! Modifié par Mila-banilla, 07 novembre 2013 - 03:23 .
Dr. Doctor wrote...
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.
Well the idea that you could just clear out the Deep Roads is pretty crazy, and short of that there's really not much that could reconcile Bhelen and Harrowmont, and even that might not do it. But a small town under attack right next to the fort which is also under attack, it makes much more sense to me that if you can clear one in time you can just run over and clear the other after - they're barely a minute walk from each other after all.Fast Jimmy wrote...
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?
Modifié par nerdage, 07 novembre 2013 - 02:48 .
Modifié par Rachel73, 07 novembre 2013 - 09:21 .
Modifié par Reznore57, 07 novembre 2013 - 10:57 .
Rachel73 wrote...
David Gaider@davidgaider: That feeling when you put something into the game that you're absolutely positive will make certain fans lose their goddamn minds
Modifié par RifuloftheWest, 07 novembre 2013 - 11:34 .
Guest_simfamUP_*
RifuloftheWest wrote...
Rachel73 wrote...
David Gaider@davidgaider: That feeling when you put something into the game that you're absolutely positive will make certain fans lose their goddamn minds
Somehow I picture David laughing maniacally in anticipation of the delicious tears of anguish he will get to feed off of next year.
That said, this tweet makes me nervous.
simfamSP wrote...
RifuloftheWest wrote...
Rachel73 wrote...
David Gaider@davidgaider: That feeling when you put something into the game that you're absolutely positive will make certain fans lose their goddamn minds
Somehow I picture David laughing maniacally in anticipation of the delicious tears of anguish he will get to feed off of next year.
That said, this tweet makes me nervous.
I imagine it's more like this:
"Oh, Inquisitor, might I introduce you to my *dramatic pause* husband?"
*Alistair walks into the scene*
And that's how the internet exploded folks.
Yrkoon wrote...
Wow, lots of talking points in that video.
1) They're giving us back the tactical camera. Sorta. Overhead camera view can be done while paused...? That's a plus. I'll take it!
2) Areas look gorgeous despite the poor video quality. This game is going to stun the RPG masses by its looks alone. Much in the same way Skyrim did in 2011.
2) They're claiming this is the biggest game they've ever done. We'll see about that. Baldurs Gate 2 is currently the biggest game they've ever done. If DA:I ends up being bigger than BG2, my brain will explode. Game size though is measured by Areas AND the content within, so this is a tall order and a really bold claim that we just heard Laidlaw (or was it Darrah?) make.
3) Pre-alpha build I know, but the combat animations, while infinitely improved from the nausiating circus act we got in DA2, still don't look.... right. They look a bit wonky. Hard to pin-point what's annoying me about them. A little too robotic-looking I guess.... herky-jerky... not smooth and fluid enough.
4) While I'm sure their little segment and hype up for Dragons in this game thoroughly impressed most fans, I'm going to withhold judgement. I hope there's a good, believeable, story-based reason for the placement of each one, rather than just "well, dragons are cool, so lets load the game with them to increase the boss-fight count." I have had enough of that in RPGs.
5) Didn't see enough of the dialogue wheel to determine if they really improved it from DA2.
Overall, they seem to be going in the right direction with this. On the hopefulness scale, I just went from 2 to 6.... if they manage to raise me to 9 or 10, I will buy this game when it comes out.
BasilKarlo wrote...
I wonder if the game is designed so that you can't devote resources to every available outpost/objective/whatever or if you could just do everything with a mod and not break the game?
I think it would be really cool if they specifically made it so devoting resources to specific things altered what's available to you later. Like if you chose not to rid an area with a freshwater stream of the poisonous gas blanketing it then you couldn't establish a specific fortress later on because the only water in the area is contaminated from that stream feeding into it, but if you did clear that area of the gas and establish that fortress then your forces dam the water supply for themselves and cut off the water to the surrounding area, leaving an area desolate that would otherwise have been an area of commerce.
Yrkoon wrote...
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.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.
It'd be more accurate to say that this approach is a refreshing throwback to what Bioware used to do all the time. In BG2, if you took the Underdark portal in Spellhold, the Sahuigan city was closed off to you. And if you chose the mage stronghold, the Thieves guild was closed off to you. etc.This approach in Inquisition is a new one.
This is as it should be in a game that boasts of choice & consequence.
Modifié par David7204, 08 novembre 2013 - 01:58 .
Apples and Oranges.David7204 wrote...
In Skyrim, it would have been trivial to close off half the dungeons based on some supposed 'choice.' Your race, maybe.
Would that have made the game any better?
I really doubt it. It would have just made a game with half the dungeons.
Any fool could program a game where 'choices' make a big impact. That's ****** easy. Making choices that are meaningful, with good gameplay design and storytelling, is a different matter entirely.
Reznore57 wrote...
About Morrigan...well I'm ready to see her die , being corrupted , Kill her kid/mom and ending up not all right in the head , Flemeth taking her body.
Well she's a tragic anti hero for me .
My biggest hope is her becoming the new Flemeth.Badass role ,but bittersweet .
Anyway I guess in one year , the BSN will have a minor sh**storm.
Ah good times ahead...
On a more positive note ,maybe " losing their minds" ...as in"OMG It's so great , I can't believe IT!!!!!"
David7204 wrote...
In Skyrim, it would have been trivial to close off half the dungeons based on some supposed 'choice.' Your race, maybe.
Would that have made the game any better?
I really doubt it. It would have just made a game with half the dungeons.
Any fool could program a game where 'choices' make a big impact. That's ****** easy. Making choices that are meaningful, with good gameplay design and storytelling, is a different matter entirely.
The BSN, and frankly, video game players in general, need to give up this very silly attitude of 'the right design choice is always the one that gives players the most 'RPG-ness.' It's a dead end.
Many dungeons are closed off in Skyrim if you are not part of guilds.David7204 wrote...
In Skyrim, it would have been trivial to close off half the dungeons based on some supposed 'choice.' Your race, maybe.
Would that have made the game any better?
I really doubt it. It would have just made a game with half the dungeons.
Any fool could program a game where 'choices' make a big impact. That's ****** easy. Making choices that are meaningful, with good gameplay design and storytelling, is a different matter entirely.
The BSN, and frankly, video game players in general, need to give up this very silly attitude of 'the right design choice is always the one that gives players the most 'RPG-ness.' It's a dead end.
Modifié par Mr.House, 08 novembre 2013 - 02:04 .
Besides RP hits, what if I'm a 2h warrior who has no intent of joining the College of Winterhold, all of those dungeons are cut off.David7204 wrote...
By 'many' you mean maybe five? Out of like, a hundred?
It doesn't matter, anyway. There's no penalty for joining the guilds.
Retour en haut