3855 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

My impression, in fact, was that the companion armor was not fixed. And why are the dialogue wheel and the paraphrasing bad things?

If the companions have fixed armor, with a few variations on the fixed armor, I don't see how it isn't fixed. It isn't like I have the same freedom I did in Origins with companion armor.

About companion armours, their concept is that you find different piece of armour, put them on your companions, and that piece of armour has a different look from each companion. Other than that, they shown that we could combine different pieces of armour. Now, from this concept, how can you say that the companion armour will be fixed? They shown two different sets equipped on a GW and a Seeker, and a armour composed of pieces from different armours. The armours equipped on the GW are different from each other, as for the Seeker.

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Minor replay value.

Multiple Origins achieved replay value.

For you.

I saw 6 different origins that stopped being different enough to be interesting the second that first conversation with Cailan at Ostagar was over.

[TheJediSaint]

Dragon Age 3-Made by humans, for humans.

[Allan Schumacher]

How so? They could have approached the conflicts from other POVs. Reflect Dalish looks on magic besides the couple of Merril´s comments, same with dwarves (who both lack mages and have partial immunity), or the quanri from an elf, who usually take the Qun as several steps in the right direction from the way human cultures treat them. It would have been worse only if it had limited itself to a change of skin and a few dialogue choices. Which considering the rest of DA2, would probably have been the case.

You realize that this isn't just a request for more races, but also more content to make sure that said racial choices are done better.

In other words, it boils down to a request for additional content. Which is something I expect every person to want.

[Jerrybnsn]

Atakuma wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Pre-production of DA2 began in the fall of 2009 per Brian Knowles, the lead designer for Origins.  That was before Orignis was released and it was already decided then that DA2 was going to go with a set protagonist and that is why Knowles declined being the lead designer for DA2.  He said he didn't want to turn the DA series into a type of Mass Effect set protagonist because that's not how he likes to play his rpgs. 

The data they've collected over the course of Origins play throughs is nothing more than defensive fodder after the fact.

That data was released well before DA2 was even announced, So it was not in any way after the fact. Also I don't see what brent knowles has to do with any of this.

I made a typo that I corrected after you replied.

Pre-production of DA2 began in the fall of 2008.  That was when it was decided DA2 would have a set human protagonists.  One full year before Origins release.

[ianvillan]

Atakuma wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Pre-production of DA2 began in the fall of 2009 per Brian Knowles, the lead designer for Origins.  That was before Orignis was released and it was already decided then that DA2 was going to go with a set protagonist and that is why Knowles declined being the lead designer for DA2.  He said he didn't want to turn the DA series into a type of Mass Effect set protagonist because that's not how he likes to play his rpgs. 

The data they've collected over the course of Origins play throughs is nothing more than defensive fodder after the fact.

That data was released well before DA2 was even announced, So it was not in any way after the fact. Also I don't see what brent knowles has to do with any of this.

The choice to go with a Human only character in DA2 was decided before Origins was released.

[Teddie Sage]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I saw 6 different origins that stopped being different enough to be interesting the second that first conversation with Cailan at Ostagar was over.

I can relate with you on that. There are few minor things mentioned here and there, but I never see a huge difference and it doesn't affect my game style at all, whatsoever.

[upsettingshorts]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
I made a typo that I corrected after you replied.

Pre-production of DA2 began in the fall of 2008.  That was when it was decided DA2 would have a set human protagonists.  One full year before Origins release.

Just what do you think pre-production in this context means?

[Atakuma]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Having multiple races again was a major voiced request by fans. Why leave it out?

Because most people will just play as humans anyway, so they felt the recources would be better used elsewhere.

Let´s assume only 10% people play as non human. Let´s go with the around 3.5 million sales I read Origins had (anyone has exact figures?). That´s 350k players screwed. I´m almost sure that´s more than the cosplayers they wanted to appeal to with the iconic companion look. So I´d say the resources are not wasted on non humans.

DA2 wasn´t helped either by the fact the resources not expended on non human PCs weren´t apparent in any other feature of the game.

Okay first, assuming that all of those hundreds of thousands of hypothetical gamers feel the exact same way you do is absurd, I played an elf in Origins, yet I don't feel as though I've been screwed at all. Secondly, if DA2 had included race options the game would have probably been much worse off.

How so? They could have approached the conflicts from other POVs. Reflect Dalish looks on magic besides the couple of Merril´s comments, same with dwarves (who both lack mages and have partial immunity), or the quanri from an elf, who usually take the Qun as several steps in the right direction from the way human cultures treat them. It would have been worse only if it had limited itself to a change of skin and a few dialogue choices. Which considering the rest of DA2, would probably have been the case.

That is exactly my point. DA2 was rushed out the door, so obviously It was going to suffer regardless of the potential benefits of a human only protagonist. If they had actually attempted to add race choices to DA2, the game would probably have turned out even worse.

