155 réponses à ce sujet

[Solmanian]

I found skyrim dragon wholly unimpressive. they looked fearsome in the sky, but they were so small on the ground... DA dragons are much better.

[Azraelatrix]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

One doesn't need a lesson in biology to recognize the difference between a High Dragon and the Archdemon. All we're asking for is more variations within those existing groups, specifically the high dragon.

But why? Dragons have a small population, an extremely long lifespan, are wide-ranging and yet remain in the temperate zone of Thedas. There is literally no reason to have a kajillion dragon species- and I'm glad for that. We just have "elves" in Dragon age, as opposed to high, wood, dark, etc. elves- and I hope that philosophy extends to dragons.

Right, it's just better to use the same dragon model over and over again instead of inventing some new lore to support more dragon variations. Who here is asking for an absurd number of dragon variations?

Finally someone gets one part of the post. One of the basic points of this thread was that the high dragon character was overused. A little variation in appearance wouldn't hurt. Better yet more dragon types could really add to the gameplay and tactical combat of the game. 

Modifié par Azraelatrix, 04 mars 2013 - 08:23 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Solmanian wrote...

I found skyrim dragon wholly unimpressive. they looked fearsome in the sky, but they were so small on the ground... DA dragons are much better.

That's because on the ground they "walk" and use their wings to balance themselves. In DA, the dragons remain in the same position as if they were flying around, wings extended and all. There's only a couple animations for the dragons in DA, they just hop around the player. We never see them fly outside of cutscenes.

To claim that Skyrim's dragons, which are some of the best in any game, are unimpressive and that the dragons in DA are better is just laughable.

[Azraelatrix]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

I found skyrim dragon wholly unimpressive. they looked fearsome in the sky, but they were so small on the ground... DA dragons are much better.

That's because on the ground they "walk" and use their wings to balance themselves. In DA, the dragons remain in the same position as if they were flying around, wings extended and all. There's only a couple animations for the dragons in DA, they just hop around the player. We never see them fly outside of cutscenes.

To claim that Skyrim's dragons, which are some of the best in any game, are unimpressive and that the dragons in DA are better is just laughable.

Very true, DA dragons didn't seem like a lot of work was done on them ( visually and in terms of animation) and the dull art style and pre rendered lighting didn't help either. Here's hoping Bioware fix them in the sequel.

[Herr Uhl]

Azraelatrix wrote...

 One of the basic points of this thread was that the high dragon character was overused.

It was used twice in DAO. Wouldn't call that overused.

[MisanthropePrime]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

One doesn't need a lesson in biology to recognize the difference between a High Dragon and the Archdemon. All we're asking for is more variations within those existing groups, specifically the high dragon.

But why? Dragons have a small population, an extremely long lifespan, are wide-ranging and yet remain in the temperate zone of Thedas. There is literally no reason to have a kajillion dragon species- and I'm glad for that. We just have "elves" in Dragon age, as opposed to high, wood, dark, etc. elves- and I hope that philosophy extends to dragons.

Right, it's just better to use the same dragon model over and over again instead of inventing some new lore to support more dragon variations. Who here is asking for an absurd number of dragon variations?

It is, actually, because game making is zero sum. Making new dragon models which aren't needed means Bioware can't make art assets for something else.

[MisanthropePrime]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Azraelatrix wrote...

 One of the basic points of this thread was that the high dragon character was overused.

It was used twice in DAO. Wouldn't call that overused.

This, too. You fight a grand total of five high dragons, three if you don't count the Queen of Blackmarsh and Archdemon. That's pretty far from overused, you want overused, check out the innumerable giant spiders.

Also bear in mind that dragonlings, drakes and non-high dragons (in regular and caliente varieties) also have their own models, as well. There's plenty of variation in the single species of dragons to go around.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

One doesn't need a lesson in biology to recognize the difference between a High Dragon and the Archdemon. All we're asking for is more variations within those existing groups, specifically the high dragon.

But why? Dragons have a small population, an extremely long lifespan, are wide-ranging and yet remain in the temperate zone of Thedas. There is literally no reason to have a kajillion dragon species- and I'm glad for that. We just have "elves" in Dragon age, as opposed to high, wood, dark, etc. elves- and I hope that philosophy extends to dragons.

Right, it's just better to use the same dragon model over and over again instead of inventing some new lore to support more dragon variations. Who here is asking for an absurd number of dragon variations?

It is, actually, because game making is zero sum. Making new dragon models which aren't needed means Bioware can't make art assets for something else.

As has been said earlier in the thread, new dragon types can be introduced that force the player to change their strategy. It would help to keep dragon encounters fresh while also offering interesting visual variations.

