88390 réponses à ce sujet

[shit's fucked cunts]

Wiedzmin182009 wrote...



Digiexpo 2013 - Dragon Age: Inquisition Gameplay

Hahaha, I'm laughing my arse off at the Stormcloak sounding dude at 24:52.

"Mages.. for the win!"

Modifié par Zazzerka, 06 novembre 2013 - 06:33 .

[themageguy]

Loving the new spells.
Seems like Vivienne has a ice wall, ice glyph, a sort of icy magic missile, dispel, firestorm and the super speed illusionary teleport like power demonstrated by the hermit in origins and the enemy Mage in the gameplay clip.
Kool!

[RaduM]

Yrkoon wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...


Numerous devs from the ME and DA franchises have said that they don't like gameplay/explorable areas being inaccessible to players due to choices because it makes the cost of making those areas/that content less justifiable.

Yep, although this  stupid, self-defeating, board-room-pie-chart  mindset is hardly limited to Bioware.  It's a trend in the industry, and it is  what's been ruining the RPG genre for the past few years.   Bethesda devs have  spouted similar comments, which is why,  today, in a game like Skyrim  (for example),  the player can be the leader of  ALL the guilds simultaneously, whereas in previous ES games, becoming a member of one closed off your ability to become a member of the  others.

Well, technically (and I do mean technically as in it relates to the actual nuts and bolts of making a game) the reason why, in general, in gaming, in the past and in the present, it is/was rare to see "true" consequence (entire chunks of the game cut off, others opened up) is that it carries a hefty price. A *lot* of game "length" needs to be sacrificed to give "depth".

And that's hard to justify to the people giving the money (which I remind you, they are not patronizing art, they are investing expecting a profit).

Developer : "So this game will have real consequence, the player's actions will take him/her to completely different places"
Publisher : "What does this mean exactly?"
Developer : "Well, if the player chooses A, he will go to place 1. If B to place 2."
Publisher : "And if he chooses A we won't go to place 2?"
Developer : "Not in that particular playthrough, no."
Publisher : "And how much of the game's content is experienced via choice?"
Developer : "About 50% of the game is made up of experiencing content related to choice"
Publisher : "So the game content is practically divided in 3 : common path that is always experienced, content experienced due to choices, content NOT experienced ... again due to choices"
Developer : "Yes"
Publisher : "So we're providing a budget of X and the player will experience content worth of 2/3 X?"
Developer :"Yes"
Publisher : "So we're practically paying 1/3 X for parts of the game that a player will never see"
Developer : "Well not never, there are multiple playthr-"
Publisher : "Get out."

See where' I'm going with this? "True consequence" means, practically "making stuff that the player, any player, whatever the choice, will not experience". Combine this with the fact that most people do not do multiple playthroughs and "will not experience" turns to "will never experience".

If somebody were to give Bioware *patronage* (like nobles back in the day would offer patronage to artists) and let them just go loco, we might see that. But given that the people that put forward the cash for the game to be made in the first place expect a profit... It's practically impossible to justify "true consequence" unless somebody at EA truly and genuinely likes Bioware's games... as in more than just as cash-cows.

EDIT : Above said, as a gamer I feel that precisely these clear "content exclusive to your choices" is what I enjoy most. See, my DA:O/A Warden is a good guy City Elf Warden. However, the Origin Prologue really made me feel like he's my character. When the terrible choice at the end of DA:O was revealed, despite the good guy way I played my Warden, I could not bear to lose him. I chose the Dark Ritual, a decidedly selfish action with unknown and possibly dire consequences.

Absent of the Origins Prologue, I would have gloriously marched my Warden to his death.

What I'm trying to say, Bioware, is that creating content exclusive to a set of player actions is hard to make, hard to justify to publishers, but it is also what makes your games GREAT.

Modifié par RaduM, 06 novembre 2013 - 08:32 .

[ElitePinecone]

Mike did say (I'm paraphrasing *a lot* here) at one of the press events around PAX that they'd been increasingly open to the idea of content that some players never see, but that it was difficult to break out of thinking that divergent content was an expensive and tricky use of time and money. He definitely hinted that they were moving in the direction of "some players will never see some content" for DA:I though.

