820 réponses à ce sujet

[mugwuffin1986]

 

I'm just gono put this here and say that DA team could take notice from SWTOR team. Yes it's an MMO and before someone says there is too much on the screen. All these stuff you see on the screen can be customized: you can make it smaller, bigger, remove it and even move them to different part of the screen. Why can't we receive the customizable interface? That way everyone will be happy or will Bioware get angry if we compromise their "artistic vision"?

 

Sorry to say to this, but if you will put over 300 different abilites in the game i can't see how having only 8 windows makes this justifiable.

 

 

A successful MMO that only uses a handful of abilities... but also has an entire spellbook of abilities to create different builds? *Gasp*

 

Posting screenshots isn't hard and there is more than one way to design combat on both ends of the scale.

 

Play the game, then make an opinion.

[rupok93]

Guild wars 2 is a drastically different type of game, it is an action rpg type mmo that requires aiming and twitch skills pretty and has no pause, thus it requires the skills to be few so you can access them easily with your buttons.

 

Dragon age is supposedly a tactical rpg, real time with pause so abilities taking up 10-15 slots or whatever is absolutely no issue. You can use certain abilities in real time and keep the situational ones at the end and use them during pause. So unless dai wants to become an action rpg (which many people already criticised da2 for) then these two systems cannot be compared.

 

Also I don't even remotely like guild wars 2, i think its the same spammy bs so please go on about how its a "successful MMO" to me because frankly I don't care. I don't want to play guild wars, i want to play dragon age.

[durasteel]

...

The applications sell the platform. I don't see anything today that will keep selling the Windows-PC to the masses. I can certainly imagine things which could, but the post-Bill-Gates-MS don't allow that to happen. They're too busy trying to redo exactly what others already have done, and to try to matter on these other markets.

 

It could go either way, depending on where the critical mass of consumers falls. Look at Windows 8 as a case study--the OS was released with the apparent assumption that everyone was moving to a tablet interface, and that the desktop machine was no longer relevant. The user base, however, rebelled. Despite some real improvements under the hood, the OS was as popular as VD because of the rotten UI, and rumor has it that Win9 will restore full KB+M support.

 

One of the keys to the future of the desktop PC is the issue of user ownership and control. Despite Microsoft's best efforts to market the X Box as a fully integrated home entertainment appliance, there will always be some who reject it because it is a closed system. You buy the thing, and then you can use it only in the ways Microsoft permits you to. You don't have direct control over applications, the file system, networking, etc. without hacking it, which renders it useless as an online gaming platform anyway. A comparably priced home theater PC gives you all the ownership and control you could want. The ease of system building with plug-and-play components means that generations who grew up in the PC era buy desktop machines as a convenience, but those prices can't creep up too far or too fast before those customers just start buying the parts from Newegg and putting them together like a dresser from Ikea.

 

I wonder sometimes if part of the reason developers increasingly seem to focus on the console market is because it's easier for them. You give a console gamer an 8 slot limitation, they play the game with 8 slots. You give the same limitation to a PC gamer, they head to Google to look for a mod to fix it. We tend to have the attitude that we own the game and the other software on our machine, and your TOS and EULA apply only as far as you can enforce them. We tend to think of games as products, not services, and act accordingly.

 

I think the future of the desktop PC as a gaming platform is going to depend on the future of that attitude, and the degree to which it penetrates through generations coming of age in the next decade.  

[tmp7704]

Fallout 1-2, Might and Magic, Betraya at Krondor, Ultima, Planescape Torment, Drakensang. Tons of games have lore that lines up very well with the gameplay. This is because the devs stuck to the lore when designing the gameplay. Simple as that.

What lore explanation is there in say, Fallout for the combat taking form of everyone patiently waiting for the opponent(s) to take their turn(s) of happily shooting them in the face? Or the movement being restricted/dictated by hex grid, while it's square grid in Betrayal at Krondor?

