's about sticking true to your source material and original formula. It's about consistency and integrity... not changing things up and retooling them just for the sake of greed and wanting more monies or because your new boss wants things done quicker and to reach as many people as possible. You shouldn't have to sacrifice the heart of your product and sell its soul just for the sake of getting more sales and more players.

DA2 was nothing less than a betrayal. An intentional, malicious betrayal. BioWare spent years setting up what could have been the second coming of Baldur's Gate, and finally brought a deep, decent RPG to players again in a time of shallow, samey action games, but instead they chose to completely abandon their ideals and principles to cater to the masses and turn it into the same thing that Dragon Age was supposed to free us from.

[Nomen Mendax]

Terror_K wrote...

...

DA2 was nothing less than a betrayal. An intentional, malicious betrayal. BioWare spent years setting up what could have been the second coming of Baldur's Gate, and finally brought a deep, decent RPG to players again in a time of shallow, samey action games, but instead they chose to completely abandon their ideals and principles to cater to the masses and turn it into the same thing that Dragon Age was supposed to free us from.

Let's agree to disagree here.  As far as I'm concerned Bioware can make whatever games they like, if they decide to change direction then they are free to do so, and they don't owe me anything.  If I don't like the direction they are going in I won't buy the game.

[Nomen Mendax]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

Now I've never done a screen by screen comparison, but I always figured the checklist and wheel both take up more or less the same amount of space.  The amount of dialogue listed wouldn't be a problem if what was listed was the first few words of actual spoken dialogue.  But honestly, I find the whole dialogue wheel vs checklist argument so inqonsiquential in the grand scheme of things I don't even know why people rage over it.

I wouldn't say that I rage over it, but I'm irritated by inefficient or poorly designed UI (so don't get me started on Skyrim).

[Boss Fog]

BrotherWarth wrote...

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

It appears constrained because there's an icon categorizing it.  Need I remind you that there are also the investigative options which pop up quite a bit whenever there's something to learn.  In DA:O, it  was more or less the same thing except it was just up to you to guess what sort of response you're delivering by looking at the phrasing.  Typically there were only 3, sometimes 4 options available to you at a time.  If there were more, they were investigative.  The only difference is they were all on screen at the same time.

Many, if not most of the "investigate" dialogue options in Origins lead to additional dialogue for that particular subject. For instance, picking one aspect of a characters past will raise additional options. I don't recall that ever being the case in DA2.

I recall it being the case specifically a number of times with companions.  Some examples are asking Fenris about the tevinter/qunari war, asking Aveline about Wesley and her past, finding the "secret" flirt option with Varric that was only accessable through branching dialogue, talking with Bethany/Carver, even talking with the Arishok after he tells you to leave.  Apparently, there was some branching dialogue with Meredith if you sided with her during the public fiasco as well.  I wouldn't know since I never actually took her side.  DA:O may have had more of it, but the game also had a much longer development cycle.

[Boss Fog]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

Now I've never done a screen by screen comparison, but I always figured the checklist and wheel both take up more or less the same amount of space.  The amount of dialogue listed wouldn't be a problem if what was listed was the first few words of actual spoken dialogue.  But honestly, I find the whole dialogue wheel vs checklist argument so inqonsiquential in the grand scheme of things I don't even know why people rage over it.

I wouldn't say that I rage over it, but I'm irritated by inefficient or poorly designed UI (so don't get me started on Skyrim).

I wasn't specifically referring to you when I mentioned people who were raging.  You seem very lucid and reasonable compared to some of these other people who hate DA2.

[Lord_Valandil]

I didn't like the wheel.
But what annoyed me the most is that it didn't matter which dialogue you choose, nothing was going to change anyway.
"I won't help you, Anders".
"Doesn't matter. I did it myself. Bwahaha".
And some delusional folks think Bioware wanted to show us how powerless was Hawke in so many situations. Hehehe.

[lorecast]

David Gaider wrote...

Avejajed wrote...
You guys are really stupid. I don't understand why you would consistently argue with someone who has basically put himself through his creativity into something for people to enjoy and you just tell him it sucks. It's like if I baked you a cake for your birthday and I put a lot of effort into it and you're like "sry bro, the cake u made me 3 yrs ago was better."

Oh, it's fine. No need to defend me. They're free to not like the cake.

If they think that throwing it on the ground, stomping on it and then insulting our mother is a good way to convince us to bake them a new one, however, they've probably spent too much time on the Internet and forgotten how to talk to people who are people and not forum jockeys impressed by their internet tough guy act. But whatever.

