236 réponses à ce sujet

[cJohnOne]

The story is the rise of Hawke. I disagree I think you visit interesting places and Have fun battles. I think the music is great. I Haven't played Act 2 recently but It seems to go by fine to me it slows down a little in Act 3.

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I just have the impression that a mediocre DA3 (or a mediocre reception of DA3) will be devastating for Bioware right now. I don't think they will start shutting doors or handing out white slips if it doesn't sell 10 million copies or anything... but I do think there is a lot riding on DA3. For their reputation as well as their presentation as a viable business unit.

I think it will depend on the reaction the community has to the game, if people start complaining and acting the same way as Mass Effect 3 I think it would hurt the reputation of the gaming community more.  If people are reasonable with their complaints I think that would hurt BioWare more, but there can't be the personal threats or people attacking one another about their opinion of liking/disliking the game.  

[archangel1996]

cJohnOne wrote...

Nay, if the next ME sells well than Bioware will be fine.

50% of BW fanbase is done with ME, and, well, a month after ME3 came out you could find it at 20-30$
EA will not let BW live because other companies under them made a good job I am not wishing bad things happen to BW, just asserting that if they don't sell good enough they will be done

[Althix]

what other companies?

[archangel1996]

Sanunes wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I just have the impression that a mediocre DA3 (or a mediocre reception of DA3) will be devastating for Bioware right now. I don't think they will start shutting doors or handing out white slips if it doesn't sell 10 million copies or anything... but I do think there is a lot riding on DA3. For their reputation as well as their presentation as a viable business unit.

I think it will depend on the reaction the community has to the game, if people start complaining and acting the same way as Mass Effect 3 I think it would hurt the reputation of the gaming community more.  If people are reasonable with their complaints I think that would hurt BioWare more, but there can't be the personal threats or people attacking one another about their opinion of liking/disliking the game.  

Man, the "toxicity" started when people understood that BW was very obviously ignoring them
I am not saying that insult them as some did is right, but i can udnerstand the sentiment and i see why it all started

[addiction21]

archangel1996 wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

Nay, if the next ME sells well than Bioware will be fine.

50% of BW fanbase is done with ME, and, well, a month after ME3 came out you could find it at 20-30$
EA will not let BW live because other companies under them made a good job I am not wishing bad things happen to BW, just asserting that if they don't sell good enough they will be done

99% of that 50% will buy the next game anyway. Hey look I can make up numbers too!!

And most every game you can find a month after release on sale or discounts. Few ever hold onto that orginal price.

[archangel1996]

addiction21 wrote...

99% of that 50% will buy the next game anyway. Hey look I can make up numbers too!!

And most every game you can find a month after release on sale or discounts. Few ever hold onto that orginal price.

If you believe that, i am truly happy for you

Modifié par archangel1996, 25 avril 2013 - 05:43 .

[addiction21]

archangel1996 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

99% of that 50% will buy the next game anyway. Hey look I can make up numbers too!!

And most every game you can find a month after release on sale or discounts. Few ever hold onto that orginal price.

If you believe that, i am truly happy for you ;)

I am not the one spouting made up numbers and bs as some sort of fact.

[archangel1996]

addiction21 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

99% of that 50% will buy the next game anyway.

I am not the one spouting made up numbers and bs as some sort of fact.

Funny

Modifié par archangel1996, 25 avril 2013 - 05:44 .

[dreamgazer]

archangel1996 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

99% of that 50% will buy the next game anyway.

I am not the one spouting made up numbers and bs as some sort of fact.

Funny

He was being ironical. 

[Black Jimmy]

 I think it'll be good.
Dragon Age II was good. Mass Effect 3 was good.
Both had some flaws (Copy/Paste environments for DA2, everything to do with The Crucible in ME3) but none were crappy games. I've replayed through both recently. DA2 is admittedly easier to appreciate during a replay thoughj.

[SlottsMachine]

dreamgazer wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

99% of that 50% will buy the next game anyway.

I am not the one spouting made up numbers and bs as some sort of fact.

Funny

He was being ironical. 

29% of people knew this.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

What does?