And just about the publisher/developer divide, obviously we don't know how it works but from what Bioware devs say, they have a lot more control over the content and style of their games than most contracted developers. A Mass Effect dev was saying that they basically get handed X amount of money and are told to make Y amount of money in Z years - it's probably not as simple as that in practice, but the image of EA executives standing around whipping lowly Bioware employees is a bit ridiculous - at some point the developer is responsible for its own choices and creations.

[RaduM]

From what I see they are putting their money where their mouth is regarding player choice.

If you remember, this was always alluded at very vaguely but never shown in the run-up to DA2. Never actual in-game sequences.

For ME3, I remember a particularly sleazy PR move touting player choice and consequence.



The trailer misleadingly suggests that Shepard acting like a tool will result in the Asari NOT providing air support. That never happens in the game!

Literally that trailer takes a linear progression of events and splices them to make it look like they fork.

Simply put, Bioware people, by repeatedly engaging in baseless claims and even falsifying game footage to make it look like there are consequences where there in fact are none, have badly discredited themselves. Especially since they carry on unapologetically in regards to the utter compost they shoveled forward as "fact". More than once.

But the DA:I demos are much more than simply words baselessly hyping their game. The show actual gameplay, not doctored cutscene clips. So yes, I am hopeful.

But also mindful that these same people did not bat an eye when spouting off complete lies. Nor did they even give a hint of apology when said hype was revealed to be utter fabrication.

[Yrkoon]

RaduM wrote...


Well, technically (and I do mean technically as in it relates to the actual nuts and bolts of making a game) the reason why, in general, in gaming, in the past and in the present, it is/was rare to see "true" consequence (entire chunks of the game cut off, others opened up) is that it carries a hefty price. A *lot* of game "length" needs to be sacrificed to give "depth".

And that's hard to justify to the people giving the money (which I remind you, they are not patronizing art, they are investing expecting a profit).

Developer : "So this game will have real consequence, the player's actions will take him/her to completely different places"
Publisher : "What does this mean exactly?"
Developer : "Well, if the player chooses A, he will go to place 1. If B to place 2."
Publisher : "And if he chooses A we won't go to place 2?"
Developer : "Not in that particular playthrough, no."
Publisher : "And how much of the game's content is experienced via choice?"
Developer : "About 50% of the game is made up of experiencing content related to choice"
Publisher : "So the game content is practically divided in 3 : common path that is always experienced, content experienced due to choices, content NOT experienced ... again due to choices"
Developer : "Yes"
Publisher : "So we're providing a budget of X and the player will experience content worth of 2/3 X?"
Developer :"Yes"
Publisher : "So we're practically paying 1/3 X for parts of the game that a player will never see"
Developer : "Well not never, there are multiple playthr-"
Publisher : "Get out."

See where' I'm going with this? "True consequence" means, practically "making stuff that the player, any player, whatever the choice, will not experience". Combine this with the fact that most people do not do multiple playthroughs and "will not experience" turns to "will never experience".

If somebody were to give Bioware *patronage* (like nobles back in the day would offer patronage to artists) and let them just go loco, we might see that. But given that the people that put forward the cash for the game to be made in the first place expect a profit... It's practically impossible to justify "true consequence" unless somebody at EA truly and genuinely likes Bioware's games... as in more than just as cash-cows.

Indeed,    You don't have to convince  anyone here of the fact that Publishers  simply don't understand  what makes a truly special RPG.  (and they don't need to, they're not making the game, they're just the funders)     But there are at least  1000 rebuttals to the publisher's protest (above), and many  of them can  flat out disprove the notion that  money is being "wasted"  in  unseeable  content at all.  But that's a tiresome new debate that's inappropriate for this thread.

I will say this, though.   If I was the Dev in that  above conversation, I'd maybe try to reassure the publisher that the exclusive-content formula  translates quite well in a game that has a multi-player option... then I'd ask for more money to make  that  happen.  lol

Modifié par Yrkoon, 06 novembre 2013 - 10:38 .

