2061 réponses à ce sujet

[LonewandererD]

H

 

There was something about, "freedom is just a word without limits" in the disc world series by Terry Pratchett. Thats similar but not exact.

Half a cookie for a different but equally valid reference

 

-D-

[Shahadem]

Actually, it was gameplay.  In lore, healing has always been made out to be more surgical, not a general purpose full body blast of energy.  The devs have outright said this factored into their decision.

 

But for some reason this didn't factor into their reason for still allowing magical healing via potions.

 

LOL!

 

That actually makes even less sense. Now it's like that scene in Men in Tights where Achoo needs to pump up his sneakers:

"TIme out! Excuse me bad guys but I am running out of hp. Gotta reach into my backpack, pullout this magical potion which can't possibly heal me the way it does, unstopper it, drink and, and then get instantly healed! So please don't attack me while I pull out this potion and drink it. DId I mention how nonsensical it is for a potion to be able to heal you instantly?"

[KoorahUK]

And if attrition really is a thing, then you are essentially requiring players to have to save and reload before and after each fight because they took too much damage. 

No, they are asking you to use the tools that are available to you to play the combat they have designed on a difficulty level appropriate to your skill or desired challenge level. If you are leaving every combat having taken "too much damage" you are not doing at least one of those three things. 

 

This is no different from any other game with rules in the world.

[sylvanaerie]

But for some reason this didn't factor into their reason for still allowing magical healing via potions.

 

LOL!

 

That actually makes even less sense. Now it's like that scene in Men in Tights where Achoo needs to pump up his sneakers:

"TIme out! Excuse me bad guys but I am running out of hp. Gotta reach into my backpack, pullout this magical potion which can't possibly heal me the way it does, unstopper it, drink and, and then get instantly healed! So please don't attack me while I pull out this potion and drink it. DId I mention how nonsensical it is for a potion to be able to heal you instantly?"

 

Are you saying you would rather they had removed all healing, even potions from the game???

 

Wow, that's a hard core gamer!...and too skilled for my blood.  I'm glad I have at least potions to quaff because...yea, I'm gonna die a lot regardless...  I'm not the most tactical of players.

[Gothfather]

But for some reason this didn't factor into their reason for still allowing magical healing via potions.

 

LOL!

 

No it still factored in to the choice it just wasn't enough to trump potion healing.

 

Bioware wanted to change the tactics of combat so healing wasn't the be all and end all. With playtesting they could test what worked and didn't work. They obviously came to the conclusion what they couldn't eliminate ALL healing as a potion lets you recover from a mistake but what they could do is eliminate most forms of healing from spells and limit the healing from potions. Which is what we have.

 

They get closer to the lore of the game but they still acknowledge that game play trumps lore ergo they still have potion healing. its logically consistant with their goal even if they don't make healing 100% to match the lore it is closer than it was before and they opened up combat to more tactics. Thats a win by their metircs.

[xkg]

Okay here is an example how a reduction in an option creates more choice. You have five choices...

 

1) Get shot in the foot

2) Get shot in the hand

3) Get shot in the knee

4) Get shot in the elbow

5) get $5 towards your next purchase of chocolate

 

There is only one choice here 4 of them are so obviously bad that there is only ONE real choice. In an honest poll 5 would win by a landslide for good reason.

 

Remove the obviously superior choice..

 

1) Get shot in the foot

2) Get shot in the hand

3) Get shot in the knee

4) Get shot in the elbow

 

Which one do you pick? People will have different answers for different reasons, By removing one option you suddenly had more choices.

 

Obviously no one wants the above choices there are used to illustrate how an OBVIOUSLY superior option especially in combat, will narrow your practical choices. Yet by eliminating the obviously superior option and suddenly those glaringly inferior choice become viable. You go from one choice to 4 by the elimination of one choice.

 

First : In the former there are five choices, in the latter there are four. By removing the last choice from the latter, you created less choices not more. Which one of those choice is more popular doesn't matter.

 

Humans were most popular race in Origins, let's cut that option out so people can have more choices in race selection?

Which leads me to...

 

Second : If someone is taking one of the choices away from you, he is not making more choices, he is forcing you to do something you may not like, to do it his way. 

People don't like being forced, at least I don't.

 

And even all the talking in the world won't convice me that less=more, because it doesn't.

[sylvanaerie]

First : In the former there are five choices, in the latter there are four. By removing the last choice from the latter, you created less choices not more. Which one of those choice is more popular doesn't matter.

 

Humans were most popular race in Origins, let's cut that option out so people can have more choices in race selection?

Which leads me to...

 

Second : If someone is taking one of the choices away from you, he is not making more choices, he is forcing you to do something you may not like, to do it his way. 

People don't like being forced, at least I don't.

