[quote]AutumnWitch wrote...
“
Staging Area” – As most of us play mages we would love to have an area that we could “test” a new spell once we selected it before having to use it in combat. For example, if we choose “fire ball” it would be nice to be able to cast it once or twice in a non-combat situation just so we can see how to best use it and what to expect when we do. This is especially helpful if it’s a higher level or complicated spell that we haven’t ever used before.[/quote]
Agreed. In DAO you could cast area effect spells wherever you wanted. That was nice. A separate staging area will probably cost too much in resources to take away from other features, but disabling spells while out of combat is annoying. Also, why can't we cast spells on random strangers?
[quote]“
All or Nothing…” Please be fair and consistent when you give us items with magical abilities. For example, If you give us something that gives us an “immunity to X” then give it to us ALL the time not just when it’s convenient, even when we are fighting “boss” level opponents. There were too many times (esp in DA2) where our immunity to whatever just didn’t work. So frustrating![/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]“
Elves are people too.” We should be able to be an elf in all versions of DA. We have never understood Bioware’s resistance to this. It’s just silly.[/quote]
We already know it won't happen in DAI, and that it's been taken under advisement for future titles. I understand the resistance though. If you want an elf who isn't just a skinny, pointy-eared human, you'll have to record different voices and make them different in signficant other ways. Very costly in resources. If you want an elf who isn't more than that, it's superfluous.
[/i][quote]
“What You See Is What You Get” - We debated this one because we were afraid it might sound too typically girly BUT the more we thought about it the more we liked the idea. Assuming DAI will be as stingy with gold as the other two were, it would be really nice to see what something actually looks like before we buy it. For example, in DA2 there were actually a big selection of Mage robes but as many of them were similar to others in powers, it would be nice to see how they looked before we bought them. Some of the robes were very simple looking and some very complex but the styles and colours weren’t always conducive to our character. Same goes with weapons, some just don’t fit the character. And its logical, IRL people often pick things purely on superficial reasoning especially if there are others to choose from. [/quote]
Agreed. Buying blind is so very unsatisfying.
[quote]“The Ends Do NOT Always Justify The Means” - Don’t keep us from being successful for making choices true to our character. In DA2 if you play Hawke as a “good” person, she/he often must make choices that he/she might not really want to because in the end everything works out. But clearly there are several choices that occur with Isabela that a good character would never make (if we play true to our character) and therefore Isabela leaves and becomes unavailable. That in itself is perfectly reasonable but what is not reasonable is that because of her leaving we are prohibited from being able to get a crafting resource that is needed for one of the best treasures in the game. (Due to losing one of her quests.)[/quote]
I couldn't disagree more. Choices should have consequences. If there's a branched story arc and one branch prevents from doing or achieving X, that's how things should be, as long there's an overall balance to the game's decisions. Also, missing a crafting resource is so minor a consequence that I can't believe you mean this as a serious complaint.
Also, I almost have the opposite stance: doing the conventionally good comes with the best outcome so often in stories that I'm thoroughly sick of it. I want the opposite, that the end sometimes does justify the means. Did you notice what you're written, actually: You *say* that the ends should not always justify the means, but what you want, taken from your example, is a story where the ends never justifies the means. I would find that so disappointing that I'd make it my no 1 point of criticism of DAI's story should it come to pass. I have a passionate hate for the delusional stance that doing the conventionally good should always have the best outcome. I want a balanced setup. Neither extreme should get a perfect outcome.
[quote]So what people end up doing is making a choice completely at odds with how their Hawke would really act. So it defeats the whole concept of RPG.[/quote]
No. YOU compromise your roleplaying, not your game. You *could* stay true to your character and take the consequences, that would be the RPGish thing to do.
[quote]“They Have It Coming” – Please if you make us deal with a baddie that we totally hate PLEASE let us kill them in the end!!! I can think of many in both DAO and DA2 but Sister Petrice always comes to mind when I think of this. I am not kidding when I say, I would have paid the price of the whole game again just to have the satisfaction of killing that woman!!!! Gawd she was so annoying! I disliked her more than Meredith and The Arishok! Please, we have so much negatively to deal in these types of games just let us have this small thing lol.[/quote]
*shrug* I don't really care, but do you really think a game should let you indulge your hate to your heart's content everywhere? BTW, I hated her bigotry but admired her duplicity.
[quote]“The Loot, The Loot Is On Fire” Please if you put us in a situation where loot/treasure is indicated after we slay an enemy let us collect it before you take us away for a cut scene and not let us back to collect it.[/quote]
Were there situations where you couldn't do that? If so, they were very rare. A minor problem at most.
