567 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr Uhl]

calypsnex wrote...

Aw, don't pick on me US. I'm just a stupid player. But what bothered me was, I spent a huge amount of my combat time in DAO in the overhead tactical view, combat felt like chess, encouters felt very satisfying, and winning felt like a win. In DA2, my perception is that enemies are generally weaker, no FF in normal difficulties, no tactical view feels like a cheap way to make FF harder to manage, enemies come in weak waves that feel more actiony but don't feel very satisfying to deal with, and winning just feels perfunctory and not like a real win at all. 

So, encounter design and camera?

[upsettingshorts]

So the camera and encounter design, mostly?

I'm actually on board with you on both. Was just curious!

Edit:  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:56 .

[shubnabub]

Pseudocognition wrote...

calypsnex wrote...

Uhm...high fantasy just means in a different world and setting than reality. Low fantasy just means fantasy set in the real world. I'm pretty sure Thedas is a different world and if it's not then everything about the game fooled me. 

Thedas is generally low-fantasy with high-fantasy elements.

As far as I knew, low-fantasy just means more human drama and less dragons and apocalypses and unicorns. Whether it is our world or not isn't part of the definition, just that the fantasy world has the same rules as ours.

Yeah nevermind I don't know what I"m talking about when it comes to genres lol. I just struggle to think of DA as high fantasy.

It's like the Watchmen of fantasy.

TBH, when I learned the difference between high and low fantasy I was really disappointed. I was like, "High fantasy, fantasy that strives to achieve greatness in it's themes and setting...oh...just means a different world? Meh."

Upsettingshorts wrote...

So the camera and encounter design, mostly? 

I'm actually on board with you on both. Was just curious!

Edit:  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/ninja.png[/smilie]

If you wanna be all reductionist . My hyperbole example is it's like getting HL3 and finding out it's been turned into a 3rd person shooter with cover mechanics. It was just, shocking considering how I played the first one.

Modifié par calypsnex, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:59 .

[Herr Uhl]

calypsnex wrote...

TBH, when I learned the difference between high and low fantasy I was really disappointed. I was like, "High fantasy, fantasy that strives to achieve greatness in it's themes and setting...oh...just means a different world? Meh."

Depends on definition. The main usage nowadays is that the world is "like reality" but with magical elements.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Addai67 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Fallout New Vegas had about the same development cycle but they made a game that was superior in many ways to its predecessor and actually expanded features. They didn't try to re-invent the wheel, though.

And it was still a buggy mess for a long time.

So was its predecessor.  That's kind of the nature of big open-world games.

@ Maria:  Development on FNV started in February 2009 and the game came out October 2010, so they did have 18 months though they also had to coordinate between two developers.  Bioware devs have said that DA2 (March 2011) was in the works before DAO even came out (Nov 2009) so they also had more than 11 months total.

@Pseudo:  I know that FNV relied heavily on Fallout 3 assets and on Van Buren design, but you're saying that DA2 developers didn't have a lot of assets that could carry over?  If that's so, then it was purely by their choice, and yeah, that is the point- the priorities they chose were the wrong ones.

BioWare will never make a game as good as New Vegas anyhow.

[shubnabub]

Herr Uhl wrote...

calypsnex wrote...

TBH, when I learned the difference between high and low fantasy I was really disappointed. I was like, "High fantasy, fantasy that strives to achieve greatness in it's themes and setting...oh...just means a different world? Meh."

Depends on definition. The main usage nowadays is that the world is "like reality" but with magical elements.

Well I guess any word or phrase depends on how you define it. I'm going with Wikipedia's definition which I'm certain was written by fantasy nerds. 

Meh, it's a soft phrase that means two totally different things apparently.

Modifié par calypsnex, 10 janvier 2013 - 11:07 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...

@Pseudo:  I know that FNV relied heavily on Fallout 3 assets and on Van Buren design, but you're saying that DA2 developers didn't have a lot of assets that could carry over?  If that's so, then it was purely by their choice, and yeah, that is the point- the priorities they chose were the wrong ones.

Sorry, didn't catch your reply on the last page.

They did in fact carry over a lot of DA:O assets. Many armors, NPC costumes, props, the arrow icons, etc etc. I believe the armors were re-boned (hehe) and weighted better to fit the new base bodies but they're the same model. You can see the same training dummy model as was everywhere in DAO sitting right next to Aveline in her little hub in Act 1.