[MisanthropePrime]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

One doesn't need a lesson in biology to recognize the difference between a High Dragon and the Archdemon. All we're asking for is more variations within those existing groups, specifically the high dragon.

But why? Dragons have a small population, an extremely long lifespan, are wide-ranging and yet remain in the temperate zone of Thedas. There is literally no reason to have a kajillion dragon species- and I'm glad for that. We just have "elves" in Dragon age, as opposed to high, wood, dark, etc. elves- and I hope that philosophy extends to dragons.

Right, it's just better to use the same dragon model over and over again instead of inventing some new lore to support more dragon variations. Who here is asking for an absurd number of dragon variations?

It is, actually, because game making is zero sum. Making new dragon models which aren't needed means Bioware can't make art assets for something else.

As has been said earlier in the thread, new dragon types can be introduced that force the player to change their strategy. It would help to keep dragon encounters fresh while also offering interesting visual variations.

The dragon fights in every game have been different while retaining the same model: what makes you think the dragon fight in DA3 needs a new model to require a new strategy?

[KiwiQuiche]

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...


As has been said earlier in the thread, new dragon types can be introduced that force the player to change their strategy. It would help to keep dragon encounters fresh while also offering interesting visual variations.

The dragon fights in every game have been different while retaining the same model: what makes you think the dragon fight in DA3 needs a new model to require a new strategy?

Every dragon fight has been the same- the High Dragon jumps around, stomps and breathes fire. The only change was in DA2 where she flew up to the high ground and spat fire. Only difference I found, otherwise it was the same boring fight. It wasn't hard, just long.

[MisanthropePrime]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...


As has been said earlier in the thread, new dragon types can be introduced that force the player to change their strategy. It would help to keep dragon encounters fresh while also offering interesting visual variations.

The dragon fights in every game have been different while retaining the same model: what makes you think the dragon fight in DA3 needs a new model to require a new strategy?

Every dragon fight has been the same- the High Dragon jumps around, stomps and breathes fire. The only change was in DA2 where she flew up to the high ground and spat fire. Only difference I found, otherwise it was the same boring fight. It wasn't hard, just long.

The waves of adds were also new (though a hallmark of DA2 and mostly absent in DAO)

[KiwiQuiche]

MisanthropePrime wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...


As has been said earlier in the thread, new dragon types can be introduced that force the player to change their strategy. It would help to keep dragon encounters fresh while also offering interesting visual variations.

The dragon fights in every game have been different while retaining the same model: what makes you think the dragon fight in DA3 needs a new model to require a new strategy?

Every dragon fight has been the same- the High Dragon jumps around, stomps and breathes fire. The only change was in DA2 where she flew up to the high ground and spat fire. Only difference I found, otherwise it was the same boring fight. It wasn't hard, just long.

The waves of adds were also new (though a hallmark of DA2 and mostly absent in DAO)

Ah yes, the waves of enemies that appear out of thin air. That got old quick.

[Solmanian]

Since they're using a completely different engine, I imagine they'll have to make new models for eerything (though the aesthetics would probably remain recognizable).

[Goneaviking]

Solmanian wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Dragons are just beasts, animals, no more intelligent than a dolphin.

Because they don't speak english they are beast?

You think they're beasts because they tend to kill humans on sight? What do you think of humans who sprey pesticide on ant farms, if they find one in their house?

Is it because they have no technology? They're the size of a building, can breath fire, and their skin and bones are made from the hardest materials in existence; what reason do they have to develop metal working and pottery, when it would take the "civilized" races of thedas atleast a thousand years to atleast mimck what comes to them naturally?

Is it because they don't get envolved in human politics? Would you negotiate with an ant queen whose ants infested your kitchen, or would you kill it with fire?

I think you simply have dragon-envy.

I'd be okay with negotiating with the ant queen if ants had driven my species to the brink of extinction.

I think maybe any creature that fails to learn that "kill it with fire" leads to "kill it with spears and then smash it's eggs so our kids don't have to deal with this crap when we're too old for it" doesn't get the benefit of my doubt for having a lot of intelligence.

Also, aren't dolphins meant to be pretty smart? And absolute bastards?

[Goneaviking]

Azraelatrix wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

One doesn't need a lesson in biology to recognize the difference between a High Dragon and the Archdemon. All we're asking for is more variations within those existing groups, specifically the high dragon.

But why? Dragons have a small population, an extremely long lifespan, are wide-ranging and yet remain in the temperate zone of Thedas. There is literally no reason to have a kajillion dragon species- and I'm glad for that. We just have "elves" in Dragon age, as opposed to high, wood, dark, etc. elves- and I hope that philosophy extends to dragons.