And this is why i was so excited and waited 2 hours ( i didnt care at all for ME) just to meet David Gaider At SDCC this year.
Sir, I love the Bioware cake. It makes me happy and even if i dont like Vanilla and I prefer chocolate cake, i will enjoy vanilla because i know Bioware made it with love

[Terror_K]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

...

DA2 was nothing less than a betrayal. An intentional, malicious betrayal. BioWare spent years setting up what could have been the second coming of Baldur's Gate, and finally brought a deep, decent RPG to players again in a time of shallow, samey action games, but instead they chose to completely abandon their ideals and principles to cater to the masses and turn it into the same thing that Dragon Age was supposed to free us from.

Let's agree to disagree here.  As far as I'm concerned Bioware can make whatever games they like, if they decide to change direction then they are free to do so, and they don't owe me anything.  If I don't like the direction they are going in I won't buy the game.

I don't think that that type of thinking should apply to anything. Things should remain consistent with themselves, because that's part of how you define something and make it what it is.

I mean... what's the point in becoming an invested fan in anything if you can turn away and turn back and it suddenly barely resembles what it was before. People become a fan of things because of what things are, but also because of what they aren't. So, yes... I became a fan of Dragon Age: Origins because it was a deep, tactical fantasy RPG in the vein of Baldur's Gate. But I also became a fan of it because it was a breath of fresh and and because it wasn't the same generic, gritty brown action game that many other releases were.

So then DA2 comes along and not only takes away most of the things I liked about Dragon Age: Origins that made it what it was, but also adds a bunch of new factors that it wasn't that I don't like.

Again, it's about consistency and integrity in an IP. What's the point in getting invested in an IP that can constantly break its own rules and boundaries at the drop of a hat and become something else that barely resembles its original form? I don't watch a show every week to suddenly see it become another different show the next week, especially if it becomes the type of show I try to avoid. And I don't buy the sequel to a game expecting it to be a completely different game than the original either.

Again, it's not about entitlement and elitism either, otherwise I'd be going to Infinity Ward and saying, "How come the next Modern Warfare isn't a tactical fantasy RPG?!" No... I don't expect the next Call of Duty to be anything else but a military FPS, and I don't expect Starcraft 3 to be anything else but an RTS, or Portal 3 to be anything else but a puzzle game with a Portal Gun.

So when Dragon Age: Origins is a PC-driven epic, tactical fantasty RPG that's a return to BioWare's roots and spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, I expected Dragon Age 2 to be a PC-driven epic, tactical fantasty RPG that's a return to BioWare's roots and spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. And what's more, I expected it to be like Dragon Age: Origins. This is Dragon Age 2 after all... but instead we got something closer to God of War or Darksiders or Golden Axe.

lorecast wrote...

Sir, I love the Bioware cake. It makes me happy and even if i dont like Vanilla and I prefer chocolate cake, i will enjoy vanilla because i know Bioware made it with love

I don't see the "love" at all any more. I just see cold, emotionless automatons for the sake of broad appeal, rather than nutured and grown naturally. I see BioWare's recent offerings as genetically engineered test-tube babies, while their efforts were born of love in a natural manner. I see the likes of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 2 & 3 as The Borg as opposed to any natural evolution.

Nope... the love is clearly gone. It's not about making good, deep, quality RPGs and evolving them naturally any more. It's about following trends, pandering to the masses and profit, profit, profit. It's about gutting features and dumbing them down to make them more accessible to potential players rather than appealing to the long-time current ones. It's about cinematics and action dominating to the point of restricting player agency and control and kicking roleplaying to the curb so that players can experience their character and their story in their way, when it used to be our character, our story and our way.

To alter a quote from Lisa Simpson, "Love is dead. It was acquired in a hostile takeover by EA, homogenized, and sold off piece by piece."

Modifié par Terror_K, 12 septembre 2012 - 04:43 .

[Seifer006]

Terror_K wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

...

DA2 was nothing less than a betrayal. An intentional, malicious betrayal. BioWare spent years setting up what could have been the second coming of Baldur's Gate, and finally brought a deep, decent RPG to players again in a time of shallow, samey action games, but instead they chose to completely abandon their ideals and principles to cater to the masses and turn it into the same thing that Dragon Age was supposed to free us from.

Let's agree to disagree here.  As far as I'm concerned Bioware can make whatever games they like, if they decide to change direction then they are free to do so, and they don't owe me anything.  If I don't like the direction they are going in I won't buy the game.

