Thank you Beerfish, for your well-thought-out responses. I'll try and resond as best as I am able.
1) Models and weapons desire. It is simply not that easy to want to see the proper weapons as you would like. Weapons take up different amounts of space, they need to maintain a consistent size (hit box) of characters. Allowing a wide variety of weapon equipping can cause big problems such as clipping that will affect the whole design process.
Forgive me Beerfish, but I'm not entirely sure if you got my point on this one. I was actually asking for a way to unequip all weapons if I want to, so that I have none in my hand. This was not possible in DA:II, as there was an 'always visible' model on display that was overridden when you equipped a new weapon. I wanted this function removed for role-playing purposes.
2) Rogue with plate and a 2 hander? No problem, you are now a fighter with no fighter training bonuses and cannot do any of the rogue abilities at all. You do realize that if they opened this up people would be bellyaching within days that they cannot backstabb, pick pockets or open locks in their full plate mail.
I would respond by saying "well let them bellyache" Their complaints can be countered in a heartbeat by responding with "try actually using the right weapon for your class".
The point I'm making is that, I want to be given the freedom to make my own decisions here, and not be hand-held into only doing those things 'approved' by an artificially-implemented class restriction.
Origins was far more open-ended, and whilst Rogues could not equip a two-handed axe (the most extreme example I could think of) they could equip plate armor, which I thought was great! It added massively to the role-playing aspects of the game, and also introduced the possibility of some curious, none-standard builds... which I love. I love to deviate from the beaten track and experiment with new things, and none-standard ideas. It what makes such games so enriching for me, and radically extends their shelf life... because I have so many things to try out and muck around with.
This was actually listed as one (among many) of the reasons the original Diablo 2 was so rewarding to play, and why it lasted so long.
Players were able to create such a weird, wonderful and diverse selection of different character builds, and experiment with them to their hearts content. There were no real gear restrictions (save for a handful of class-specific items) and a selection of very diverse skill trees.. thus we saw such oddball builds as the 'Bowbarian' 'Hammerdin' 'Blade Fury Assassin' (actually a really powerful build if done right) 'Sorceress Tank'.. and many others beside. Some of these builds were plain daft, but the point is, players loved them! It extended the possibilities within the game, and gave it life.
I actually loved Origins for many of the same reasons. The sheer freedom, and unabandoned joy of taking a basic Rogue template, and turning it into a Ranger with a pet, a duel-wielding Assassin, or a plate-clad berserker.... or the freedom to have my Mages as a pure healer, powerful tank, or shapeshifting 'druid'... along with loads of other possibilities. Choices and possibilities are great! The more choice, freedom and '
potential for possibility' I have within a game, the more I am intrigued, pulled in... the more I fall in love with it.
3) Develop companions the way you see fit? I don't have a huge problem with this other than the fact that I do not own my companions, they are going to develop in a way that suits them. The more control you have over their development overall the less capable they can be and the tougher it is to develop back story, and story going forward.
That's a fair point. But at the same time, it's still nice to have a say in how you want to build your companions, rather than letting the game decide. I personally feel that they have already 'developed in the way that suits them' as a result of their native class.. and more so by the manner in which my character interacts with them, forming relationships, gaining friendship or rivalry... I'd personally prefer the actual building of companions to be more of a game mechanic-thing, than a means of expressing their personality.. if that makes sense?
4) 3rd party mods are great but they run a huge risk of breaking the game. As long as you are prepared for the consequences there is no problem.
I am prepared, and all games that run third party mods share this risk. If it does 'break the game', I could always uninstall the mod, or at the worst (if the mod actually damages or overwrites files) go back and re-install the game, as the 'breakage' would not be permenant
5) Interaction anywhere, a big fat no from me. Hey it would be nice to make it so we can interact in more than one place but you simply cannot allow this and potential combat zones to exist together.
Click on alistair....
"Hello warden, whats up?"
Ogre attacks!
"I'm doing well."
"Buzz of alistair"
Ogre hits for 20 damage!
There are proven mechanics to get around this issue. One such was used in Mass Effect 1. Any attempt to speak to companions in combat would earn you a sharp retort.
I realise ME:1 didn't really allow full character dialogue when away from the Normandy, but a similar mechanic could be used within D:III. Simply disable open-dialogue when in combat. Any attempt to speak to a party would be met with a "not now" retort.
6) Arcane Warrior = Most over powered boring class of all time in the state it was. I didn't have to play good, I' didn't have to play awful, I just had to have a pulse to kill the game with that class. I have no problem trying to make a magic using warrior but there has to be a lot harsher penalties when doing so.
Well, I do think that your description is based largely upon subjective personal opinion. I certainly did not find them boring
If the build is truly overpowered in Origins, the obvious solution is to make them not overpowered in DA:III, and perhaps use a 'chance to proc' based model, similar to ones used in some MMOs such as World of Warcraft or Everquest 2 in order to add interest?
The basic idea being that whenever a certain ability 'procs' the player has a limited period to quickly activate a secondary ability, only available during the period the proc is active.
Just a suggestion.
7) The more you allow change re decisions, the more the story branches, the more the story branches, the fewer the quests and thus actual game length can be. I fully endorse the notion that important decisions should have real consequences. (Unlike the HIGHLY disappointing Rachni decisions in ME). It is for sure desirable to let the player have an effect on the game but it's a slippery slope that can go out of control in a hurry.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record I feel Oigins got this 100% right.
I'm certainly not expecting every single decision or action I undertake to change the story arc, and I fully agree that too many branches can lead to an undesirably short game.
Actually I pretty much agree with your entire comment. I think my original point was that I felt DA:II did not provide enough effect upon the game.
Modifié par AshenSugar, 13 septembre 2012 - 05:59 .
Retour en haut