 

And even all the talking in the world won't convice me that less=more, because it doesn't.

 

She's the first one who ever bothered to explain it to me in terms I could relate to.  She's not saying it creates MORE options, it just makes the options you had all along more appealing, even if they weren't originally the best options.  And it's all the options we're going to get anyway.

 

And I still want the 5$ off on chocolate.  I have some chocolate chip cookie batter saving for my daughter's halloween party....I may have to go get more cause it's looking more and more appealing now...

 

I shall be Captain Kirk and Inquisition will be my Kobayashi Maru!

[PhroXenGold]

First : In the former there are five choices, in the latter there are four. By removing the last choice from the latter, you created less choices not more. Which one of those choice is more popular doesn't matter.

 

Humans were most popular race in Origins, let's cut that option out so people can have more choices in race selection?

Which leads me to...

 

Second : If someone is taking one of the choices away from you, he is not making more choices, he is forcing you to do something you may not like, to do it his way. 

People don't like being forced, at least I don't.

 

And even all the talking in the world won't convice me that less=more, because it doesn't.

 

There's a big difference between choice in theory and choice in practice. In the first set of options that Gothfather posted, there might be 5 possible choices in theory, in practice there aren't. You will always go for the 5th option. Even if you don't like chocolate, getting nothing is better than being shot. So to all intents and purposes, there is no choice. Or to put it another way, your choice is already made for you

[LonewandererD]

I think we leave xkg out of this, like they said they're not gonna change their mind so why bother responding to them. Xkg, this is not an attack on you but this is a discussion and you have clearly taken a stance that opposes discussion as you've already made up your mind, let others make up theirs.

 

D-

[xkg]

There's a big difference between choice in theory and choice in practice. In the first set of options that Gothfather posted, there might be 5 possible choices in theory, in practice there aren't. You will always go for the 5th option. Even if you don't like chocolate, getting nothing is better than being shot. So to all intents and purposes, there is no choice. Or to put it another way, your choice is already made for you

 

 

I may be stretching the point here but going with that example, it won't owrk like that.

i.e. (stupid one I know but still) There are masochist. They would chose one of the first 4 options. If you say let's not pander to minorities then ok, i have no counter for that.

 

About being forced to do something, because theare no choice that I would like. I just repost one of my post,

 

It's like saying "you don't need that other food since we have planty of fried liver"

 

No. I hate it (any kind of liver for that matter). I think I would rather starve to death than eat it.

 

And I seriously mean that, what I siad in this quote.

[sylvanaerie]

I may be stretching the point here but going with that example, it won't owrk like that.

i.e. (stupid one I know but still) There are masochist. They would chose one of the first 4 options. If you say let's not pander to minorities then ok, i have no counter for that.

 

About being forced to do something, because theare no choice that I would like. I just repost one of my post,

 

 

 

And I seriously mean that, what I siad in this quote.

 

Unfortunately, it's all the options you're going to get.  Your choices then boil down to

 

1) get the game anyway, play it, enjoy it or not--because Bioware has made the game they are going to make and aren't going to change it at this late date.

2) wait till you can read reviews by other players saying whether it's fun or not, then decide if it's for you

3) don't buy it at all because the changes are unacceptable to you

 

Sucky choices, I know.  I sympathize, truly I do.  But those are your options at this time.

 

For me, it's a no-brainer.  I can barely wait the 3 weeks it will take to get the game.  I don't want to wait 1 day past when I have to.

[Gothfather]

First : In the former there are five choices, in the latter there are four. By removing the last choice from the latter, you created less choices not more. Which one of those choice is more popular doesn't matter.

 

Humans were most popular race in Origins, let's cut that option out so people can have more choices in race selection?

Which leads me to...

 

Second : If someone is taking one of the choices away from you, he is not making more choices, he is forcing you to do something you may not like, to do it his way. 

People don't like being forced, at least I don't.

 

And even all the talking in the world won't convice me that less=more, because it doesn't.

It does matter.

 

1) When one choice is not just more popular but has an obvious advantage to it so that the other choices virtually ignored you don't actually have a real choice. You have the illusion of choice.

 

When you no longer have the option to be the Obviously superior choice if forces you to look at the other options and as my exampled illustrated those choices were such that there was no clear winner. This lack of a clear winner means you can appraoch your choices from diffrnt angles.

 

 Popularity in and of itself does not mean you lose choice because its the most common choice peopel take. people may more often then any other race pick human but the choices of races are such that you can't pick to any one race and say THAT race is the superior choice just by looking at it. That means there are real options for races and why people come to different conclusions. In my first example of 5 choices there was not 5 viable options. There were 5 actual options but four were not viable, that left you with ONE option. Removing that ONE option leaves you with 4 actual and 4 viable options. This means you have an increase of choice even if they are 4 choices you don't want.

