16 réponses à ce sujet

[THEFRIGGINDOOMGUY!]

So I really like most of the things I saw in the video but there are some things that really ****** me off:

1. So as the title says, why can Cassandra knock down the gate with her shield? If Vivienne blasted it with a spell I would have understood but THIS?

2. How does the Inquisitor sometimes make huge holes in the ground  with his sword?

Before any of you come and say "it's fantasy so it doesn't matter", I say it DOES matter because while the game is fantasy, it also has to be believable.

Anyway, I really like most of the other things I see. Keep up the good work!

[Allan Schumacher]

Timeouts incoming for those that feel compelled to incessantly reply to each other in a hostile manner.

the gate completely shatters into splinters.

Note that this is akin to "Leliana got decapitated and therefore should have no head."

If you'd prefer, we could alter the scene so that it's merely a dented gate that has a spot to get through that trips up the AI followers when pathfinding and a host of other potential issues.

Smashing the gate into splinters has advantages from a gameplay perspective to hopefully provide a less aggravating experience for (most?) gamers, as opposed to strictly adhering to expectations of realism which would not only cause potential risks to players playing the game, but would also be a more difficult feature to implement (getting a modeller/animator to properly set the situation up, rather than reusing already existing - and used in a lot of other places - splinters as part of a prefab).


This also includes reducing a situation where the player could smash through it with 20 (or more) hits, which ultimately isn't that fun and IMO artificially extends the length of games by having the players do things that are purely buffer.

Sorry.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 novembre 2013 - 09:19 .

[Allan Schumacher]

IIRC the Inquisitor could employ agents, why not have a battering ram squad of them on hand? If that's not possible what about the use of cross class abilities like a mage squadmate using a liquid nitrogen like spell to make the metal brittle before the warrior shield bashes, while alternatively a rogue could use an alchemical concoction to corrode the metal before the warrior destroys it?

It is entirely possible that the gate is intended to be weakened because of agents. I honestly don't know. IIRC, the stage was set that "You have been here for some time already and have weakened the keep with past actions."

[Allan Schumacher]

Do you know if it will be at all possible to take out the gate with a mage Allan? I'm just curious because what if you dont have a warrior in your party?

I do not know the answer to that, unfortunately. I do hope that each class can provide something creative to the table.

[Allan Schumacher]

Wulfram wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Note that this is akin to "Leliana got decapitated and therefore should have no head."

That seems a really bizarre analogy to choose.  You aren't suggesting that, whatever view is taken on the wider Leliana issue that we shouldn't get into here, the thing with people getting beheaded when they're not supposed to die was anything but a bug, are you?

I'm suggesting that, sometimes, people fixate too much on the specifics of what they are seeing.

Saying "Leliana is dead, I don't like her in DA2" is fine.  Saying "She was decapitated, which further invalidated any attempts to try to rationalize her death" is when I think fans need to give a bit when reconciling the balancing act of devs-players working together to have a fun experience.  (And yes, complaining about the decapitation does come across as saying "You should hvae made sure this couldn't happen in DAO" regardless of whether or not the poster intends it to be that way.  It's effectively a mistake was forgotten/not considered and shouldn't have been possible in DAO, in retrospect.  But many use it as an example of retcon because she wasn't just attacked at the Urn, she was decapitated).

Yes, the gate shattered into splinters.  But there may be gameplay reasons for that and taking something like that at such face value will likely result in a lot of instances of player frustration.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 novembre 2013 - 10:50 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Why is there even a need to include a metal gate just to let the player smash in mere seconds?

In a time capped demo, a large part of the intent is to simply show the types of things that players can do in a game.

There's nothing forcing the encounter you saw to play out in exactly the same way at release (and it's entirely possible that that specific encounter doesn't even stay that way by the time release comes around).

[Allan Schumacher]

And you could deal with the gate issue by not having one in the first place, explosives, magic, or any alternative that makes any sense within game world. Here it just looks you took the easy and silly way, thinking it looked badass.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm writing about.