[CronoDragoon]

Guild wars 2 is a drastically different type of game

 

And SWTOR isn't? That was the point of the rebuttal.

[tmp7704]

Guild wars 2 is a drastically different type of game, it is an action rpg type mmo that requires aiming and twitch skills pretty and has no pause, thus it requires the skills to be few so you can access them easily with your buttons.

No MMO that I'm aware of has pause (including SWTOR posted just a bit earlier) but it doesn't equal having to limit number of available abilities, as the same SWTOR screenshot demonstrates. Aiming and twitch skills don't mandate this, either -- example here can be TERA Online which is far more action-oriented than GW2 but still gives its classes 20-30 abilities to use.

(funnily enough TERA also allows one to play with the controller, thus showing that limited number of abilities isn't necessity with console-like controls, but more of a conscious design choice)

[mugwuffin1986]

Guild wars 2 is a drastically different type of game, it is an action rpg type mmo that requires aiming and twitch skills pretty and has no pause, thus it requires the skills to be few so you can access them easily with your buttons.

 

Dragon age is supposedly a tactical rpg, real time with pause so abilities taking up 10-15 slots or whatever is absolutely no issue. You can use certain abilities in real time and keep the situational ones at the end and use them during pause. So unless dai wants to become an action rpg (which many people already criticised da2 for) then these two systems cannot be compared.

 

Also I don't even remotely like guild wars 2, i think its the same spammy bs so please go on about how its a "successful MMO" to me because frankly I don't care. I don't want to play guild wars, i want to play dragon age.

 

I think you may have missed the point of my reply.

[Altima Darkspells]

Yes, GW1 has 8 slots for abilities, that can include a profession and a secondary profession, as well as a point spending system that determines how much damage a skill does (NOT how high a level you are). So a skill 12 skill will do more damage than one traited at 9. The skill split is also pretty basic (you can do 12-12-3 or 12-9-9, etc). So yes, the more choices you make, the less options you'll have for skills, but there's tons of synergy to work with. And, of course, you can have a party of up to seven (or eleven in the case of two dungeons) other people.

GW2 is probably less of an example since you have more skill options than several RPGs. I believe the lowest number of skills is 16, which is ten from the weapon, three support skills, one heal skill, an elite, and a class skill (in this case, thief's steal, because it's the only one that's just one thing). The highest slot skills? Twenty-five.

So between the way the skill...well, they're not trees or webs. Ladders? That's what they look like. Between the skill ladders and the eight slot things, I can't imagine the design decision that's not involving the console gamepads.

Will we be punished for not specializing in one, single ladder? But if it's anything like previous DAI games, some enemies will take significantly less damage from some sources, if not outright immune. But if we branch out, we won't be able to use all the skills. We could take one or two skills from other branches for those randomly resistant enemies, but they wouldn't be nearly as powerful because they'd lack the upgrades further down/up the ladder...

Just seems sloppy and not that well thought out to me.

[Rawgrim]

What lore explanation is there in say, Fallout for the combat taking form of everyone patiently waiting for the opponent(s) to take their turn(s) of happily shooting them in the face? Or the movement being restricted/dictated by hex grid, while it's square grid in Betrayal at Krondor?

 

That is how the combat plays out in those games. Everything that happens during the combat. the spells, the items being used, and all that fits perfectly with the lore.

[mugwuffin1986]

Yes, GW1 has 8 slots for abilities, that can include a profession and a secondary profession, as well as a point spending system that determines how much damage a skill does (NOT how high a level you are). So a skill 12 skill will do more damage than one traited at 9. The skill split is also pretty basic (you can do 12-12-3 or 12-9-9, etc). So yes, the more choices you make, the less options you'll have for skills, but there's tons of synergy to work with. And, of course, you can have a party of up to seven (or eleven in the case of two dungeons) other people.

