210 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

renjility wrote...

Gaider said for story reasons. And deeper character customization (by removing customization. Uh uh). The same was said for DA2, and I haven't seen a thing of it, so personally I am not convinced at all.

Well the race was basically irrelevant flavour for 90% of DA:O, so a single origin meant more specific content (which we got with the family). Cutting out multiple origins clearly meant deeper content in DA:2, and then there were just implementation problems w the races (like cinematics for dwarves, and issues with mages being impossible, so no bethany and no Malcom, etc.). 

Basically the only real issue is why Hawke couldn't  be elven, and the issue there presumably was that Kirkwall is racist. 

[upsettingshorts]

Restricting racial options to provide for deeper character customization makes sense, and is in no way a contradiction. 

It works in the same sense that if you have one glass of water, and you pour it into two other glasses (making three) you'll have three glasses each 1/3rd filled with water.  

That is an abstraction as well as a metaphor, but I imagine that's vaguely what they're getting at. As such, more racial choices would provide for broader customization, but not necessarily deeper.

This assumes that by restricting racial options to humans, we'll get more options in the character creator.   A reasonable assumption, but not one based on any hard evidence as of yet.  Only an interpretation of what "deeper customization" is referring to.

In Exile wrote...

Basically the only real issue is why Hawke couldn't  be elven, and the issue there presumably was that Kirkwall is racist. 

Hawke could also not be a dwarf because none are mages.

Likewise, Leandra's family was Kirkwall nobility and that rules out elves.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 décembre 2012 - 08:05 .

[Uccio]

Race issue vs cinematic is bogus. Varric anyone?

Also, not throwing eveything from Origins out of the window and replacing it with ME awsomeness would have given enough room for different origins. Complaining that 90% of the Origins was origins free and then claiming that origins take too much resources is contradicting.

[AlexJK]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Restricting racial options to provide for deeper character customization makes sense, and is in no way a contradiction. 

It works in the same sense that if you have one glass of water, and you pour it into two other glasses (making three) you'll have three glasses each 1/3rd filled with water.  

That is an abstraction as well as a metaphor, but I imagine that's vaguely what they're getting at. As such, more racial choices would provide for broader customization, but not necessarily deeper.

At last, the voice of sanity. Why do some people not see this? Having a fixed race PC means that the writers don't have to worry about several incredibly disparate character options during each conversation, dealing with which takes away time from creating other meaningful story arcs elsewhere in the game.

Ukki wrote...

Race issue vs cinematic is bogus. Varric anyone?

Varric is the same size on every playthrough, and features in fewer cinematics than the PC. He isn't randomly a 7-foot tall qunari every other time...

[Vaeliorin]

Ukki wrote...
Race issue vs cinematic is bogus. Varric anyone?

I think you misunderstand. Varric is always a male dwarf. He isn't sometimes a male dwarf and sometimes a female human, and yet other times a male elf. They always know exactly how tall/thick Varric is, so they don't have to craft separate scenes for each model, or make scenes that accomodate a character of varying statures.

Personally, I think this is a reason to do away with cinematics instead of race options, but I'm (almost) as idiosyncratic as Sylvius.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 18 décembre 2012 - 11:11 .

[Uccio]

^ I get that. However being able to present these characters in cinematic tells us that the ability to do so is alreade there. I am not coder but I would guess that modifying Varric's mold into female is not that big deal. Qunaris and elves are also already there.

[Little Princess Peach]

No more reapting caves, and less of those wavey combat senario's or at least make it less annoying and more managable for those of us that don't care much for the fighting part of the game.

[AlexJK]

Ukki wrote...

^ I get that. However being able to present these characters in cinematic tells us that the ability to do so is alreade there. I am not coder but I would guess that modifying Varric's mold into female is not that big deal. Qunaris and elves are also already there.

It's the relative position of characters to each other and the position and angle of the camera that matters. Think about the cinematic near the beginning of DA2 where Varric catches the pickpocket. Think about the camera angles that need to be used there for Varric's height. There would have to be a whole separate set of camera positions if Varric were taller - effectively doubling the amount of work required.

This logic applies to all cinematics featuring a PC with optional race/height/size.

Modifié par AlexJK, 18 décembre 2012 - 12:08 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Precisely.

