45 réponses à ce sujet

[GodBrandon]

Everything looks awesome to me except the combat. It still looks fun, but just not amazing like all the other aspects of the game.

[Pen-N-Paper]

So a Youtube Let's Play is right out for you.

 

Of course. About the only time I'd ever look at one of those is if the guy's playing a decision path I'll never make with one of my own PCs, and that wouldn't be until after I've got three or four playthroughs completed.

 

Yet you have no objection to watching hours of demonstrations how to defeat a Boss in Frostbite-engine combat demonstrations gaining the knowledge of outcomes (such as new allies) and how to win the battles before you play the game yourself? And you see no contradiction in this? Perhaps you enjoy the combat more than role-play? You cannot argue game spoilers on the one hand with role-playing and not on the other hand with combat when you say demonstrations show spoilers. You're okay with seeing the action  Do you like role-playing?

 

Many posters on these forums have mentioned using Play Throughs, Walkthroughs and Let's Plays to find out exactly what this game means when it advertises itself to be a role-playing game. But the thing is, Youtube play by consumers tends to reveal much more whereas strategically demonstrating one branch on the statistical decision tree by a developer would not only give evidence of the role-playing elements but also be a nice display at an actual story play test.

 

Not my problem. I think that such a video would be a waste of time, but that's simply because I personally would never look at it. If Bio thinks there are enough of you folks to make such a video worth doing, then they should ignore me and do one -- as long as they flag it so I don't accidentally watch the thing.

Apparently they don't think that.

 

Since this is not your problem and a demonstration of role-playing would be a "waste of [your] time," you convincingly answer my question above.  

 

Apparently, since no role-playing is demonstrated, I can infer from your post that Bioware finds the number of folks who enjoy role-playing to be inconsequential. You may be right. But if you are, me and my folks have an excellent reason to withhold purchasing this game and even to wonder if Bioware is still interested in giving us role-playing games at all. Your argument against demonstrating role-playing of how player decisions affect the game certainly does not recommend itself to pre-order for folks like me.

 

But I have to wonder something. Dragon Age Origins was a massive success by anyone and everyone's definition of success. That success directly led to pre-orders of Dragon Age 2, a game that died so fast it left DLC undeveloped. DA2 was a failure on every scale, even so far as to cause a legacy of buyer concern (from buyer remorse) that now extends into DA3 pre-sales as we can clearly read on these forums. The dubious areas of DA2 "success" are 1) the very positive reviews DA2 received from paid journalists who later came under fire for their reviews and 2) the volume of sales DA3 (thanks to pre-orders, not to DLC sales that left DLC twisting in the wind so-to-speak).

 

Maybe there are more of us folks who made Dragon Age a name than either you or Bioware give us enough credit for? That certainly is my lasting impression coming to DA:I. That is why folks like me are not rushing to pre-order DA:I. And maybe your impression is right: Bioware does not care about us folks.

[pengwin21]

Yet you have no objection to watching hours of demonstrations how to defeat a Boss in Frostbite-engine combat demonstrations gaining the knowledge of outcomes (such as new allies) and how to win the battles before you play the game yourself? And you see no contradiction in this? Perhaps you enjoy the combat more than role-play? You cannot argue game spoilers on the one hand with role-playing and not on the other hand with combat when you say demonstrations show spoilers. You're okay with seeing the action  Do you like role-playing?

 

 

I like roleplaying more than combat, but I'm satisfied with the amount of story spoilers we've seen so far and don't really need more of them. Combat isn't as naturally spoilery IMO, since a lot of the experience of combat is actually doing it. With roleplaying choices, most of the experience is watching it- it's less satisfying to me to choose a roleplaying option when I already know what the outcome will be.

[Pen-N-Paper]

I like roleplaying more than combat, but I'm satisfied with the amount of story spoilers we've seen so far and don't really need more of them. Combat isn't as naturally spoilery IMO, since a lot of the experience of combat is actually doing it. With roleplaying choices, most of the experience is watching it- it's less satisfying to me to choose a roleplaying option when I already know what the outcome will be.

I think role-playing is more than passively watching cut scenes of Leliana & co, and be more rather actively making choices: exactly like what you wrote about combat.

 

I would hope, and I should think, that a role-playing game would have many such opportunities and many, many such paths same as a tree would have numerous leafy branches if it were healthy. I am not just referring to the end game options of A, B, C, D, like in Deus Ex: Human Revolutions and other games we are most likely all familiar with in this forum, but also to the concept that revealing one branch on the statistical tree of one decision that makes a difference to the overall story should not spoil the entire role-playing experience. Tearing off one lilac branch from the whole lilac tree does not leave even such a small tree exposed and bare if it is healthy.