I'm just saying, I didn't really enjoy DA2 all that much. So if DA3's average but enjoyable, my opinion of it will be an improvement over how I felt about the last game.

S'all I'm saying.

Though I want DA3 to be more than just average. I want and hope DA3 blows me away like DAO and Skyrim did.

I tried to find it, but I couldn't... I was looking for an image of the two Fry memes (Not Sure If and Take My Money!) that talked about Bioware.

On the left hand side, it said "Old Bioware" and had Fry thinking "Info looks decent... not sure if will buy..." and then a note underneath that said "Made by Bioware" and showed Fry saying "TAKE MY MONEY!"

Then, on the right hand side, it said "Today's Bioware" and had Fry thinking "This game looks awesome! TAKE MY MONEY!" and then a note underneath that said "Made by Bioware" and showed Fry thinking "Not sure if will buy..."


The pictures convey it better than my typing would. But the point is there.

People used to have an almost mythical opinion of what Bioware games would be like. Now it is an expectation that they will likely be mediocre and that anything above and beyond that would just be icing on the cake.

Just a little sad, I suppose. 

I think part of the problem with Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 2 and 3 with the difference between "old BioWare" and "new BioWare" is the older games didn't have sequels.  The only game where BioWare in the past made a sequel to their existing IP is Baulder's Gate.  So you don't have the complaints about how the game has changed from the previous ones and that would have been harder with Baulder's Gate since it was using the D&D systems so they had tigher rules to follow and it was before social media as well and I am fairly certain that has something to do with it.

NWN had a sequel. But I do see what you are saying.

I think it might also have something to do with the Save Imports. 

NWN2  was not done by Bioware but Obsidian. Those games as pointed out were also constrained by the D & D ruleset and settings. Aside from BG1 & BG2 DAO and DA2 is the first time Bioware has done the sequel to the original game.
The other point is that DAO and DA2 are in the same time period and general area like BG1 and BG2. TES games get away from that problem by having a great deal of time pass between the periods and different areas. What happens in the previous game is nothing but history and basically irrelevent. That way there is no save import to worry about.

[Commander Kurt]

Wow... Doom and gloom never really gets old, does it? I was recently in a skyrim forum where fans predicted that if the series doesn't go back to its roots with the next installment, then that would be the end of it.

I'm sure making these sort of predictions is very rewarding in some way, there are a tonne of intelligent and reasonable people doing it after all, but it just seems exhausting.

So, will the game surpass expectations? I'm guessing it won't. Lots of people will probably love it to death, while others don't. There will be no consensus on the quality of the game, and I wonder if that's the curse of being a sequel? When the first game comes out, its shiny and new and people who like the general idea will all enjoy it. For the sequel however, people have something very similar to compare it with and those who preferred the first game will inevitably be disappointed.

You never get as easily dissapointed with the first game in a series. Ever.


EDIT: Damn it. This is what happens when you don't read the whole thread before you post. I'll leave it in support of the other post that said exactly the same thing. 

Modifié par Commander Kurt, 25 avril 2013 - 08:16 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I apologize. I always forget that NWN was done by Obsidian (just like KOTOR 2).

I am not a fan of the TES way, personally. It seems like history in Tamriel has been determined by "nameless heroes" left and right.

Fallout used ambiguity to a smaller extent, but I think they put their foot down and say "this happened in previous games" in order to tell a better story often enough to be good. The entire existence of the NCR, one of the main joinable factions in FO:NV, is predicated on a choice made by the PC during FO1. The existence of the forest scene in FO3 was predicated on having Harold as a companion in FO2 and having him die in a certain room, for goat's sake. But even then, that involved moving across the entire continent and decades into the future between each game.

But I do agree with the sentiment - Bioware had never done sequels of the nature of DA and ME before. I'm sure it has involved a whole mess of headaches and nightmares for the writing and design teams.

[Fast Jimmy]

Commander Kurt wrote...

Wow... Doom and gloom never really gets old, does it? I was recently in a skyrim forum where fans predicted that if the series doesn't go back to its roots with the next installment, then that would be the end of it.

I'm sure making these sort of predictions is very rewarding in some way, there are a tonne of intelligent and reasonable people doing it after all, but it just seems exhausting.