I don't think that that type of thinking should apply to anything. Things should remain consistent with themselves, because that's part of how you define something and make it what it is.

I mean... what's the point in becoming an invested fan in anything if you can turn away and turn back and it suddenly barely resembles what it was before. People become a fan of things because of what things are, but also because of what they aren't. So, yes... I became a fan of Dragon Age: Origins because it was a deep, tactical fantasy RPG in the vein of Baldur's Gate. But I also became a fan of it because it was a breath of fresh and and because it wasn't the same generic, gritty brown action game that many other releases were.

So then DA2 comes along and not only takes away most of the things I liked about Dragon Age: Origins that made it what it was, but also adds a bunch of new factors that it wasn't that I don't like.

Again, it's about consistency and integrity in an IP. What's the point in getting invested in an IP that can constantly break its own rules and boundaries at the drop of a hat and become something else that barely resembles its original form? I don't watch a show every week to suddenly see it become another different show the next week, especially if it becomes the type of show I try to avoid. And I don't buy the sequel to a game expecting it to be a completely different game than the original either.

Again, it's not about entitlement and elitism either, otherwise I'd be going to Infinity Ward and saying, "How come the next Modern Warfare isn't a tactical fantasy RPG?!" No... I don't expect the next Call of Duty to be anything else but a military FPS, and I don't expect Starcraft 3 to be anything else but an RTS, or Portal 3 to be anything else but a puzzle game with a Portal Gun.

So when Dragon Age: Origins is a PC-driven epic, tactical fantasty RPG that's a return to BioWare's roots and spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, I expected Dragon Age 2 to be a PC-driven epic, tactical fantasty RPG that's a return to BioWare's roots and spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. And what's more, I expected it to be like Dragon Age: Origins. This is Dragon Age 2 after all... but instead we got something closer to God of War or Darksiders or Golden Axe.

Completely Agree with Terror K.  I haven't played Dragon Age games nor Baldur's Gate

but what made me a huge Bioware fan was KOTOR & ME1. These two games showed that Bioware was very unique compared to other companies.  ME1 had all the "elements" of KOTOR that I loved.

It's sad that ME3 is nothing to what I expected from  Bioware. Then again EA didn't own Bioware during KOTOR & ME1 wasn't poisioned by EA........

I'm glad for Gabe Newell and his Strong Stand with Valve.

Modifié par Seifer006, 12 septembre 2012 - 04:40 .

[Rylor Tormtor]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...


I don't know any company that is going to come out and say that they made a bad product (unless it kills some people, and maybe not even then), particularly when you are talking about something as subjective as a game. Various Bioware representatives have admitted there were flaws with DA2, but I don't think they are going to come out and say that the game itself was awful.

Stardock, with Elemental: War of Magic. Frogboy admitted that the game did not come out how he had envisioned and that the fans had valid complaints and the development team had lost sight of the goal while wrestling with the details. As such, the "expansion", which is really a brand new game from the ground, was redisgned and is in its (probably) final (or next to final) beta stage. It is an astounding peice of TBS strategy know with a careful redisgn that honestly admitted the faults of the previous (people who purchased WoM either got a refund or a free copy of the new version, Fallen Enchantress). And in my mind, has done leaps and bounds for their creditablity. 

I'd argue that DA2 was in a better state than War of Magic, but thanks for finding an example!  By the way, are you saying that Fallen Enchantress is worth getting?  I was really looking forward to War of Magic (I love TBS) but was put off by the incredibly negative reviews.

Off Topic - FE is definately worth it. I have had to take a break from it this beta as I don't want to burn out on the game before release, but it is a completely different game, and one that truly fills the MoM gap. 

On Topic - Terror_K has hit the nail on the head for me at least. The problem is that I feel a little silly getting worked up about this, but I do, and there is that. The irony being that the most indepth role playing available from Bioware's recent releases has been MMO! (Which I loved, but quit when I had to change servers and was forced to change my character's name and after that I just didn't feel the connection I had before). I mean, if I felt I had a ton more effect on the universe in SWTOR than I did in DA2. 

Anyways, it seems that if you are looking for games that are like BG I/II and DA:O, Bioware isn't the company to be looking at anymore. That's not a bad thing per se, it's just the way it is. DA2 is fundamentally different from DA:O, no one can argue that. DA2 borrows a number of things from the ME interface and style, which is fine. The ME series has had a systemic reduction in player individualization and impact over the series. It is logical then to assume that the Dragon Age IP will do same thing. I could be wrong. I hope I am. I doubt it though.