 

If such an allegory were true with a role-playing game, that revealing one decision path would spoil the game, should it still be considered a role-playing game?  

 

So far not one branch from the role-playing tree of decisions has been brought to our attention.

[AlanC9]

Yet you have no objection to watching hours of demonstrations how to defeat a Boss in Frostbite-engine combat demonstrations gaining the knowledge of outcomes (such as new allies) and how to win the battles before you play the game yourself? And you see no contradiction in this? Perhaps you enjoy the combat more than role-play? You cannot argue game spoilers on the one hand with role-playing and not on the other hand with combat when you say demonstrations show spoilers. You're okay with seeing the action  Do you like role-playing?

You've managed to get it exactly backwards. I'm willing to watch a combat video precisely because I don't particularly care about the specifics of combat, so seeing a trick or two about the combat doesn't bother me.

 

Have there really been hours of the things, though? No way I'd sit through that much. I don't even remember learning how to beat any bosses or the outcomes, which probably means that I didn't keep watching once I'd seen what I needed to see in the vid.
 
I'll ignore the rest of your post since the premises were so wildly wrong. But why did saying "folks" get your panties in a bunch  bother you? (I'm trying to cut down on baiting people this week.) Is there something wrong with the word?

[Pen-N-Paper]

It just hits me sideways to have role-player folks, like me, referred to as an outgroup in a discussion about a game touted to feature role-playing. I would think us folks represent the majority stakeholders here, even if we are silent. This attitude also informed my understanding of you.

 

For example, putting your two comments together, I understand all the (non-existent RPG and numerous combat) videos are all a waste of [your] time, then? Do you consider yourself to represent a large share of the consumer market for this game? Or are you just killing time on WiFi right now?

[Iakus]

I think role-playing is more than passively watching cut scenes of Leliana & co, and be more rather actively making choices: exactly like what you wrote about combat.

 

I would hope, and I should think, that a role-playing game would have many such opportunities and many, many such paths same as a tree would have numerous leafy branches if it were healthy. I am not just referring to the end game options of A, B, C, D, like in Deus Ex: Human Revolutions and other games we are most likely all familiar with in this forum, but also to the concept that revealing one branch on the statistical tree of one decision that makes a difference to the overall story should not spoil the entire role-playing experience. Tearing off one lilac branch from the whole lilac tree does not leave even such a small tree exposed and bare if it is healthy.

 

If such an allegory were true with a role-playing game, that revealing one decision path would spoil the game, should it still be considered a role-playing game?  

 

So far not one branch from the role-playing tree of decisions has been brought to our attention.

I definitely sympathize with your position, but the last sentance is not, strictly speaking, true.

 

The Redcliffe scene where the Inquisitor rescues Leliana and that big "hold the line" scene where Sera is knocked out/killed is supposed to be a direct result of the Inquisitor's choice:  to allow Leliana to try and infiltrate the Venatori (getting her captured and tortured, and she becomes far more bitter towards mages) as well as bringing Dorian with to rescue her (since he and Alexius have a history)  Apparantly making different choices earlier would have resulted in a different outcome, perhaps even including a chance for a peaceful resolution.

 

Trust me, I'm concerned as well with being able to take different oaths.  I'm concerned that all Inquisitors will be funnelled into some self-indulgent forced "bittersweet" RGB ending regardless of choice.  But I don't think there is a snowball's chance that we're going to be told anything about potential end-states for the game.

[Pen-N-Paper]

The Redcliffe scene where the Inquisitor rescues Leliana and that big "hold the line" scene where Sera is knocked out/killed is supposed to be a direct result of the Inquisitor's choice.... Apparantly making different choices earlier would have resulted in a different outcome

 

But I don't think there is a snowball's chance that we're going to be told anything about potential end-states for the game.

I was specifically thinking about that scene when I was writing my last line and in my earlier reference to fetch quests. I know what they said was supposed to be apparent but it was not demonstrated (oddly). They have repeatedly said that player choices matter also in DA2….  A demonstration in support of that player agency would be much more forceful than words at this point, at least to me (and we folks).

 

I would like to have seen that decision tree illustrated, and I do not think this is too much to ask amid all the ballyhoo of combat-engine Frostbite videos. Was a binary Y-decision model used to determine the outcome – was it that direct? Was it more complex, with weighted results through different interactions leading to future outcomes? It is not important to reveal all the outcomes to show the depth of the role-playing. We could see this by following the one decision path either as a simple Y- decision tree or more complex with many more branches? What led us to send Leliana for example, a fetch quest? Was there no one else who could have gone? How embedded was player agency there?