Modifié par Atakuma, 21 octobre 2012 - 08:29 .

[Darth Krytie]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Minor replay value.

Multiple Origins achieved replay value.

For you.

I saw 6 different origins that stopped being different enough to be interesting the second that first conversation with Cailan at Ostagar was over.

Same here. I played through each origin, but only played through the entire game a handful of times.

[Montana]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Discuss how this makes you feel here.

Be civil to one another.  Respect that other people have differing opinions, and this works both ways.  So if you LIKE this decision, respect that others are disappointed by it.

Rather than closing threads I'll try talking with posters whom I think are crossing the line.

It makes me sad and less interested in DA3, it's not neccecarily a dealbreaker but the ability to play other races was probably in my top 5 things I wanted to return in DA3.

It just adds so much replay value. You get a whole new viewpoint to the world even if the references to your race are minimal.
The city elf origin was my favourite since it gave the warden a great "rags to riches" sub-story, from no respect to being the saviour of the kingdom was just delicious.

Not a dealbreaker, but a big con.

[TEWR]

Upsettingshorts wrote..


There is a lot of other stuff out there, mostly including stuff that will be released long before DA3.  I don't see how BioWare ought to be obligated to hold your exclusive interest for over a year. What's wrong with looking elsewhere until they actually start ramping up the pre-release infodrip?

They're not. I never said they were obligated to disclose the information on DA3 now or that they must be able to hold my interest. I was asking an earnest question on just when they believe the information might come to light in Bioware's mind.

What I am saying though is that after a certain point, I may just lose interest in the series itself. Maybe I'll forget about it, or maybe I'll just not be interested anymore, or who knows what. Maybe I won't even have the money for it for some time to come, and the sooner I have more information to judge the game on the better I'd be able to coordinate what funds I do have -- if DA3 is a game I want.

I believe this type of thing was brought up in a thread earlier in the month, about transparency in game development. Not to the point where you know just what Mike Laidlaw put on his favorite sandwich, but certainly to a point where you can get a feel on just how they're developing the game. What they're doing, what they want to include ideally, what they know won't be in the game, how they're testing the engine's limitations, etc.

Will I look elsewhere? Almost assuredly. There are other games -- and systems -- that I want to buy. Will I do other things in my time other then spend every waking second frantically walking back and forth panicking over the lack of information? Definitely, as I'm currently fleshing out my own VG series -- though that's neither here nor there.

But if I look elsewhere and see a game that I do like and that has enough information for me to feel comfortable buying it, I may not have the money for DA3.

[Atakuma]

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Pre-production of DA2 began in the fall of 2009 per Brian Knowles, the lead designer for Origins.  That was before Orignis was released and it was already decided then that DA2 was going to go with a set protagonist and that is why Knowles declined being the lead designer for DA2.  He said he didn't want to turn the DA series into a type of Mass Effect set protagonist because that's not how he likes to play his rpgs. 

The data they've collected over the course of Origins play throughs is nothing more than defensive fodder after the fact.

That data was released well before DA2 was even announced, So it was not in any way after the fact. Also I don't see what brent knowles has to do with any of this.

The choice to go with a Human only character in DA2 was decided before Origins was released.

And you know this how?

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the companions have fixed armor, with a few variations on the fixed armor, I don't see how it isn't fixed. It isn't like I have the same freedom I did in Origins with companion armor.

It's some of the same freedom.

Taking some things from DA2 and some stuff from DAO is not always going to be reaching into two different boxes and pulling out fully-formed, completely contiguous feature sets then mashing them together and saying, "Bam, DA3!"

It brings back some customization from DAO while retaining some of the distinctiveness in DA2.

It's called a compromise.  And I'm not surprised that it isn't enough for some people.

It's variations on fixed companion armor. I don't see that as a compromise.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Minor replay value.

Multiple Origins achieved replay value.

For you.

I saw 6 different origins that stopped being different enough to be interesting the second that first conversation with Cailan at Ostagar was over.

There is nothing subjective about it... multiple origins changed the game slightly, therefore they achieved some amount of replay value. Your opinion is nice, but it has nothing to do with the fact of the matter.

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Multiple Origins achieved replay value.

For you.

And others as well.

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the companions have fixed armor, with a few variations on the fixed armor, I don't see how it isn't fixed. It isn't like I have the same freedom I did in Origins with companion armor.

It's some of the same freedom.

Taking some things from DA2 and some stuff from DAO is not always going to be reaching into two different boxes and pulling out fully-formed, completely contiguous feature sets then mashing them together and saying, "Bam, DA3!"

It brings back some customization from DAO while retaining some of the distinctiveness in DA2.

It's called a compromise.  And I'm not surprised that it isn't enough for some people.

