3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

[WhiteThunder]

lx_theo wrote...

Please stop being just bitter about all this. Then step back and try to look at it objectively. Right now you stink of a vendetta and are really hard to take serious.

Well, as long as you can take me seriously I won't mind.

Let's look at the facts:

1. There was a tactical camera in DA:O.
2. Said tactical camera was universally acclaimed.
3. Mike Laidlaw said that in DA2 there would be the "Tactical Camera 2.0" in an interview with Game Informer.
4. There was no tactical camera of any sort in DA2.

Please, anyone, enlighten me as to any factual errors in this list.

[Palipride47]

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

I will only note that they intend to "make it up" with backgrounds.
If those prove to be as shallow as the ME ones sounded, I will back up this statement 100%

[Direwolf0294]

Monica21 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Foolish based on what? Shortsighted based on what? Nothing, because there is no information to prove otherwise. If Xil meant something other than what was said then perhaps it needs to be restated.

As of now, I can see no benefit from removing the option for this story.

A story which you, admittedly, know next to nothing about.

True, but one could argue that a story that apparantly requires a human to be the main character could infact become richer and more interesting if told with a non human as the main character. For example, Shepard fighting for the rights of humans in the galaxy in ME1 was pretty interesting, but playing as an Asari or Turian fighting for the rights of humans in the galaxy could have been just as or even more interesting.

[MorningBird]

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

Not for everyone.

In DAO, I only ever finished the game with one Warden, but I really liked the Warden that I had created, so I played again as the SAME Warden several times.

In DA2, we were restricted to playing as a human, but I created and finished it with three DIFFERENT characters (and I'm planning on playing a fourth character closer to the release of DA3.)

You found race restrictions limiting.  I didn't.  Replayability is going to be different for each person.

Modifié par MorningBird, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:15 .

[LobselVith8]

Monica21 wrote...

I didn't say she can't have an opinion, but her opinion lacks any kind of argumentative soundness.

So you take issue with how she phrased it? There are a plethora of people who have voiced that they think the absence of racial options as a mistake. I didn't see any different with what Xil wrote, since it doesn't seem to make much sense to exclude multiple origins when Inquisition has the inclusion of a mage option.

[Teddie Sage]

Well put MorningBird. I had two different rogue playthroughs (one focused on archery, the other one with dual-wielding) on DA2 and I'm planning to make a mage and a warrior one in a near future. It's not because it only has one race that you can't replay the game differently­.

[Rawgrim]

MorningBird wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

Not for everyone.

In DAO, I only ever finished the game with one Warden, but I really liked the Warden that I had created, so I played again as the SAME Warden several times.

In DA2, we were restricted to playing as a human, but I created and finished it with three DIFFERENT characters (and I'm planning on playing a fourth character closer to the release of DA3.)

You found race restrictions limiting.  I didn't.  Replayability is going to be different for each person.

You can only play DA2 as 3 different characters. "Funny, Mean or Kind". None of these options has any effect on the game whatsoevers. they only affect the tone of the conversations, all of wich leads to the excact same ending of the game.

[ejustinp]

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

Dragon Age Origins was only finished by something like 39% of players so I don't know how much this holds up.

[Icinix]

As much as I would rather see multiple race choice - if they really expand and allow background to have an affect on the story (beyond just one or two side missions) - then I'm ok with it.

..but please have a greater level of character customisation to really differentiate characters.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The onle downside I see of allowing only human protagonists is that the choise of race can no longer matter. If there are race options, then the choice of race - even for the majority who chosoe human - can make a difference in the game. Having choices that matter seems to be something people like, and not being able to chosoe race eliminates one such choice.

[Caiden012]

MorningBird wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

Not for everyone.

In DAO, I only ever finished the game with one Warden, but I really liked the Warden that I had created, so I played again as the SAME Warden several times.

In DA2, we were restricted to playing as a human, but I created and finished it with three DIFFERENT characters (and I'm planning on playing a fourth character closer to the release of DA3.)

You found race restrictions limiting.  I didn't.  Replayability is going to be different for each person.