The issue is not that the DA team can't do a cinematic with an elf, dwarf, human or Kossith character in it. The issue is that the team would have to draw the scene with characters looking up or down depending on the height, shadows in different places because of the size and different placement of feet/arms/hands depending on the relation to everything else around them because of the different size/shape of the races.

Which is why it could be done in DA:O, where there was nearly zero visual interaction on the part of the Warden during the majority of conversations. Morrigan just stared straight ahead when talking, regardless of if your PC was a dwarf who she would have her head inclined downwards to see. Which is why, in my opinion, the non-cinematic, non-voiced PC design is the most rewarding - it can account for more content and more freedom, instead of spending more resources for us to have less control and instead just watch Bioware's character.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 18 décembre 2012 - 02:37 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Precisely.

The issue is not that the DA team can't do a cinematic with an elf, dwarf, human or Kossith character in it. The issue is that the team would have to draw the scene with characters looking up or down depending on the height, shadows in different places because of the size and different placement of feet/arms/hands depending on the relation to everything else around them because of the different size/shape of the races.

Which is why it could be done in DA:O, where there was nearly zero visual interaction on the part of the Warden during the majority of conversations. Morrigan just stared straight ahead when talking, regardless of if your PC was a dwarf who she would have her head inclined downwards to see. Which is why, in my opinion, the non-cinematic, non-voiced PC design is the most rewarding - it can account for more content and more freedom, instead of spending more resources for us to have less control and instead just watch Bioware's character.

I found that approach far more immersive too.

I know you were looking over the shoulder with the odd cut to the Warden, but overall it felt as if you, the character in the game, was interacting with the world around it. As opposed to DA:2 which felt more 3rd party.

At least BW are taking that same approach which saw DA:2 sink so low and sell far worse *facepalm*

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 18 décembre 2012 - 03:56 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I'm not going to speculate on how features from DA2 being in DA3 will affect anything like sales at this point. But it is, without argument, more expensive to create content in that manner. Which likely means they will have to have less content than what was in Origins, or significantly more sales to counter the increased costs.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 18 décembre 2012 - 04:19 .

[Cell1e]

My issues with DA2 are many. I have been replaying it again this week and am finding it such a chore.

I don't like that there is no central gathering place to chat to all your friends, I would have made it the hanged man. The campfire place in origins was a great place to go and catch up on convos, sell stuff, restock and get re-organised for the next series of quests.

Regarding this, i find myself having very little feelings or interest in my companions due to the fact the conversations are extremely limited. In origins there must have been at least 20 (maybe more) diferent conversations with main love interest, with them initiating romantic chats many times...ie the rose, the ty scene after alistair goes to see his sister, the time he thanks you for helping the arl... there are loads.

Nothing like that in DA2. Going all the way to darktown to see if by some chance yer man has some sweet talk for me felt so desperate. Also a waste of time as there are so few chats. I think by not being able to stop anywhere in the world and chat to any of your companions also detracts from the immersion and enjoyment I get from rpgs. I like to live in the moment when i am playing and if I have just had a bad battle like to stop and chat and check on companions before continuing. Even if they dont have the appropriate or exact conversation I want.

I hate that I cant mix my potions and nades etc from anywhere I am and do it myself. Crafting is a lovely part of rpgs, why dumb it down?

Id like to see less of this naming all armours all sorts of exotic names but them looking all exactly the same, its cheap and annoying. Paying 50 gold for some awesome sounding armour is such a kick in the fanny when you put it on your gal and she looks exactly the same as she looked in her last armour.

The story in DA2 is not wonderful, inspiring and epic. Its blah. Too much death and tragedy. i think death and tragedy needs to be handled sparingly in rpgs. I mean in this game first your sisiter dies, then your brother nearly dies and then your mother is gruesomely murdered. For those who havent yet experienced loss of loved ones this may be ok. But for many of us its bringing too much rl into a fantasy game where many of us want a lift and prehaps a bit of joy, fun, love and laughter.

The ending for DA2 was just horribly awful for most of my playthroughs. My gals lover commited a horrendous murder and then you go on the run...really??...no happy ending??

I also felt the character creator was a huge step back from the one in origins. The hairs ghastly. In this day and age is there an excuse for only short/medium hair for women? Find some skilled people who can do this stuff really well and make great hair happen. There is a reason hair mods are so popular in nexus!