I'm talking about being mad because she used her shield to bash the gate and the gate was destroyed into splinters.

I'm sure some people here would've been more satisfied if the gate were simply dented in a way that still let the player get through but didn't result in "the gate completely shatters into splinters."

We could've done other things, sure. But you asked for my elaboration and it's mostly "You didn't understand what I was referring to with my post." I'm talking about "we were showing Cassandra do a shield bash and how could we reflect the damage to the gate." We probably could've done this without "the gate completely [shattering] into splinters" but if the specifics of the gate being obliterated (as opposed to something more low key that still let the player get by), then that person is focusing too much on the specifics for what we're hoping on doing with the game.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 novembre 2013 - 11:07 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Actually, the elaboration part was about the dangers to players, sorry for being vague.

They are right in the post....

"If you'd prefer, we could alter the scene so that it's merely a dented gate that has a spot to get through that trips up the AI followers when pathfinding and a host of other potential issues."


The gate is "smashed into pieces" because it removes the gate. The barrier has already been bypassed. Forcing us to make it appear as a smaller pathfinding (read: aggravating) bottleneck because it appears more aesthetically consistent is not something that I feel makes the game stronger. In fact, I think it'd make the game more aggravating and hence, weaker.


My issue with the post you quoted has nothing to do with "should it be possible for Cassandra to smash the gate" and everything to do with "should the gate explode into splinters."

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 novembre 2013 - 11:10 .

[David Gaider]

Um, yeah.

This was just to demonstrate the shield bash. Why someone would jump to the conclusion that this wouldn't require something extraordinary on Cassandra's part (a special leveled-up ability, a magical shield, etc.), some kind of preparation on the Inquisition's part, or that just because Cassandra can do this that other characters/classes might not have similar abilities... I'm not really sure.

Relax, people. Considering all the abilities that various characters have (and have had throughout the DA games) this shouldn't be where all verisimilitude breaks down for you. She's strong, and this need neither be the final say in how the ability is used or what it looks like (considering the pre-alpha state). So offer feedback on that front, please do, but if the assertion is that Cassandra shouldn't be able to break down doors period... well the only response to that is "meh".

Modifié par David Gaider, 13 novembre 2013 - 11:12 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Question: If gates can be smashed this easily, why would you even bother to buid castles in the first place?

Is there any chance that this gate isn't the same as a regular ol' gate?

[Allan Schumacher]

The Hierophant wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Question: If gates can be smashed this easily, why would you even bother to buid castles in the first place?

Is there any chance that this gate isn't the same as a regular ol' gate?

How many of Thedas's gates are conveniently substandard?

So basically a tacit admission that your perspective is that, based on the PAX video, there could be no reason why this gate could be weakened at that the most reasonable understanding is that all gates, in general, can be destroyed.

Or should we take this even further and assume that not only are all gates equally ineffective, but that every warrior ever is also just as capable of taking out said gates with impunity?


Or, is this is a castle that's (from the video) been captured by a cult (do you know how long they have been in occupying the castle?) and has been the target of various schemes by the inquisitor to weaken the castle (also stated from the video) through a variety of means?

Could none of these factors, coupled with Cassandra being more than just another warrior (a Seeker, at that), while neglecting that it's a hasty playthrough of a 30 minute demo, influence stuff like this?

Or is the only reasonable conclusion: All gates are bad, because our sample size of one gate was able to be circumvented by Cassandra?

[Allan Schumacher]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

Okay Mr. Allan, I have to ask. Is this your way of reassuring these people that the destructible elements in the game will take a lot more than a couple of bashes in the actual game? Just an honest question.

Do you think the gameplay mechanic would be more enjoyable if it took 20 hits instead of 2?

[Allan Schumacher]

So, admittedly I'm not super up on the lore.