But adding race choice doesn't change that you could play with three different human characters. You still get you're replayability while other players don't. Adding race options appeals to a wider audience and keeps more players happy.

[Rawgrim]

Teddie Sage wrote...

Well put MorningBird. I had two different rogue playthroughs (one focused on archery, the other one with dual-wielding) on DA2 and I'm planning to make a mage and a warrior one in a near future. It's not because it only has one race that you can't replay the game differently­.

And how was the two rogue playthroughs any different, pray tell? other than the method your characters used to kill enemies in battle, of course.

[Teddie Sage]

Rawgrim wrote...

You can only play DA2 as 3 different characters. "Funny, Mean or Kind". None of these options has any effect on the game whatsoevers. they only affect the tone of the conversations, all of wich leads to the excact same ending of the game.

Funny. My Hawkes were not only funny, mean or kind. There were a mix of all these elements. If you choose to focus on one behaviour type, no wonder it limitates your type of Hawkes. There are multiple possibilities, you know. Not everything is black and white. I had one playthrough with one character 90% sarcastic/charming and 10% diplomatic/kind, while the other one was 30% everything, approx.

Rawgrim wrote...

And how was the two rogue playthroughs any different, pray tell? other than the method your characters used to kill enemies in battle, of course.

Different tones, decisions, siding with mages or templars, betraying or siding with the Qunari. All those little choices and different tones in Hawke's dialogues made both of my experiences different.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:22 .

[Asch Lavigne]

Rawgrim wrote...

MorningBird wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

Not for everyone.

In DAO, I only ever finished the game with one Warden, but I really liked the Warden that I had created, so I played again as the SAME Warden several times.

In DA2, we were restricted to playing as a human, but I created and finished it with three DIFFERENT characters (and I'm planning on playing a fourth character closer to the release of DA3.)

You found race restrictions limiting.  I didn't.  Replayability is going to be different for each person.

You can only play DA2 as 3 different characters. "Funny, Mean or Kind". None of these options has any effect on the game whatsoevers. they only affect the tone of the conversations, all of wich leads to the excact same ending of the game.

Sadly, neither does what class you choose. After my first playthrough I was so excited to see what the game would be like as a mage (only reason I wanted to play again after so many dissapointments) and was appalled to find that it changed absolutley nothing story-wise, what a major screw up!

[LinksOcarina]

WhiteThunder wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Please stop being just bitter about all this. Then step back and try to look at it objectively. Right now you stink of a vendetta and are really hard to take serious.

Well, as long as you can take me seriously I won't mind.

Let's look at the facts:

1. There was a tactical camera in DA:O.
2. Said tactical camera was universally acclaimed.
3. Mike Laidlaw said that in DA2 there would be the "Tactical Camera 2.0" in an interview with Game Informer.
4. There was no tactical camera of any sort in DA2.

Please, anyone, enlighten me as to any factual errors in this list.

None, really, although in origins I wouldn't call the camera tactical in any way personally. 

That said, who honestly cares other than you? It didn't really deter the play experience for me in the end, and I still paused/played like I have in all BioWare games since Baldurs Gate. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:22 .

[Rawgrim]

ejustinp wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

Dragon Age Origins was only finished by something like 39% of players so I don't know how much this holds up.

DA:O wasn`t dumbed down. DA2 was. It had ritalin written all over it. it was actually an argument the devs used too. More players would finish DA2 if it got more streamlined and "awsomme".

[Icinix]

ejustinp wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

Dragon Age Origins was only finished by something like 39% of players so I don't know how much this holds up.

I hate seeing those statistics used for games (not you for posting it - just the statistic itself).

Very few games ever claim above fifty percent completion rate - but completing a game until the end doesn't imply anything for enjoyment or quality of game (I would almost argue high rates of completion are cheap quick and easy games to get through). I have many games I've never completed but the hours I have put into them number in the hundreds.

[Monica21]

LobselVith8 wrote...
So you take issue with how she phrased it? There are a plethora of people who have voiced that they think the absence of racial options as a mistake.