But mostly give us back the person who wrote with such passion, pride and love the story and dialogue in origins.
It was wonderful, many diiferent stories beginnings skillfully woven to make an compelling and epic feeling game.

Nothing has compared since origins.

Modifié par Cell1e, 18 décembre 2012 - 04:52 .

[Uccio]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Precisely.

The issue is not that the DA team can't do a cinematic with an elf, dwarf, human or Kossith character in it. The issue is that the team would have to draw the scene with characters looking up or down depending on the height, shadows in different places because of the size and different placement of feet/arms/hands depending on the relation to everything else around them because of the different size/shape of the races.

Which is why it could be done in DA:O, where there was nearly zero visual interaction on the part of the Warden during the majority of conversations. Morrigan just stared straight ahead when talking, regardless of if your PC was a dwarf who she would have her head inclined downwards to see. Which is why, in my opinion, the non-cinematic, non-voiced PC design is the most rewarding - it can account for more content and more freedom, instead of spending more resources for us to have less control and instead just watch Bioware's character.

I found that approach far more immersive too.

I know you were looking over the shoulder with the odd cut to the Warden, but overall it felt as if you, the character in the game, was interacting with the world around it. As opposed to DA:2 which felt more 3rd party.

At least BW are taking that same approach which saw DA:2 sink so low and sell far worse *facepalm*

Exactly. DA2 made me feel I was that third person in the room.

[Dysjong]

What i wish for DA:I

I want to fear for my chars life. Im not just thinking combat but other places. It could happen in a conversation, where if you say something bad, then you might get killed or lose a limb. ME2 did have some moments where it would cost me a companion or if i actually did say yes to Morinth, then BAM! Game over.

A rogue isnt just a dmg dealer. They steal, bluff, doing cons, double dealing, cat burglar and other things.

Let me able to summon demons.

There are other things but many people have already said those things.

[Wozearly]

Its a good question, but not one with an easy answer.

Speaking as a DA2 detractor, I think there were a number of things wrong with the game. Speaking with my general gamer hat on, most games have things 'wrong' with them that could be improved. 

Does the distinction matter? Yes. I've yet to come across a fan or a detractor that was happy with the reused environments, that didn't express some form of grumble relating to the dialogue wheel, who wouldn't have preferred choices to have greater consequences and who would have liked the game to be a bit more seamless and true to the original idea rather than the slightly more choppy and rushed end product we got.

Most of us would like the return of racial choices (although we differ on how much we would be willing to sacrifice to get this, and whether its conditional on races having a meaningful difference on NPC reactions and storyline), and we all seem broadly positive about the proposal to make classes more meaningful in terms of NPC reactions. I think we'd all have liked to get out of Kirkwall a bit more, or at least see the city change and develop over its 10 years.

So those aren't the things that got the DA2 detractors frothing at the mouth. They just added insult to injury.

What's more interesting is where the fans and detractors tend to violently disagree. Because at this point, what I've seen is a lot more general grumbles about the change in direction.

There's definitely not universal agreement amongst detractors (or amongst fans, for that matter), but common topics I've seen set the BSN against itself are things like;

The focus on the Mage/Templar war
The aesthetic resdesigns (races, armour, weapons),
The UI redesigns (quest markers, codex, amount of 'handholding' given to players)
The voiced PC (including the linked changes to dialogue display, dialogue icons and feel of character ownership) The shift towards more cinematic and (over)dramatic storytelling,
The changes to combat style and epicness (e.g. combat speed, exploding bodies, teleporting rogues),
The changes to combat balance (e.g. superpowered PC abilities versus trash enemies leading to wave combat and HP-bloated bosses and lieutenants to retain difficulty)

These aren't as fixable, because they have a huge impact on the overall style and feel of the game. And that, I think, is the common factor. The divisions are about how it was designed to play, look and feel...and what its priorities were in delivering to the audience.

DA:O was from the same design style and vision as Baldur's Gate and Knights of the Old Republic. It appealed to players who enjoyed the features and appeal those games brought, and for the strength of its storytelling.

DA2 was far closer to the design style and vision as Mass Effect and Jade Empire. It appealed to players who enjoyed the features and appeal more common to those games, and for the strength of its storytelling. Oh, and it was poorly executed in comparison to past titles.