 

2)You may not like the direction the game is going but that doesn't mean the direction bioware is taking the game doesn't in fact provide you with more choices in how you win a battle. If its a case of "I don't like it" Then all I can say is suck it up princess or don't buy the game. Speak with your wallet. bioware is not obligate to make the game you like.

[xkg]

Unfortunately, it's all the options you're going to get.  Your choices then boil down to

 

1) get the game anyway, play it, enjoy it or not--because Bioware has made the game they are going to make and aren't going to change it at this late date.

2) wait till you can read reviews by other players saying whether it's fun or not, then decide if it's for you

3) don't buy it at all because the changes are unacceptable to you

 

Sucky choices, I know.  I sympathize, truly I do.  But those are your options at this time.

 

For me, it's a no-brainer.  I can barely wait the 3 weeks it will take to get the game.  I don't want to wait 1 day past when I have to.

 

I will certainly go with the 2nd one.

I already know I won't like many changes to the game's mechanics but there are other elements - characters story etc. So I am not giving up yet.

 

If the combat happens to be unbearable i'll just killallhostiles or cheatengine it my way.

 

But I have to say I don't like it the way it is now, if enough people do so, then maybe it will change in the next game or even in the expansion pack if it ever comes.

[sylvanaerie]

I will certainly go with the 2nd one.

I already know I won't like many changes to the game's mechanics but there are other elements - characters story etc. So I am not giving up yet.

 

If the combat happens to be unbearable i'll just killallhostiles or cheatengine it my way.

 

But I have to say I don't like it the way it is now, if enough people do so, then maybe it will change in the next game or even in the expansion pack if it ever comes.

 

And that's a viable perspective IMO.  It may be they are shooting themselves in the foot.  

Or it may be the most fun Dragon Age ever.  

 

Regardless, the consumer ultimately has the final say in what they want, and enough people buying and enjoying it, or not buying--or buying and then bitching it's too whacko--will have an impact.  Bioware doesn't want to make products no one enjoys, that's counterproductive to making sales. 

 

You have the power here, not Bioware.  To this day i still have never put Darkspawn Chronicles on my PC.  And I never will.

[Medhia_Nox]

@sylvanaerie:  Chances are far more likely that the vast majority will adapt to the new play style and simple move on with their lives.

 

I absolutely agree with your consumer statements.

[Elhanan]

I will certainly go with the 2nd one.
I already know I won't like many changes to the game's mechanics but there are other elements - characters story etc. So I am not giving up yet.
 
If the combat happens to be unbearable i'll just killallhostiles or cheatengine it my way.
 
But I have to say I don't like it the way it is now, if enough people do so, then maybe it will change in the next game or even in the expansion pack if it ever comes.

Even then, you are simply better informed on mechanics. Most of the subjective things that are still concerns must be weighed personally as a rule.

Just jumping in on this last page, alterations to healing do not personally bother me at all because of my own playstyle. For example, Fast Travel does not have to ruin the immersion of RP for me. However, I am aware of those that are against such mechanics as they tend to break immersion, so having further restrictions and the removal of prior options will be of a greater concern to them, I am guessing.

All that said, this thread also appears to come down to logic vs opinion. And as was mentioned, in the case of mechanics, less is not more. One may like the new mechanics, or are apathetic to them and their effect to the game, but factually they still offer fewer choices.

[Gothfather]

Even then, you are simply better informed on mechanics. Most of the subjective things that are still concerns must be weighed personally as a rule.

Just jumping in on this last page, alterations to healing do not personally bother me at all because of my own playstyle. For example, Fast Travel does not have to ruin the immersion of RP for me. However, I am aware of those that are against such mechanics as they tend to break immersion, so having further restrictions and the removal of prior options will be of a greater concern to them, I am guessing.

All that said, this thread also appears to come down to logic vs opinion. And as was mentioned, in the case of mechanics, less is not more. One may like the new mechanics, or are apathetic to them and their effect to the game, but factually they still offer fewer choices.

I already showed how LOGICALLY less can indeed very much be more. There is no opinion about it. This is the danger of jumping in on the last page you don't actually know what people's arguements are. Go back a page or two at least.

[Muspade]

All that said, this thread also appears to come down to logic vs opinion. And as was mentioned, in the case of mechanics, less is not more. One may like the new mechanics, or are apathetic to them and their effect to the game, but factually they still offer fewer choices.

You crave choices, even if they are mechanically unbalanced and bad, and that's ultimately where I seperate myself from that "MOAR CHOICES" is  better than less, more significant ones.

 

I actually want a good GAME as much as I want a roleplaying experience.
 