Right, it's just better to use the same dragon model over and over again instead of inventing some new lore to support more dragon variations. Who here is asking for an absurd number of dragon variations?

Finally someone gets one part of the post. One of the basic points of this thread was that the high dragon character was overused. A little variation in appearance wouldn't hurt. Better yet more dragon types could really add to the gameplay and tactical combat of the game. 

If they want to treat the dragons as unique entities, then by all means they should make some extra models and come up with different tactical styles or whatever to differentiate them. I could easily imagine a dragon using a cave system (for example) to its advantage as being a very different encounter/battle than the default battle on top of the mountain, even without altering it's powers and nature significantly.

Thus far the only non-generic dragons I've seen have been Flemeth and the Archdemon, neither of which I think are meant to be considered to be dragons.

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

I found skyrim dragon wholly unimpressive. they looked fearsome in the sky, but they were so small on the ground... DA dragons are much better.

That's because on the ground they "walk" and use their wings to balance themselves. In DA, the dragons remain in the same position as if they were flying around, wings extended and all. There's only a couple animations for the dragons in DA, they just hop around the player. We never see them fly outside of cutscenes.

To claim that Skyrim's dragons, which are some of the best in any game, are unimpressive and that the dragons in DA are better is just laughable.

Indeed. Skyrim's dragons aren't perfect, but pretty darn good. And they have the one-hitter quitter critical attack, they have a lot of things they'll do based off what you're doing, and they will aggressively charge you and come after you, even trying to land on your head if they can.

Skyrim's dragons are massively better, and its a game that isn't called "Dragon" Age.

[sunnydxmen]

krul2k wrote...

I'm disappointed in the dragons period, but thats what comes to expecting to much i guess ie i was expecting highly intelligent creatures, something akin to dragonlance where they could like take on the form of humans or other beings, not just this basic one step above every other beastie you encounter.

having said that though its only 2 games in so im hoping theres alot to be discovered still regarding them

Dragons are suppose to shapeshift and there are elemental dragons i want too see that.

[MisanthropePrime]

sunnydxmen wrote...

krul2k wrote...

I'm disappointed in the dragons period, but thats what comes to expecting to much i guess ie i was expecting highly intelligent creatures, something akin to dragonlance where they could like take on the form of humans or other beings, not just this basic one step above every other beastie you encounter.

having said that though its only 2 games in so im hoping theres alot to be discovered still regarding them

Dragons are suppose to shapeshift and there are elemental dragons i want too see that.

Dragon shapeshifting is a very, very recent pop cultural invention- shapeshifting is to dragons as sparkling is to vampires.

Modifié par MisanthropePrime, 05 mars 2013 - 05:01 .

[KiwiQuiche]

MisanthropePrime wrote...

sunnydxmen wrote...

krul2k wrote...

I'm disappointed in the dragons period, but thats what comes to expecting to much i guess ie i was expecting highly intelligent creatures, something akin to dragonlance where they could like take on the form of humans or other beings, not just this basic one step above every other beastie you encounter.

having said that though its only 2 games in so im hoping theres alot to be discovered still regarding them

Dragons are suppose to shapeshift and there are elemental dragons i want too see that.

Dragon shapeshifting is a very, very recent pop cultural invention- shapeshifting is to dragons as sparkling is to vampires.

Um no, you do realize a crapload of myths, lengends and lore in different cultures have dragon shapeshifting in them, it's not a "pop cultural invention."

[Herr Uhl]

sunnydxmen wrote...

Dragons are suppose to shapeshift and there are elemental dragons i want too see that.

And giant spiders are supposed to talk. I don't see anyone clamouring for that.

[grumpymooselion]

I probably won't find any brand of dragon interesting, impressive or even intimidating until they take the Dragon's Dogma route and let me jump on them, climb up to a weak spot and hack away at it. Instead of just the usual kill cam cutscenes and quicktime events we usually get stuck with. I really don't ever find kill cam cutscenes and quicktime event kills interesting. Especially after experiencing things like Shadow of the Colossus and Dragon's Dogma.

[Azraelatrix]

Janan Pacha wrote...

I probably won't find any brand of dragon interesting, impressive or even intimidating until they take the Dragon's Dogma route and let me jump on them, climb up to a weak spot and hack away at it. Instead of just the usual kill cam cutscenes and quicktime events we usually get stuck with. I really don't ever find kill cam cutscenes and quicktime event kills interesting. Especially after experiencing things like Shadow of the Colossus and Dragon's Dogma.