DA and ME have demonstrably different fan bases, albeit with a clear element of overlap. But not everyone actually values the DA2 / ME / JE styles and design priorities.

To switch between them mid-series must have looked great on paper as a strategy (Game of the Year RPG takes on elements that made Mass Effect our best-selling series to date, whilst not becoming Dragon Effect), but was an incredibly brave (stupid?) move that predictably tore a socking great hole in the DA fanbase.

"Fixing" that might require a genuinely significant rethink about who the DA series is designed to appeal to and what that means might have been changed in error. Or the poor feedback might be pinned primarily on execution errors, and the DA2 model will be given another go with DA3...which I think is more likely.

[stormhit]

I want the map to be less precise. I bet they could have gotten away with a certain degree of level reuse if a perfect representation of the game geometry hadn't been on the screen the whole time.

Not that getting away with level reuse would have been a good thing.

Modifié par stormhit13, 19 décembre 2012 - 12:29 .

[Hurbster]

Wozearly wrote...

Its a good question, but not one with an easy answer.

Speaking as a DA2 detractor, I think there were a number of things wrong with the game. Speaking with my general gamer hat on, most games have things 'wrong' with them that could be improved. 

Does the distinction matter? Yes. I've yet to come across a fan or a detractor that was happy with the reused environments, that didn't express some form of grumble relating to the dialogue wheel, who wouldn't have preferred choices to have greater consequences and who would have liked the game to be a bit more seamless and true to the original idea rather than the slightly more choppy and rushed end product we got.

Most of us would like the return of racial choices (although we differ on how much we would be willing to sacrifice to get this, and whether its conditional on races having a meaningful difference on NPC reactions and storyline), and we all seem broadly positive about the proposal to make classes more meaningful in terms of NPC reactions. I think we'd all have liked to get out of Kirkwall a bit more, or at least see the city change and develop over its 10 years.

So those aren't the things that got the DA2 detractors frothing at the mouth. They just added insult to injury.

What's more interesting is where the fans and detractors tend to violently disagree. Because at this point, what I've seen is a lot more general grumbles about the change in direction.

There's definitely not universal agreement amongst detractors (or amongst fans, for that matter), but common topics I've seen set the BSN against itself are things like;

The focus on the Mage/Templar war
The aesthetic resdesigns (races, armour, weapons),
The UI redesigns (quest markers, codex, amount of 'handholding' given to players)
The voiced PC (including the linked changes to dialogue display, dialogue icons and feel of character ownership) The shift towards more cinematic and (over)dramatic storytelling,
The changes to combat style and epicness (e.g. combat speed, exploding bodies, teleporting rogues),
The changes to combat balance (e.g. superpowered PC abilities versus trash enemies leading to wave combat and HP-bloated bosses and lieutenants to retain difficulty)

These aren't as fixable, because they have a huge impact on the overall style and feel of the game. And that, I think, is the common factor. The divisions are about how it was designed to play, look and feel...and what its priorities were in delivering to the audience.

DA:O was from the same design style and vision as Baldur's Gate and Knights of the Old Republic. It appealed to players who enjoyed the features and appeal those games brought, and for the strength of its storytelling.

DA2 was far closer to the design style and vision as Mass Effect and Jade Empire. It appealed to players who enjoyed the features and appeal more common to those games, and for the strength of its storytelling. Oh, and it was poorly executed in comparison to past titles.

DA and ME have demonstrably different fan bases, albeit with a clear element of overlap. But not everyone actually values the DA2 / ME / JE styles and design priorities.

To switch between them mid-series must have looked great on paper as a strategy (Game of the Year RPG takes on elements that made Mass Effect our best-selling series to date, whilst not becoming Dragon Effect), but was an incredibly brave (stupid?) move that predictably tore a socking great hole in the DA fanbase.

"Fixing" that might require a genuinely significant rethink about who the DA series is designed to appeal to and what that means might have been changed in error. Or the poor feedback might be pinned primarily on execution errors, and the DA2 model will be given another go with DA3...which I think is more likely.