YOU think they misprioritized things. They did what was important to them. If you don't agree, well, they're the ones making the game.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 11:18 .

[Addai]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
BioWare will never make a game as good as New Vegas anyhow.

Hey now, none of that.  My point in the comparison is that the things Obsidian chose to spend time on are, IMO, a lot more worthwhile from the player perspective than more esoteric and lofty design goals that they weren't even able to execute.  FNV still gets criticized for being bland, ugly, etc., but the whole package was still well received by players.  YesIknowitwasstillbuggy.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 janvier 2013 - 11:22 .

[upsettingshorts]

Ooh when do we get to the part in Obsidian's fantastic decisionmaking where FNV's middling Metacritic score resulted in half the company being laid off because Bethesda didn't have to pay them?

(I actually love New Vegas)

(I can make irrelevant comparisons too)

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 11:25 .

[Herr Uhl]

Addai67 wrote...

YesIknowitwasstillbuggy.

Well, it was made by the holy twinity of RPG bugginess.

My point with the buggy is that 11 months is not enough to do adequate Q&A even if you reuse most assets.

[shubnabub]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ooh when do we get to the part in Obsidian's fantastic decisionmaking where FNV's middling Metacritic score resulted in half the company being laid off because Bethesda didn't have to pay them?

(I actually love New Vegas)

That was part of the contract with Beth and Beth also stipulated that they would do the bug testing which likely had a direct impact on the MC score...or that's what I pieced together. 

(and I love it too T_T)

(my tears are because that horrible contract and its horrible outcome are the reason Obsidian will never make another FO game)

Modifié par calypsnex, 10 janvier 2013 - 11:29 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...

Hey now, none of that.  My point in the comparison is that the things Obsidian chose to spend time on are, IMO, a lot more worthwhile from the player perspective than more esoteric and lofty design goals that they weren't even able to execute.  FNV still gets criticized for being bland, ugly, etc., but the whole package was still well received by players.  YesIknowitwasstillbuggy.

I never heard any complaints about it being bland. The majority of people complained about the bugginess. I barely heard any complaints about it being ugly, though I don't doubt there were some.

Also, Bioware isn't making an open world sandbox game nor wants to so how would Obsidian's priorities re: FNV help them in any way?

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 11:29 .

[lunamoondragon]

A new art style would be interesting, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that designs remain consistent for races like the kossith and elves. They're wonderfully distinguished in DAII. 

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

lunamoondragon wrote...

A new art style would be interesting, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that designs remain consistent for races like the kossith and elves. They're wonderfully distinguished in DAII. 

The elves are getting redesigned and thank Christ for that. They were fugly in DA II, I did like the look of the Qunari in DA II, although I wouldn't mind seeing some variation in facial structure. They all basically have the same face...

[shubnabub]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

lunamoondragon wrote...

A new art style would be interesting, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that designs remain consistent for races like the kossith and elves. They're wonderfully distinguished in DAII. 

The elves are getting redesigned and thank Christ for that. They were fugly in DA II, I did like the look of the Qunari in DA II, although I wouldn't mind seeing some variation in facial structure. They all basically have the same face...

Damn. I actually liked the elves better in DA2.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ooh when do we get to the part in Obsidian's fantastic decisionmaking where FNV's middling Metacritic score resulted in half the company being laid off because Bethesda didn't have to pay them?

(I actually love New Vegas)

(I can make irrelevant comparisons too)

So what you're saying is Bethesda are crooks?

[Joy Divison]

Master Shiori wrote...

Character modelling in DA:O was terrible. Morrigan (and Oghren) were the only truly unique looking characters in that game. No other female npc has Morrigan's hairstyle (except Velanna) or eye color. No other dwarf has Oghren's beard. It was these traits that made them memorable and easily idenfitied. By comparison, both Alistair and Leliana (while having great personalities) had dozens of clones running around Ferelden. Add to this the fact that neither of those characters had a unique outfit and you get situations where it's hard to tell them apart from other npcs.

By contrast, take any single DA2 companion, put them in a crowd of similar people and they'll be easily recognized.