Yes, I do take issue with how it was phrased because it wasn't phrased as opinion. It was phrased as shortsighted without any factual basis to support it. What were the problems with DA2? Was it lack of race choice, or were there other issues that prevented it from being as good as Origins?

I didn't see any different with what Xil wrote, since it doesn't seem to make much sense to exclude multiple origins when Inquisition has the inclusion of a mage option.

Edited: I misread this. Without knowing the story, how do you know the inclusion of a mage option won't make sense?

Modifié par Monica21, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:26 .

[Rawgrim]

Teddie Sage wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

You can only play DA2 as 3 different characters. "Funny, Mean or Kind". None of these options has any effect on the game whatsoevers. they only affect the tone of the conversations, all of wich leads to the excact same ending of the game.

Funny. My Hawkes were not only funny, mean or kind. There were a mix of all these elements. If you choose to focus on one behaviour type, no wonder it limitates your type of Hawkes. There are multiple possibilities, you know. Not everything is black and white. I had one playthrough with one character 90% sarcastic/charming and 10% diplomatic/kind, while the other one was 30% everything, approx.

Rawgrim wrote...

And how was the two rogue playthroughs any different, pray tell? other than the method your characters used to kill enemies in battle, of course.

Different tones, decisions, siding with mages or templars, betraying or siding with the Qunari. All those little choices and different tones in Hawke's dialogues made both of my experiences different.

And did any of these "thousands of variations" give you a different ending to the story? Or was it just an illusion of choice, maybe?

[Xilizhra]

Yes, I do take issue with how it was phrased because it wasn't phrased as
opinion. It was phrased as shortsighted without any factual basis to
support it. What were the problems with DA2? Was it lack of race choice,
or were there other issues that prevented it from being as good as
Origins?

Lack of race choice is actually one of the few things that I genuinely disliked about DA2 as compared to Origins; much of the rest of it I did like, some of it better than DAO.

Which, by nearly all accounts, was implemented poorly. The dev team would be unlikely to admit it but I suspect that they think it was implemented poorly. Would you rather have a poorly implemented elf and dwarf just to have an elf and dwarf, or a human that's well-rounded, and fits better into the game world and the story BioWare is telling?

I'm going to play as a mage. If the mage option is implemented poorly anyway, odds are low that being an elf would make it much worse, and the mage option wasn't done very well in DA2 either; I'd much rather fill in the cracks of a premise than be forced into one smooth premise I still dislike.

[Teddie Sage]

Rawgrim wrote...

And did any of these "thousands of variations" give you a different ending to the story? Or was it just an illusion of choice, maybe?

I wasn't disappointed like you with the outcome of the story, to tell you the truth. I was expecting to see more in a sequel and I'm going to do just that in Dragon Age III.

[Rawgrim]

Teddie Sage wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

And did any of these "thousands of variations" give you a different ending to the story? Or was it just an illusion of choice, maybe?

I wasn't disappointed like you with the outcome of the story, to tell you the truth. I was expecting to see more in a sequel and I'm going to do just that in Dragon Age III.

So the fact that nothing you did in the game itself mattered in the end. And that, as a roleplayer, didn`t disapoint you one bit?

[LobselVith8]

Teddie Sage wrote...

They were a mix of these three elements. if you choose to focus on one behaviour type, no wonder it limits your type of Hawkes. There are multiple possibilities, you know.

Some people didn't like Hawke. Didn't like his paraphrasing, his auto-line, his mandatory religious views, his passivity...

[Sable Rhapsody]

Eh. We're set as human in most games, and in many RPGs. Never stopped me from playing those games

Rawgrim wrote...
And did any of these "thousands of variations" give you a different ending to the story? Or was it just an illusion of choice, maybe?

Every BioWare game has been the illusion of choice rather than choice. The core plots of their games are almost identical playthrough to playthrough. Some choices are given in-universe significance (genophage cure, ascending to godhood in BG2, siding with mages/templars) but they also have minimal effect on the main plot.

Only RP experience I've found where the world is 100% reactive to everything you do and branches for every choice with completely different plots are tabletop games.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:34 .