GW2 is probably less of an example since you have more skill options than several RPGs. I believe the lowest number of skills is 16, which is ten from the weapon, three support skills, one heal skill, an elite, and a class skill (in this case, thief's steal, because it's the only one that's just one thing). The highest slot skills? Twenty-five.

So between the way the skill...well, they're not trees or webs. Ladders? That's what they look like. Between the skill ladders and the eight slot things, I can't imagine the design decision that's not involving the console gamepads.

Will we be punished for not specializing in one, single ladder? But if it's anything like previous DAI games, some enemies will take significantly less damage from some sources, if not outright immune. But if we branch out, we won't be able to use all the skills. We could take one or two skills from other branches for those randomly resistant enemies, but they wouldn't be nearly as powerful because they'd lack the upgrades further down/up the ladder...

Just seems sloppy and not that well thought out to me.

 

The Guild Wars example was more a counter to the SWTOR statement from the previous post.

 

But, why does the PC need to have every ability under the sun... whats wrong with good party synergy?

 

Why can't you build out a party to cover the abilities you don't have?

 

I think blaming the console for every "limitation" is kind of a cop out.

[In Exile]

Fallout 1-2, Might and Magic, Betraya at Krondor, Ultima, Planescape Torment, Drakensang. Tons of games have lore that lines up very well with the gameplay. This is because the devs stuck to the lore when designing the gameplay. Simple as that.

None of those games line up lore and gameplay at ALL. Unless you think that being shot once while naked leads to absolutely no adverse effects at all because your HP counter is above 0 is something that is part of the "lore" of Fallout.

[Rawgrim]

None of those games line up lore and gameplay at ALL. Unless you think that being shot once while naked leads to absolutely no adverse effects at all because your HP counter is above 0 is something that is part of the "lore" of Fallout.

 

If its a critical hit, you go down. Naked or not. Means something vital is hit. It is actually in the manual...wich makes it lore. Explained this to you 4 times now. Is it going to stick soon?

[In Exile]

If its a critical hit, you go down. Naked or not. Means something vital is hit. It is actually in the manual...wich makes it lore. Explained this to you 4 times now. Is it going to stick soon?

Getting shot, period, is an incredibly painful experience that can incapacitate you regardless of it being a "critical" hit. You'll at minimum bleed out unless you give yourself first aid.

In Fallout getting shot is an annoyance and you can survive in perpetuity after it. You don't need first aid. You're not even slowed down by being shot.

At yet the lore pretends that human bodies function like they do here.

[tmp7704]

That is how the combat plays out in those games.

Yes, which is the gameplay. And there's no lore explanation for this.

[Rawgrim]

Getting shot, period, is an incredibly painful experience that can incapacitate you regardless of it being a "critical" hit. You'll at minimum bleed out unless you give yourself first aid.

In Fallout getting shot is an annoyance and you can survive in perpetuity after it. You don't need first aid. You're not even slowed down by being shot.

At yet the lore pretends that human bodies function like they do here.

 

 

Hitpoint based combat, mate. Look it up. The dragon age games have allready showed us how magic works, during 2 games + expansions. Now mages just forget spells due to a forced game mechanic.

 

And even if Fallout does everything wrong, it doesn't mean that DA:I can do no wrong.

[Rawgrim]

Yes, which is the gameplay. And there's no lore explanation for this.

 

Yes there is an explanation for it. Look it up.

[In Exile]

Hitpoint based combat, mate. Look it up. The dragon age games have allready showed us how magic works, during 2 games + expansions. Now mages just forget spells due to a forced game mechanic.

And even if Fallout does everything wrong, it doesn't mean that DA:I can do no wrong.

Hit points are NOT part of the lore. That is the point "mate". It's a gameplay contrivance with no in-lore explanation. Every RPG in combat is all about gameplay contrivance with no in-lore explanation.

You're just wrong about this lore thing. Give it up.

... I can't believe people have gotten me to defend Bioware for a decision I think is absolutely terrible.

[In Exile]

Yes there is an explanation for it. Look it up.