[Uccio]

The discussion option looked dreadfully like ME3 with only two choises.

[RaduM]

Ukki wrote...

The discussion option looked dreadfully like ME3 with only two choises.

Well, I wouldn't qualify what we've seen as "discussions", more like "receiving reports and giving orders".

And to take an unpopular stance, I didn't feel my Shepard was restricted in his range of reactions in Mass Effect 3,neither did I feel that the paraphrases were misleading to Shepard's actual spoken lines. If anything the flow of discussions in Mass Effect 3 was much more responsive to Shepard's lines. There were far fewer instances of any of Shepard's lines leading to the same responses like one could see in multiple Mass Effect 1 playthroughs.

[The Elder King]

Ukki wrote...

The discussion option looked dreadfully like ME3 with only two choises.

The choices are three (unless they put a new choice option, I watched only until the talk with your soldiers). 

[Steppenwolf]

Ukki wrote...

The discussion option looked dreadfully like ME3 with only two choises.

-Soldiers stay with their wounded outside the village, offering no support for the village or the stronghold

-Soldiers leave their wounded and defend the village, offering no support for the stronghold

-Soldiers leave their wounded and defend the stronghold, offering no support for the village

Three options.

[Tinu]

'Actions speak louder than words.'
I guess if we can organize well, we might be able to save both the village and the stronghold. Or at least something more ideal, but it will take some effort, I guess.

[azarhal]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Ukki wrote...

The discussion option looked dreadfully like ME3 with only two choises.

-Soldiers stay with their wounded outside the village, offering no support for the village or the stronghold

-Soldiers leave their wounded and defend the village, offering no support for the stronghold

-Soldiers leave their wounded and defend the stronghold, offering no support for the village

Three options.

4 options, it's not required for the event to advance to talk to the soldiers, but I guess that would be the same as choice 1. It was mentioned at PAX.

[Reznore57]

I think you can save everyone , Stronghold and village , though it's supposed to be really hard.
Maybe if the Inquisition has a good military stronghold nearby?
And you send agents doing military and security stuff...you get a longer timer?Or a fourth option ?

In the demo we saw the Inquisition was already settled in Crestwood.
In the desert area , once you take the place ...well you can decide what your strategy for the place is.

[Steppenwolf]

Reznore57 wrote...

I think you can save everyone , Stronghold and village , though it's supposed to be really hard.
Maybe if the Inquisition has a good military stronghold nearby?
And you send agents doing military and security stuff...you get a longer timer?Or a fourth option ?

In the demo we saw the Inquisition was already settled in Crestwood.
In the desert area , once you take the place ...well you can decide what your strategy for the place is.

You can probably save both by just sending the troops to the village and beating the Red Templars at the stronghold very quickly.

[Reznore57]

BasilKarlo wrote...

You can probably save both by just sending the troops to the village and beating the Red Templars at the stronghold very quickly.

Maybe.
But what's the point of building a military stronghold , and wasting troop patrolling ...if it doesn't gives you an edge over ennemies attacking your position?

[Steppenwolf]

The Red Templar attack is temporary. If you kill them and destroy their warboats then that's the end of the attack. That village probably has merchants and quests for you. Saving both seems like a smart thing to do, even if some villagers die and the stronghold takes some damage.

[Spectre slayer]

Cameron Lee already said that we could save both of them depending on how decided to handle it awhile ago so it's possible to save both but it's probably challenging to do so.

Could go a number of ways send your troops to the keep and assault the red Templars in the town then go to the keep, or send them to the town and attack the keep then save the town or some other way.

[sandalisthemaker]

I'm thinking the way to save both would be to manage your strongholds well. A little meter can be seen in the demo that shows the stronghold's remaining strength. A stronghold well-maintained by the player may be able to take more damage in situations like the Templar attack, allowing more leeway when deciding to help the villagers.