So, will the game surpass expectations? I'm guessing it won't. Lots of people will probably love it to death, while others don't. There will be no consensus on the quality of the game, and I wonder if that's the curse of being a sequel? When the first game comes out, its shiny and new and people who like the general idea will all enjoy it. For the sequel however, people have something very similar to compare it with and those who preferred the first game will inevitably be disappointed.

You never get as easily dissapointed with the first game in a series. Ever.


EDIT: Damn it. This is what happens when you don't read the whole thread before you post. I'll leave it in support of the other post that said exactly the same thing. 

Yet developers pump out sequels like it is going out of style and new IPs are becoming rarer and rarer in the AAA video game industry. Go figure.

[Althix]

Commander Kurt wrote...
the series doesn't go back to its roots

oh i know why Skyrim is a bad TES game. but a good game in general. DA series have the same problem i think. it is all about execution.

[Fast Jimmy]

secretsandlies wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...
the series doesn't go back to its roots

oh i know why Skyrim is a bad TES game. but a good game in general. DA series have the same problem i think. it is all about execution.

I must be the only person on the planet who thought Skyrim was a fantastic game and a great progression of TES series. It spells and the fact that it expanded the "immortal NPC" feature to half the game was not great. And the main story is passable... but that's been the case with every TES game except maybe Morrowind. 

But any more and that will derail the topic of this thread. I don't think DA2's problem was that it deviated too much from DA:O. I honestly don't think it did all that much. But how it deviated was in pretty much the wrong direction for my personal tastes AND the execution of it was a little on the shoddy side. If the execution was great, the story was more cohesive and/or the changes they made to the combat, the UI, the dialogue system, the map/level design, the leveling structure, the equipment system, the personality tracking and the choice/consequence thought when creating options... then it might have been a really enjoyable game for me. Unfortunately, the design choices weren't ones I would have embraced, the execution was quite rough around in the edges in many areas AND the story left me totally unsatisfied and non-engaged.

I'd say that was not a good game. Again, to my personal tastes.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
 Baldur's Gate, on the other hand, can chew you out and spit you out fairly easily, especially with its low level caps.

Baldur's Gate is arbitrary. Low-level combat is hard because 1-hit KOs are common and encounters are basically all about knowing an advance what's going to happen, which means dying-and-retrying.

This is every bit as much fake difficulty and poor design as DA2's HP bloat and arbitrary immunity on nightmare.

But still, just like such difficulty levels for combat/gameplay have been a staple for decades that allow developers to make a game as difficult or as easy as the player chooses, having a similar option for how harshly the story treats you would be a welcome addition.

The problem isn't the toggle. The problem is your design. For there to be an "easy" there has to be a 3rd-option Conner style solution. That means the designers have to create that. But then for "hard" choices you wind up in the DA:O Redcliffe boad  - players can always just win the encounter.

[Althix]

oh i agree with you about DA2. fully.

It is all about execution in the end... and in the start... and in the middle.

[addiction21]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


Yet developers pump out sequels like it is going out of style and new IPs are becoming rarer and rarer in the AAA video game industry. Go figure.

Developers pumping out sequels has always been the style. I see nothing different now then in the 90's or 2000's.

[jillabender]

Hi there, In Exile - finally got around to replying to your post! ^__^

In Exile wrote...

The Warden is a thing - it's an object, it's not a character, because there is no character. Now, don't get me wrong - in the origins, the Warden is absolutely a character and I can totally RP a CE vs. a DN totally differently. 

But once you get to Ostagar, anything that's unique or personifying about the Warden vanishes in thin air. There's just a block of emotionless plot driving brick that's moving forward, and trying to attach motivation to it doesn't work for me because the game doesn't let me express that motivation in any way.

I can relate to this - I felt much the same way about Oblivion, because my character couldn't really express much of a reaction to anything.

In Exile wrote...

Right, I don't want to make it seem that I was implying that what you're doing is in a vacuum. Rather, the problem is something like this:

Game NCPs => PC => Your Imagination 

The end is your imagination. For me, that's not very satisfying because, essentially, I can make anything up. I don't like it when a my imagination is constrained. My ideal is a feedback loop, like so:

Game NCPs => PC => Game NPCs => PC

Now, a game without controlling the PCs dialogue could go like that too. But what's fun is having the reactions emerge. If the game doesn't let me express that choice in-game, then it's not a choice basically.