It sounds like these keeps would've been built about 800 years earlier, for the second blight. The wiki page describes them as such:

The towers are now old and rusted.

Could the gates themselves have also been weakened when the cult took over?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 novembre 2013 - 05:27 .

[Allan Schumacher]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

I'm just trying to get him to see my point of view as well. Instead of one character taking down these things in two seconds, why not make it in such a way that it's a team effort. This is Dragon Age after all.

I do understand your point of view.

It could easily be a team effort.  Individual classes could also bring other elements to the table as well (whether as a team effort or through their own individual means).


If it seems like I'm defensive, it's because I do feel that way.  It doesn't appear to be a discussion, but rather very pointed and aggressive commentary towards a video that strips out a lot of context (always a huge issue for RPGs I find... including playable demos) by the nature of showing it.

Now, I suppose we could have shown nothing (though this would've denying the people that loved what they saw the exposure they received, so it's not a decision that would be free).  There was also "I know we said this game is to be out for 2013, but here's some stuff just to show you that the game is, in fact, coming along."

[Allan Schumacher]

Rawgrim wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Aragorn
has special blood. He is also a ranger. Its plausible that he has more
stamina than normal humans. He is also in his 80s in the movies. big
hint there too.

going by that "she has seeker training" should be sufficient explanation for gate-smashing strength.

Then why do the seekers have catapults?

I think it's clear at this point it's exclusively to frustrate you.

Seriously, I will simply conclude you as being obstinate if you cannot POSSIBLY come up with reason for this.  Which is wholly uninteresting and certainly not worthy of me wasting any more of my time.  Definitively, I feel there is no point in answering because there's no point as nothing will convince you and I'm just getting angry.


I'm of the opinion that games are about developers and players meeting somewhere in the middle in terms of suspending disbelief and allowing the players to have fun.  Evidently, this will be something that you won't like, so hopefully other parts of the game will still be enjoyable for you.  Sorry.


EDIT: Doubly so after the excuses you make for different settings.  Literally, seething, now...

At this point it's probably safest to simply say:  it exists like this because we have differing requirements for attempting to enable players to have fun with their characters and to do exceptional things in their playthroughs, and how mandated it must be for the lore to be flawlessly consistent.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 novembre 2013 - 06:00 .

[Allan Schumacher]

EDIT: Nevermind.

I'm clearly getting irate.  I am taking a break from the BSN.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 novembre 2013 - 06:58 .

[David Gaider]

Right, I'm cutting this one off, as people are making ten different arguments here-- many of which have been addressed previously (sometimes in this very thread) but which get ignored as soon as the page passes.

In short:

* It's a demo. Progress was sped up for the sake of being a demo-- including getting into the keep, which would likely not be as simplistic as presented when you're actually playing the game. Don't read into it as being more than it is.

* We have not said that this is how you get into keeps. Nor have we said that this is something Cassandra can do, but nobody else can. Just because we haven't shown something doesn't mean it doesn't exist-- so don't panic, expecting us to start talking about abilities sooner than we intend to.

* Even if "shield bashing a door" is in the final game (which it is not guaranteed to be), it need not end up being as it was in the demo... or, if it is, it might end up being something only useable on specific doors and not necessarily on the gates of a keep. Which, again, demo.

And before someone goes "why would you have a demo that doesn't demo things as they actually are in the final game?" ...one, because it's pre-alpha. Two, because it's a demo we're showing, and not a playable demo-- we speed things up so it's watchable; we're aiming for representative look-and-feel, nothing more.

I know that this kind of over-analysis is something people on forums like to do (I remember the incredible amounts of alarm that accompanied fans analyzing the brief encounter with the prisoner in a cage in the Ostagar demo, picking it apart as if that one encounter represented how quests would be in the entire game, etc. etc.) but don't let your extrapolations get out of hand. Offering feedback is great, but please offer it with what's been said above in mind. Thanks.