It's variations on fixed companion armor. I don't see that as a compromise.

There was no variation in Dragon Age 2, save the romance-specific swaps.  That you fail to see that as a compromise is your problem, because it objectively is one.

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

There is nothing subjective about it... multiple origins changed the game slightly, therefore they achieved some amount of replay value. Your opinion is nice, but it has nothing to do with the fact of the matter.

You have no idea what the possible pro-DA2 implications of this position could be, do you?

LobselVith8 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Multiple Origins achieved replay value.

For you.

And others as well.

Amazing, we've finally reached the point at which we can mutually acknowledge that some fans liked the origins, and other fans really didn't care about them because they weren't terribly impactful.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 octobre 2012 - 08:32 .

[devSin]

It feels fine to me, to be honest.

I find it far more important that the other races are represented well through companions and NPCs. I wasn't bothered in DA2, because we had Varric and Merrill and the Arishok—we don't have to forgo the diversity of the various races because we can only play a human; we can still experience it through these other characters. (You do miss out on some of the reactivity, although I think that can also partially be offloaded to companions, but I never was personally all that invested in having conversations that responded to the player character by race.)

As long as DA3 isn't filled with humans and nothing but, I think I'll be satisfied.

Modifié par devSin, 21 octobre 2012 - 08:36 .

[ianvillan]

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Pre-production of DA2 began in the fall of 2009 per Brian Knowles, the lead designer for Origins.  That was before Orignis was released and it was already decided then that DA2 was going to go with a set protagonist and that is why Knowles declined being the lead designer for DA2.  He said he didn't want to turn the DA series into a type of Mass Effect set protagonist because that's not how he likes to play his rpgs. 

The data they've collected over the course of Origins play throughs is nothing more than defensive fodder after the fact.

That data was released well before DA2 was even announced, So it was not in any way after the fact. Also I don't see what brent knowles has to do with any of this.

The choice to go with a Human only character in DA2 was decided before Origins was released.

And you know this how?

Here

[Jerrybnsn]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...
I made a typo that I corrected after you replied.

Pre-production of DA2 began in the fall of 2008.  That was when it was decided DA2 would have a set human protagonists.  One full year before Origins release.

Just what do you think pre-production in this context means?

Well, read Knowles comments himself blog.brentknowles.com/2010/08/15/bioware-brent-year-10-fall-2008-summer-2009/

"Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a title? Certainly… though if I were going to work on a game adopting a set-in-stone protagonist I’d rather work on something lighter, like a shooter.

[labargegrrrl]

i think for those of us who really enjoyed playing as elves or dwarves in DAO, being railroaded into being human has stung since DA2. not bringing it back just feels like some sort of official confirmation that we're not worth the extra time, energy, money...whatever. maybe we're not, but that doesn't make it any easier to take.

i think that if they'd been willing to devote the extra resources, being able to choose the race of our pc could have not only made a HUGE comeback, but it could have been done even better than it was in DAO. but, of course, that's beside the point now.

for me, having a non-playable background on top of being forced to be human makes me even more skeptical. even if the prologue in DA2 had that inevitability built in due to the framed narrative, being able to play through it gave me a good feel for hawke's frame of being.

BUT...

whether or not our new pc will loose anything because of a very vanilla background will show more in the resulting gameplay/storytelling than it anything else. starting vanilla doesn't exclude sprinkles, hot fudge, whipped topping, bananas... the rest of the game is what gives the pc flavor.

PLUS...

there are a million other aspects that are going to matter more to me. and from what little we've been shown so far, i'd be lying if i said i wasn't more exited about the rest of what i've seen/heard.

overall, i'm just glad they've finally given us more of a taste of what they're doing.

[Atakuma]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the companions have fixed armor, with a few variations on the fixed armor, I don't see how it isn't fixed. It isn't like I have the same freedom I did in Origins with companion armor.

It's some of the same freedom.

Taking some things from DA2 and some stuff from DAO is not always going to be reaching into two different boxes and pulling out fully-formed, completely contiguous feature sets then mashing them together and saying, "Bam, DA3!"

It brings back some customization from DAO while retaining some of the distinctiveness in DA2.

It's called a compromise.  And I'm not surprised that it isn't enough for some people.

It's variations on fixed companion armor. I don't see that as a compromise.

The fact that you can actually equip them in armor is what makes it a compromise

[upsettingshorts]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Just what do you think pre-production in this context means?

Well, read Knowles comments himself blog.brentknowles.com/2010/08/15/bioware-brent-year-10-fall-2008-summer-2009/

"Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a title? Certainly… though if I were going to work on a game adopting a set-in-stone protagonist I’d rather work on something lighter, like a shooter.

So they were talking about things?  Wow, I guess that means everything had been set in stone for DA2 and for all time.  

There's no going back from talking about things!