[quote]“Time to Appreciate the Good Things In Life” – One of the most fun things about both DAO and DA2 was levelling up. Playing between levels 7 and 15 or so is so much fun because we (esp us Mages) are finally beginning to get some power. So usually around the middle of the game is really fun because you are moving up in the world and so many of the enemies that used to give you a hard time are now easily dispatched. However, towards the end of the game when your character has became a true “bad-arse” you don’t really get to appreciate it because all that is left is the big bosses/battles at the end.[/quote]
The evils of level scaling. Most games do it these days, and I hate it with a passion. Yes, I agree. There should be areas where if you go there at the start of the game, you'll be killed in no time, and areas where if you there in the late game, you can wipe the floor with the enemies.
[quote]“All Roads Do NOT Lead To The Bat-cave” – This will be really unpopular with some players, but not all of us want to be “Batman”. You know, the dark, brooding, mumbling, emotionless, “no one suffers like I do”, overplayed anti-hero. Some of us still want to be Wonder Woman /Superman. Some of us still want to be the “good gal/guy”. Let us be successful while being good/positive even in the face of disaster. There has to be hope, so let our protagonist be a ray of hope that other people can lean on in the darkness of uncertainty and loss. We don’t have to lose our mother, father, sisters, brothers, lovers to be motivated to do the right thing. Some of us really do willingly run into the fire not because “we” need to do it, but simply because it needs to be done. [/quote]
Stories are about conflicts, and conflicts mean that bad stuff happens. I'm absolutely for the ability to occasionally have a significant impact, such as saving a significant person or group from almost certain death, but I'm also absolutely against the notion that this should apply to every evil your character faces in the story. Some things are just bound to happen, and some of them are personal. Think of tabletop roleplaying: the game is the GM, and the GM determines what happens in the world. You, as the roleplayer, have the choice to react to the events one way or the other, but it's not for you to determine the outcome. Again, I prefer balance. I don't want to be the Determinator of the world's events or even the protagonist's closer environment, but neither do I want to feel completely powerless.
[quote]“Sin From Thy Lips? O Trespass Sweetly Urged! Give me my sin again!” This item was nearly our number one request and as you will read later is closely related. If there is to be romances in DAI then let there be romances. One kiss, one lovemaking session and one kiss at the end do not a romance make. If our characters can romance and have genuine feelings for someone else, why not let her/him explore that more deeply? I can’t tell you how many times in both DA2 and DAO I wished my character would have gone over and given her “LI” a kiss or a hug after something particularly scary/emotional/moving. Why not let them sleep together in camp/house (I don’t mean sex)?[/quote]
According to Bioware romance is only a part of the game, and not the most important. I fully agree with this. Romance can enhance a story considerably, but if it takes up too much space, if the story becomes about romance, then something's gone into a direction I don't like. Within those limits, I agree there could be a few more options to express affection. Even ONE such option would go a long way if it was repeatable. The unrepeatable nature of most romance actions unnecessarily limits the importance any single player wants to give to their romance.
[quote]“[i]Wonder Woman is NOT Supergirl.” Every single DA player I know IRL, regardless of gender, wants the option to play our hero as a female who is NOT the feminised version of the male hero.[/quote]
Err....I don't see any reason to complain about this in DA2, except that we should have a choice about our outfits everywhere, and we should be able to dress for the occasion (an all-time favorite complaint of mine which no Bioware game has yet addressed). The trousers in MotA were indeed ugly. Apart from that, no, I don't feel that my femHawkes look like males with female trappings in DA2. Go to the ME games for that.
[quote]Also, women and men react to romance differently. If you are going to let the hero be a woman then be more thoughtful to how women give and receive romance. Also, please for the love of all that is good stop the horrible chat up lines like “I can’t imagine anyone sweeter than you Merrill.” Ok maybe that line might work as pillow talk but in the middle of a serious conversation not only is it totally random it’s just so dumb sounding.
And lastly along this line of though please if you are going to allow LI’s that can be romanced by both genders use different conversations and romance strategies for each. As a lesbian I was really saddened to hear that Merrill’s romance conversations and options in DA2 where exactly the same regardless of Hawke’s gender. Please, it doesn’t work that way I promise you. Just tweak it here and there so that it is not insulting to both genders. Please![/quote]
Yeah. The romances became a lot more generic with the unlimited availability. Or rather, their generic-ness became more apparent. On the other hand, DA2's characters were simpler than DAO's in the first place, that may contribute to the impression. Should writing become less cheap overall, is there any reason why it couldn't work regardless of gender? I don't know.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 juillet 2013 - 11:55 .
Retour en haut
I was with the OP until she got a little weird about FemHawke (the most girly-girl PC I've ever played, with her broken hips, sashay walk, and fluffly-fluffy mage dresses) and claimed she was not feminine enough.