It's true that the Warden's dialogue post-origin story doesn't lend itself as well to making the character feel personal and part of the game world. In the origin stories, it really feels as though the NPCs are reacting to a specific character whose personal history has shaped him or her in specific ways - but unfortunately, that level of responsiveness is rarely found in the rest of the game.

Personally, though, I find I'm still able to work within the limitations, by creating a vivid picture of my character's demeanour in my mind to make him or her feel more alive, and by making the most of the dialogue choices and reactions that feel especially appropriate to the personality of whatever character I'm playing.

I'm probably a bit of a special case when it comes to how much satisfaction I get from re-playing Origins with characters with different backgrounds and personalities - it probably helps that I'm familiar enough with the game to have a very good idea of what kinds of characters will have the most organic fit within the story, so I can maximize the illusion of the character being part of the game world, and minimize the moments when I feel a separation between the character in the game and the character in my head.

But I can totally understand why some people find that the limitations of the game interfere too much with role-playing, because it really can feel as though the game isn't really reacting to the specific character you have in mind, but to a very generic character who's simply there, as you put it, to move the plot along.

Edit: Split this post into two parts to make it a less massive wall of text

Modifié par jillabender, 26 avril 2013 - 04:35 .

[-TC1989-]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

secretsandlies wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...
the series doesn't go back to its roots

oh i know why Skyrim is a bad TES game. but a good game in general. DA series have the same problem i think. it is all about execution.

I must be the only person on the planet who thought Skyrim was a fantastic game and a great progression of TES series. It spells and the fact that it expanded the "immortal NPC" feature to half the game was not great. And the main story is passable... but that's been the case with every TES game except maybe Morrowind. 

Not the only, I love Skyrim too. To be perfectly honest... I thought Oblivion was the weakest of the last 3 TES. I never expect an TES game to have any real emotionally gripping story, but it does keep me interested because of the lore. They even said themselves, that the world itself was the story, and main character. So I guess their atleast honest about that... sort of.

[jillabender]

In Exile wrote...

What I'm having trouble following is why it is that the absence of a voice helps this process along.

[...]

I guess where I'm coming from is that the absence of VO and the character actually being part of the game world is what prevents me from getting inside the character's head. In DA:O, there's no head to get inside. There's just a mass of writing whose possible intentions and effect I basically have to divine out of the blue.

As far as how the lack of VO can actually lend itself to stepping into the role of the character - I would say that it depends on how specific you need the NPC reactions to be in order to preserve the illusion that they're reacting to the specific demeanour and personality you've given your PC, and to the way you imagined your PC delivering each line.

It sounds as though your requirements for preserving that illusion are more stringent than mine (which is completely fair), and if that's the case, I can understand why you'd feel that a silent protagonist doesn't offer any particular advantage.

For me, although a voiced protagonist limits the range of personalities my character can have, it also adds something by creating a level of micro-reactivity that creates a tighter illusion of the character being part of the game world. So, a voiced protagonist doesn't necessarily impede my ability to role-play in itself (as I discovered with ME1), it just requires me to adjust my approach a little.

I would say, though, that in the case of DA2, it would actually have been easier for me to get into the role of Hawke if he or she had been silent, because I wouldn't have run into the problem of being put off by Hawke's demeanour. My difficulty is that while I can see the NPCs reacting to Hawke's way of expressing him or herself in each situation, Hawke's specific way of expressing him or herself isn't something I can relate to, and that leaves me feeling disconnected.

Finally, I would say that with a voiced protagonist, I feel the need to stick more closely to the scripted narrative in developing my character, because when I can actually see my character expressing him or herself and the game responding to that, imagining things about my character that the game never reacts to creates more of a sense of disconnect than would be the case with a silent protagonist. It's not so much that there's less chance of what I imagine being contradicted - it's more that having a level of micro-reactivity with a voiced protagonist creates a different kind of illusion that's more easily broken when choices aren't reacted to.