The best part of dragons dogma was its combat, the sacred ashes trailer is what dragon's dogma's combat reminded me of, bringing down the dragon with archery or magic, climbing on its back or side with your sword (I remember sten just ripping right through the dragon with his great sword) and hanging on for dear life while hacking away at its weak points and performing the satisfying killing blow.

If DA3 has the combat of Dragons Dogma, the story and characters from the minds of Bioware, and the atmosphere, scenery and open world(without the overwhelming side quests) of skyrim or Red Dead Redemption , I'd say it could be the best RPG for a very long time.

Modifié par Azraelatrix, 05 mars 2013 - 11:58 .

[grumpymooselion]

Azraelatrix wrote...

Janan Pacha wrote...

I probably won't find any brand of dragon interesting, impressive or even intimidating until they take the Dragon's Dogma route and let me jump on them, climb up to a weak spot and hack away at it. Instead of just the usual kill cam cutscenes and quicktime events we usually get stuck with. I really don't ever find kill cam cutscenes and quicktime event kills interesting. Especially after experiencing things like Shadow of the Colossus and Dragon's Dogma.

The best part of dragons dogma was its combat, the sacred ashes trailer is what dragon's dogma's combat reminded me of, bringing down the dragon with archery or magic, climbing on its back or side with your sword (I remember sten just ripping right through the dragon with his great sword) and hanging on for dear life while hacking away at its weak points and performing the satisfying killing blow.

If DA3 has the combat of Dragons Dogma, the story and characters from the minds of Bioware, and the atmosphere, scenery and open world(without the overwhelming side quests) of skyrim or Red Dead Redemption , I'd say it could be the best RPG for a very long time.

I love my Bioware games, flaws and all, but Bioware have never been a developer to do those wide open world areas. I'm not very certain of what the result would be if they tried, though, I suppose you never know until they do. I've also never known them to do more action oriented games outside of Jade Empire and Mass Effect (that one being a shooter, with some RPG elements). I'm not sure what a more action minded DA would look like, in the minds of a Bioware employee, but I think they could do it 'if they wanted to' but I don't know that they want to.

I know they can do the story when they want to though.

I suppose whatever we get, in result, in terms of what they're actually planning for DAIII, the end result is that I still want to see what it is. I just have no hopes for Dragon's Dogma Age. 

[Azraelatrix]

Janan Pacha wrote...

Azraelatrix wrote...

Janan Pacha wrote...

I probably won't find any brand of dragon interesting, impressive or even intimidating until they take the Dragon's Dogma route and let me jump on them, climb up to a weak spot and hack away at it. Instead of just the usual kill cam cutscenes and quicktime events we usually get stuck with. I really don't ever find kill cam cutscenes and quicktime event kills interesting. Especially after experiencing things like Shadow of the Colossus and Dragon's Dogma.

The best part of dragons dogma was its combat, the sacred ashes trailer is what dragon's dogma's combat reminded me of, bringing down the dragon with archery or magic, climbing on its back or side with your sword (I remember sten just ripping right through the dragon with his great sword) and hanging on for dear life while hacking away at its weak points and performing the satisfying killing blow.

If DA3 has the combat of Dragons Dogma, the story and characters from the minds of Bioware, and the atmosphere, scenery and open world(without the overwhelming side quests) of skyrim or Red Dead Redemption , I'd say it could be the best RPG for a very long time.

I love my Bioware games, flaws and all, but Bioware have never been a developer to do those wide open world areas. I'm not very certain of what the result would be if they tried, though, I suppose you never know until they do. I've also never known them to do more action oriented games outside of Jade Empire and Mass Effect (that one being a shooter, with some RPG elements). I'm not sure what a more action minded DA would look like, in the minds of a Bioware employee, but I think they could do it 'if they wanted to' but I don't know that they want to.

I know they can do the story when they want to though.

I suppose whatever we get, in result, in terms of what they're actually planning for DAIII, the end result is that I still want to see what it is. I just have no hopes for Dragon's Dogma Age. 

Yeah I actually disliked the fact that mass effect became more action focused in the sequel and they ditched some of the RPG elements and it felt more like a tps than a rpg.

I have played most of bioware's older titles, I just prefer action RPGs, not that I dont like the old school pure number grinding dice rolling RPGs, I just prefer the combat of action oriented ones.

And yeah Bioware have never tried open world before, who knows maybe they could pull it off, but personally I dont understand the hate for open world games. I just like open worlds with gorgeous vista's more than corridors with the illusion of a big world around them. 

Modifié par Azraelatrix, 05 mars 2013 - 12:17 .