Best example is Aveline who, despite wearing the regular guard armor, could still be easily singled out in a group of other, unhelmeted, guards.

While it is true the character modeling for the followers in DA2 was high quality, this came at the expense for the extraordinary low-quality and repetitve modeling of just about everything else in the game

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Addai67 wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
BioWare will never make a game as good as New Vegas anyhow.

Hey now, none of that.  My point in the comparison is that the things Obsidian chose to spend time on are, IMO, a lot more worthwhile from the player perspective than more esoteric and lofty design goals that they weren't even able to execute.  FNV still gets criticized for being bland, ugly, etc., but the whole package was still well received by players.  YesIknowitwasstillbuggy.

So they focus on substance over bling. I agree.

But I actually think New Vegas looks pretty decent, at least with some mods. Better than Dragon Age 2, at least.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Joy Divison wrote...

While it is true the character modeling for the followers in DA2 was high quality, this came at the expense for the extraordinary low-quality and repetitve modeling of just about everything else in the game

Character modelers are often different from environment modelers.

DA2 credits:

Lead Character Artist: Shane Hawco
Character Artist: Ben Carriere, Leroy Chen, Jae Keum, Francis Lacuna
Lead Environment Artist: Ben McGrath
Environment Artist: Casey Baldwin, Hayden Duvall, Andrew Farrell, Rohan Knuckey, Boyd
McKenzie, Chris Ryzebol, Andre Santos, Lee Scheinbeim, Alex Scott

Character artists specialize in characters and monsters.

Environment artists specialize in everything else.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 11:49 .

[upsettingshorts]

Joy Divison wrote...

While it is true the character modeling for the followers in DA2 was high quality, this came at the expense for the extraordinary low-quality and repetitve modeling of just about everything else in the game

So you're saying DA2 slightly improved upon DAO's extraordinarily low-quality modeling of everything, then?

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

So they focus on substance over bling. I agree.

It's fun agreeing with an assertion based on a false dichotomy isn't it ?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 11:48 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

calypsnex wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ooh when do we get to the part in Obsidian's fantastic decisionmaking where FNV's middling Metacritic score resulted in half the company being laid off because Bethesda didn't have to pay them?

(I actually love New Vegas)

That was part of the contract with Beth and Beth also stipulated that they would do the bug testing which likely had a direct impact on the MC score...or that's what I pieced together. 

(and I love it too T_T)

(my tears are because that horrible contract and its horrible outcome are the reason Obsidian will never make another FO game)

Is another Fallout game made by Obsidian really off the table?

[Twisted Path]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Odd usage of "perfect".

And they kind of failed in the high fantasy department, as their goal was low fantasy.

Yeah, maybe "perfectly fine" would be a better term. There were lots of elements in Origins that could be greatly improved upon, it's just a shame they threw a lot of stuff out completely instead of tweaking them, especially with the super short development cycle.

As for low/high fantasy: Eh. Definitions vary wildly. I tend to think of low fantasy as a fantasy story where supernatural elements are used very sparingly. High fantasy is the opposite: there's magic all over the place and it's a part of people's lives. A good rule of thumb would be that if people in the setting can conceivably not believe in magic it's low fantasy.

It's pretty obvious they set out to make Thedas a low fantasy setting in the style of A Song of Ice and Fire but a lot of big supernatural elements crept in.

[upsettingshorts]

I dunno how one can say the supernatural elements "crept" in, when the Dark Ritual was one of the first things Gaider even came up with.

But we're getting off topic again.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 11:50 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

While it is true the character modeling for the followers in DA2 was high quality, this came at the expense for the extraordinary low-quality and repetitve modeling of just about everything else in the game

So you're saying DA2 slightly improved upon DAO's extraordinarily low-quality modeling of everything, then?

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

So they focus on substance over bling. I agree.

It's fun agreeing with an assertion based on a false dichotomy isn't it ?

So you're saying cinematics count as substance.

[upsettingshorts]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

So you're saying cinematics count as substance.

Actually, what I was saying is that there is no "cinematics versus substance" fight in which developers must pick a side. It's exclusively fought on message boards by posters like you who think they're championing a cause that doesn't actually exist behind the scenes.

Incidentally, yes, cinematics do count as substance.  But that's not relevant to my labeling the "conflict" a false dichotomy.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 11:53 .