That's not to say that I need the game to directly and unambiguously acknowledge everything that I imagine about a voiced protagonist - it's just that what I imagine about a voiced protagonist needs to stay very close to the details actually presented in the game, or it won't feel organic to me. That's why I personally feel that voiced protagonists work best when the character has a fairly firmly established personality, and the player's role is in shaping the expression and development of that personality.

And that was my difficulty with Hawke - straying too far from what I was presented with didn't feel organic, and I had a hard time connecting with what I was presented with, although I do find Hawke entertaining. Of course, that's very subjective on my part - the kind of character that one relates to and enjoys connecting with is a very individual thing.

Modifié par jillabender, 26 avril 2013 - 03:14 .

[In Exile]

jillabender wrote...

I can relate to this - I felt much the same way about Oblivion, because my character couldn't really express much of a reaction to anything.

Preface - I'm totally spliting the post in two like you to avoid wall-of-text-itis! 

It isn't just that the my character can't react. It's that no one reacts to my character. New Vegas is like this too. What you get are general reactions (most of the time) to a faction score. That's not a reaction to you, it's a reaction to an arbitary morality metre.

Now, don't get me wrong. NV has a lot of great NPC interaction and there are a lot of clever quest resolution and absolute there's a lot of plot freedom. 

But when a reaction isn't based off a choice and competely devoid from your justification the game just reactions to that choice, then there's nothing to make Character A different from Character B than whatever you want to pretend the difference is. And that's what makes the game not very interesting for me.

It's true that the Warden's dialogue post-origin story doesn't lend itself as well to making the character feel personal and part of the game world. In the origin stories, it really feels as though the NPCs are reacting to a specific character whose personal history has shaped him or her in specific ways - but unfortunately, that level of responsiveness is rarely found in the rest of the game.

It's better said that Bioware doesn't like doing that kind of reactivity. DA2, outside of the companions with friendship rivalry and Hawke's family being a constant, doesn't do it either.

Personally, though, I find I'm still able to work within the limitations, by creating a vivid picture of my character's demeanour in my mind to make him or her feel more alive, and by making the most of the dialogue choices and reactions that feel especially appropriate to the personality of whatever character I'm playing.

Like I said - that doesn't mean anything for me. I could do the same thing in New Vegas. And Skyrim. And I could honestly do the same things if I pulled out my old medieval themed lego's and got back into make-believe.

That's my problem. A vivid picture doesn't make my character feel alive - it makes my character feel dead, because the game doesn't do anything with this vivid character I've created other than treat it exactly the same as the last vivid character I created, down to having the same identical bland dialogue lines.

And that's a big problem with Bioware silent PCs - they don't have personality (in part) because the writing is so generic and non-specific that it doesn't express anything.

I imagine that's why a lot of people who RP in your way like it - because it could as easily work for any character. But that's precisely what I hate about it.

I'm probably a bit of a special case when it comes to how much satisfaction I get from re-playing Origins with characters with different backgrounds and personalities - it probably helps that I'm familiar enough with the game to have a very good idea of what kinds of characters will have the most organic fit within the story, so I can maximize the illusion of the character being part of the game world, and minimize the moments when I feel a separation between the character in the game and the character in my head.

I know, for example, my HN can't ever become King by himself - the plot would force him to be Anora's lickspittle. So I can create a PC that doesn't want that, and I accept it because the plot has to draw arbitrary lines on freedom somewhere.

But the problem comes in when my sarcastic, disinhterest and Warden-hating Cousland is the same as my determined, cool and collected City Elf, other than picking a bland dialogue line differently one time or another.

Why are these characters basically identical - because they have the same moral compass and are both people persons. And all of DA:O's choices are either moral choices or "do people like you?" choices.

And if you get similar scores in party approval and pick similar moral choices, DA:O plays indentically for these characters, no matter how vividly you'd imagine them to be diferent. In fact, imagining them to be different just makes it worse, because you realize how much the game doesn't let you express those differences.
 

But I can totally understand why some people find that the limitations of the game interfere too much with role-playing, because it really can feel as though the game isn't really reacting to the specific character you have in mind, but to a very generic character who's simply there, as you put it, to move the plot along.

Yup!