A player that doesn't devote effort into building/maintaining their strongholds could have less time before the stronghold is destroyed, making the decision to help the villagers result in ensured destruction of the stronghold.

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 06 novembre 2013 - 08:27 .

[Fast Jimmy]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

I'm thinking the way to save both would be to manage your strongholds well. A little meter can be seen in the demo that shows the stronghold's remaining strength. A stronghold well-maintained by the player may be able to take more damage in situations like the Templar attack, allowing more leeway when deciding to help the villagers.

A player that doesn't devote effort into building/maintaining their strongholds could have less time before the stronghold is destroyed, making the decision to help the villagers result in ensured destruction of the stronghold.

So, basically, "do all the side quests, upgrade all the things" and you'll get the rainbow and unicorn endings? Seems like 90% of RPGs in the history of the genre, honestly. 

Nothing wrong with that, but I simply feel it isn't a choice for players, just built in rewards for completionists (like myself).

[sandalisthemaker]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

I'm thinking the way to save both would be to manage your strongholds well. A little meter can be seen in the demo that shows the stronghold's remaining strength. A stronghold well-maintained by the player may be able to take more damage in situations like the Templar attack, allowing more leeway when deciding to help the villagers.

A player that doesn't devote effort into building/maintaining their strongholds could have less time before the stronghold is destroyed, making the decision to help the villagers result in ensured destruction of the stronghold.

So, basically, "do all the side quests, upgrade all the things" and you'll get the rainbow and unicorn endings? Seems like 90% of RPGs in the history of the genre, honestly. 

Nothing wrong with that, but I simply feel it isn't a choice for players, just built in rewards for completionists (like myself).

Hmm.
Perhaps. But I'm hoping that maintaining strongholds well won't make it a surfire rainbow and unicorn ending. Although, if anything, I'm hoping it is more difficult to save the village than to save the stronghold (if the player tries to do both).

[Jonathan Seagull]

Even though it was the same basic stuff I'd already seen, I enjoyed watching that DigiExpo video. I noticed the part where they (either Mike or Mark, can't remember) show the Inquisitor choosing to leave Crestwood, but then watching the battle a bit before leaving and note that they could still fight if they wanted to. Which would echo statements that I seem to remember someone making that we would be able to say one thing in dialogue but still do another. Though I'm curious about whether/how much that contradiction will be recognized.

Also, this is not DAI-related, but you should all know that Alistair ate a cat on last night's Supernatural. Villain spoilers for the episode below:

Steve Valentine ‏@Stevevalentine

where else do u get to be a British chef dressed like a cowboy who eats organs to stay alive...

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 07 novembre 2013 - 12:01 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Perhaps. But I'm hoping that maintaining strongholds well won't make it a surfire rainbow and unicorn ending. Although, if anything, I'm hoping it is more difficult to save the village than to save the stronghold (if the player tries to do both).

I'm torn. After all, if a player doesn't want it to be difficult, they can just drop it to narrative difficulty and plow through. I'd rather the game made you choose, not let you play superhero if you can kill all the enemies fast enough. There's no option to get Harrowmont to play nice and be an advisor to Bhelen, balancing radical change with more conservative stoicism... and the choice was made stronger because of it. It was polarizing, hard and had consequences that many did not anticipate or intend.

I'd take that over "if you kill every Darkspawn in the Deep Roads in under fifteen minutes, you can get the happy Bhelen/Harrowmont compromise," you know?

[Reznore57]

Well it seems you just can't have it all...
I think choosing different strong hold ,and where to send agents will give some benefits .
But obviously you will miss some opportunities depending on your choices.

Though I'd like for some choices to at least be more "coherent " than others ...
Like villages nearby or commercial road that hints that maybe building a commerce fort would make great profits.
The wasteland might not be such a great place for that for example.

[Dr. Doctor]

In the case of defending Crestwood, I'm curious about those trebuchets we saw. They're made of wood, so it might be possible to set them on fire with the same grenades used on the landing boats. Knocking out the Red Templar's siege equipment might slow their attack long enough to save the village with less damage done to the Keep.