I agree with all this and I would just like to add - don't half-ass the final act. DA2's third act was abysmal compared to the other two. It was obviously rushed and unfinished. 2 for 2 in bad endings recently, you have the opportunity not to strike out with DA:I, please take it. Oh and let us take the neutral path that DA2 so famously railroaded us out of.

Modifié par Hurbster, 19 décembre 2012 - 12:36 .

[MagmaSaiyan]

Wozearly wrote...

Does the distinction matter? Yes. I've yet to come across a fan or a detractor that was happy with the reused environments, that didn't express some form of grumble relating to the dialogue wheel, who wouldn't have preferred choices to have greater consequences and who would have liked the game to be a bit more seamless and true to the original idea rather than the slightly more choppy and rushed end product we got.

well then i guess ill be your first. was a i happy with reused areas? not the mansions anyway, otherwise i rarely cared about the caves, cause to me it made sense, at least they closed off certain areas so youre not exploring all of the same cave again. and simply from my up bringing, im happy that i have any kind of input of what my character says in any aspect of dialogue, and so far ive yet to see Bioware fail on desicions i made, either from Origins or during the game

[SpunkyMonkey]

Ukki wrote...

Exactly. DA2 made me feel I was that third person in the room.

Which makes it all the more annoying when I hear that they are adopting the same approach in DA:3 to several things which create that feel for DA:2.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 19 décembre 2012 - 02:26 .

[Farbautisonn]

Most, if not all has allready been stated.

My primary concern is the storyline. It would absolutely have to make sense in the ingame setting and it would have to be compelling and consistant. That includes dialoge. No cheesy or inane dialogues please, and for the love of god, no "streamlining" of the storyline to the point where you are brutally pidgeonholed into choises, motivation and dialogue that dissapates suspension of disbelief.

If its an "RPG" then make me able to RP... or at least give me the illusion. That means giving me choises and having those matter. If you are only going to give me two choises (or one) then dont bother. Make DA: Tetris instead.

[Wozearly]

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

Wozearly wrote...

Does the distinction matter? Yes. I've yet to come across a fan or a detractor that was happy with the reused environments, that didn't express some form of grumble relating to the dialogue wheel, who wouldn't have preferred choices to have greater consequences and who would have liked the game to be a bit more seamless and true to the original idea rather than the slightly more choppy and rushed end product we got.

well then i guess ill be your first. was a i happy with reused areas? not the mansions anyway, otherwise i rarely cared about the caves, cause to me it made sense, at least they closed off certain areas so youre not exploring all of the same cave again. and simply from my up bringing, im happy that i have any kind of input of what my character says in any aspect of dialogue, and so far ive yet to see Bioware fail on desicions i made, either from Origins or during the game

Love the way that you opened that by saying you weren't happy with the re-use of mansion areas, which was the first point on my list.

But you genuinely had absolutely no gripes at all about the dialogue wheel (e.g. conversation limiting, too heavily reliant on feeling you were choosing based primarily on theme)? And you genuinely preferred the fairly limited impact your decisions had as opposed to them having more of an impact? And you didn't feel that DA2 had a rushed quality to the story progression?

As for Bioware failing with decisions, generally they don't, although the head-scratching resurrection of both Anders and Leliana in my first playthrough of DA2 may have somewhat coloured my opinion of how many past decisions were being retconned and ignored (although I do fully understand the decision with Anders, albeit not with Leliana).

However, I didn't mention this as something with widespread agreement, because people's feelings towards that will depend entirely on your past playthroughs and decisions, so its unlikely to ever be something everyone would agree on.

My point was that things which 'haters' and 'fans' both agree would benefit from improvement are likely to be irrelevant to the reason why people fell into the 'hater' or 'fan' camps in the first place and so are unlikely to solve the problem.

Not to say that they aren't a good idea to fix, or that Bioware are obliged to cater to people who disliked DA2, of course. There's (almost) no shame in being a DA2 fan.

[termokanden]

No idea if it has been mentioned yet... but the Acts with matching tiers of gear was maybe not the best idea. Not even talking about the reuse of areas here. I just hate how everything is tied to your Act.

Modifié par termokanden, 20 décembre 2012 - 07:42 .

[papality]

not using the same like 4 maps for the entire game

[Babaganoosh013]

Try putting more than 1 colour in the prologue. Especially if I was allegedly in 3 different environments.