[xkg]

I already showed how LOGICALLY less can indeed very much be more. There is no opinion about it. This is the danger of jumping in on the last page you don't actually know what people's arguements are. Go back a page or two at least.

 

You haven't showed anything and your example was completely illogical. You took away only viable option and you think you provided more by telling someone to chose from those 3 unaceptable ones.

 

I can tell you, in this case you didn't provide more options for me at all. In fact you took them all away from me. 

In that example of yours my choice would be "sc..w you, i won't chose any of them, do what you have to do, shoot me stab me I don't care".

[Muspade]

You haven't showed anything and your example was completely illogical. You took away only viable option and you think you provided more by telling someone to chose from those 3 unaceptable ones.

 

There's your answer. Go figure.

[Elhanan]

I've yet to find the logic In craving choices, no matter how meaningless they are, as they offer no significant response.
You crave choices, even if they are mechanically unbalanced and bad, and that's ultimately where I seperate myself from that "MOAR CHOICES" is the better than less, more significant ones.
 
I actually want a good GAME as much as I want a roleplaying experience.

No; I chose some options that were considered bad, and offered examples that they were viable (eg; higher STR For Rogues, higher WILL for all). Someone's opinion does not equate to fact; mine included, so I offered evidence in builds.

But the removal of choices from the Players is factual, lessens options, and restricts gameplay. Fact.

[xkg]

There's your answer. Go figure.

 

There is not much to figure out.

Their example was completely idiotic and I have no idea how is it even remotely linked with this topic.

 

1) Get shot in the foot

2) Get shot in the hand

3) Get shot in the knee

4) Get shot in the elbow

5) get $5 towards your next purchase of chocolate

 

If you take the 5th choice out, for me it would go from one choice -> zero choices.

I would simply refuse to choose from those first 4 choices.

[Muspade]

No; I chose some options that were considered bad, and offered examples that they were viable (eg; higher STR For Rogues, higher WILL for all). Someone's opinion does not equate to fact; mine included, so I offered evidence in builds.

But the removal of choices from the Players is factual, lessens options, and restricts gameplay. Fact.

Lessen's option so that It may improve upon the weaker ones. I'm not certain where you got the impression I was saying it delivered "more choice".

Your "fact" has no power here, when it has no ground In what I said.

If you take the 5th choice out, for me it would go from one choice -> zero choices.

I would simply refuse to choose from those first 4 choices.

Sucks to be you, m8.

[Elhanan]

I already showed how LOGICALLY less can indeed very much be more. There is no opinion about it. This is the danger of jumping in on the last page you don't actually know what people's arguements are. Go back a page or two at least.

Not quite; was based on the idea that an option had obvious merit or not. My past DAO builds were offered as proofs that what may not be optimal were still valid, versatile, and viable designs. What one Player may consider unessential (eg; personally avoid MMO agro mechanics, and tactics like throwing chained swords) may be quite useful to others.

Opinions vary; facts tend not to do so.

[Gothfather]

You haven't showed anything and your example was completely illogical. You took away only viable option and you think you provided more by telling someone to chose from those 3 unaceptable ones.

 

I can tell you, in this case you didn't provide more options for me at all. In fact you took them all away from me. 

In that example of yours my choice would be "sc..w you, i won't chose any of them, do what you have to do, shoot me stab me I don't care".

Sigh.. Sometimes I forget this is the internet.

 

Yes the examples were ones that no one in their right mind would want. There were used to illustrate how one glaringly superior option has the effect or removing all choice from an equation. I just assumed people could make the mental leap if i used really easy to understand examples by making a set with 4 bad choices and one good choice. So lets see if it works with all good choices. (Sigh one can hope)

 

1) Get a free puppy

2) Get a free kitten

3) Get a free goldfish

4) get a free budgie

5) Get $1000000

 

Here we have 5 choice but one choice is obviously superior. In an honest pool almost everyone would pick 5 for good reason. Getting a million dollars is simply better than the other 4 options. There really isn't a choice anymore because picking the first 4 puts you at a disadvantage compared to the people who picked option 5. Because combat is balanced for all players picking an option that puts you at a disadvantage means you wont being having fun because you are getting frustrated. This is true in a SP enviorment as well because the game will be balanced on option 5 not on the inferior ones.

 

Remove one option...

 

1) Get a free puppy

2) Get a free kitten

3) Get a free goldfish

4) get a free budgie

 

Which one do you pick? People will have different answers for different reasons, By removing one option you suddenly had more choices.

 

Obviously  the above choices have nothing to do with combat or gaming they're used to illustrate how an OBVIOUSLY superior option especially in combat, will narrow your practical choices. Yet by eliminating the obviously superior option and suddenly those glaringly inferior choice become viable. You go from one choice to 4 by the elimination of one choice.

 

better?