There is a lore explanation for turn-based combat? Now I know you're just trolling.

[robertthebard]

 
A successful MMO that only uses a handful of abilities... but also has an entire spellbook of abilities to create different builds? *Gasp*
 
Posting screenshots isn't hard and there is more than one way to design combat on both ends of the scale.
 
Play the game, then make an opinion.

I've never gotten off the starter areas in any of the original GWs games/expansions/whatever you want to call them, it's the reason why, when GW2 came out, I didn't run out and buy it. Maybe with a couple of friends to enrich the experience? But as it's presented, no thx. I found the game itself to be eh, bland? The interface never really bothered me, but, then again, there was never any other options to choose from, were there.

[robertthebard]

Getting shot, period, is an incredibly painful experience that can incapacitate you regardless of it being a "critical" hit. You'll at minimum bleed out unless you give yourself first aid.

In Fallout getting shot is an annoyance and you can survive in perpetuity after it. You don't need first aid. You're not even slowed down by being shot.

At yet the lore pretends that human bodies function like they do here.

So wait, we're going to go with real life stuff to explain why changes in a game is good? Am I missing some context here, because I can't remember the last time I actually saw a dragon...

[Rawgrim]

There is a lore explanation for turn-based combat? Now I know you're just trolling.

 

Where did I say lore explanation? I said explanation. Look closely.

[Blooddrunk1004]

 

A successful MMO that only uses a handful of abilities... but also has an entire spellbook of abilities to create different builds? *Gasp*

 

Posting screenshots isn't hard and there is more than one way to design combat on both ends of the scale.

 

Play the game, then make an opinion.

Thanks for completely disregarding my post and for your information i've played GW2. The combat in that game is nothing like any traditional type of MMO (WoW, SWTOR, or Aion), which is what DA:O combat is very similar too if you don't count companions.

 

My point was if you're gono have so many spells to choose from, then allow me to use them ASAP. Don't force me to pause the game and go into list of spells and search for the specific attack that i wish to use, it's boring and it ruins the immersion. Hell i consider DA2 to be probably the most dumbed down RPG ever made and it has more slots than Inquisition has.

 

 

But, why does the PC need to have every ability under the sun... whats wrong with good party synergy?

 

Why can't you build out a party to cover the abilities you don't have?

 

I think blaming the console for every "limitation" is kind of a cop out.

And why it shouldn't? PC is suppost to take advantages and allow us for more options when it comes to UI (DA:O did).

I'm not talking about console "limitation" or "PC master race", but just because the consoles are using limited slot system doesn't mean PC has to use it as well.

[Rawgrim]

Hit points are NOT part of the lore. That is the point "mate". It's a gameplay contrivance with no in-lore explanation. Every RPG in combat is all about gameplay contrivance with no in-lore explanation.

You're just wrong about this lore thing. Give it up.

... I can't believe people have gotten me to defend Bioware for a decision I think is absolutely terrible.

 

Never said hitpoints is part of the lore. That is just your assumption working.

 

 

In every rpg the combat agrees with the lore. You use items, spells and weapons and they function like explained in the lore. This is not the case in DA:I.

[In Exile]

So wait, we're going to go with real life stuff to explain why changes in a game is good? Am I missing some context here, because I can't remember the last time I actually saw a dragon...

 

I'm not the one saying that (1) this is a good change or (2) that gameplay contrivances have to be justified. It's a stupid argument. 

[In Exile]

Never said hitpoints is part of the lore. That is just your assumption working.

 

 

In every rpg the combat agrees with the lore. You use items, spells and weapons and they function like explained in the lore. This is not the case in DA:I.

 

In every turn-based RPG, the fact that you take turns is not explained in the lore. The fact that grappling is impossible is not explained in the lore. The fact that there is an HP mechanic even though the lore says that injuries work like IRL is not explained in the lore. This is all pure gameplay contrivance. Just like an ability cap.