 

The game becomes much more re-playable when players remain unaware of decision outcomes – something a simple binary decision path cannot hide as well as a complex decision path. If we side with X, then Y is our enemy. We know this at the time of our decision and so the decision is mechanically binary and obvious. At the end of the game, a scrolling epilogue that reads our relations with Y are difficult is rather redundant since no consequences have been felt within the game itself.  

 

It is even insulting to our intelligence given the game is supposed to be role-playing oriented. Not as insulting as the extreme of a push button ending, of course.  

[Iakus]

They have not directly addressed that, no.  But they have said that our advisors would have different approaches to situations.  What we saw was the result of going with Leliana's option.  And Dorian opened up conversation options we may not have had normally (and could potentially have resulted in a peaceful resolution)  

 

We were not told what Cullen or Josephine's options would have been.  How similar the outcome might have been.  But this is apparantly a critical story mission (not a fetch quest), and I can see why they would be reluctant to show too much.  So I think of it along the lines of Scrooge being shown the future by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come:  This is an image of what can be, but not what will be.

 

Insulting our intelligence would have been the "your decisions matter!" claim in that one ME3 add.  The one showing Shepard trying to get air support for the Thessia mission, acting like conversation chocies mattered.  WHen no matter what was said, you were going to get your air support.

[AlanC9]

Insulting our intelligence would have been the "your decisions matter!" claim in that one ME3 add.  The one showing Shepard trying to get air support for the Thessia mission, acting like conversation chocies mattered.  WHen no matter what was said, you were going to get your air support.

 

I've always figured that was cut content, but I've never heard about any audio files or whatnot being found to substantiate that belief.

[Pen-N-Paper]

Insulting our intelligence would have been the "your decisions matter!" claim in that one ME3 add.  The one showing Shepard trying to get air support for the Thessia mission, acting like conversation chocies mattered.  WHen no matter what was said, you were going to get your air support.

 LOL

Yeah, I purposefully mentioned another game just so that I would not bash Bioware twice for choices that (don't) matter. Does ME count towards my impression of DA: 3?  DA: 2 certainly does count... 

 

All just emphasizes that my answer to this game is to wait and see with my own eyes. [It is a shame because I did pre-order DA: 2 for the political intrigue DLC back in the day.]

 

Still this role-playing game is coming http://kingdomcomerpg.com/ and folks like us have contributed $2 million towards its production (making it an almost AAA game in pre-sales). They're offering an illustrated historical codex for every interesting place and important person or event from the game - a game feature torn out of the DA franchise. Maybe they will show Bioware how to properly succeed with an RPG? One can hope. There are too few good cRPGs amid the pile of many that claim to be, ironically leaving us folks lots of money to put into a good cRPG. 

[AlanC9]

It just hits me sideways to have role-player folks, like me, referred to as an outgroup in a discussion about a game touted to feature role-playing. I would think us folks represent the majority stakeholders here, even if we are silent. This attitude also informed my understanding of you.

Well, that's the thing. You're equating wanting some more spoilery trailers with being a "role-player." I am one, and I don't want that trailer. So naturally you're coming to bad conclusions.
 

For example, putting your two comments together, I understand all the (non-existent RPG and numerous combat) videos are all a waste of [your] time, then? Do you consider yourself to represent a large share of the consumer market for this game? Or are you just killing time on WiFi right now?

I have no idea if there are a lot of people who want the kind of trailer you're asking for. I don't see a reason to care, either. Bio has to care about that, but I don't.

[Raydenos256]

Here are some thoughts I have after watching the latest gameplay videos available on youtube.

 

The GOOD:

 

- awesome graphics, although it feels a bit cartoonish compared to Origins

- great sound

- beautiful environments

- use of tactics to gain advantage in a battle

 

The BAD:

 

- spells felt weak, it was as if spells and abilities did 2-10% damage, I don't know if it was because player characters were low lvl or if the zone he was in was way above his level.

When I cast a spell/skill on an enemy I expect it to be able to be deadly (at least to human like enemies), in Origins when I used Fireball it tossed enemies away and dealt significant damage, not to mention the fact that enemies should be have burn over time damage applied to them.

In those videos all 4 characters had to hit a target to kill it, which is ok for a huge boss of some kind, but looks just weak when we need 20 attacks to kill normal enemy. If assassin comes in from stealth from behind he should be able to one hit the target and kill it, otherwise it is failsassin. Things should be a bit more realistic. If an enemy casts a skill on one of my characters I expect it to be able to kill the character, but so would my skills. (Does anyone remember Baldur's Gate  ? )

When I cast an immensely powerful spell I expect it to shatter the walls and cause a quake near where it landed.

 

- Varric doing jumping acrobatics ???? That is totally unrealistic, no one could have jumped that high. I realize that this is a fantasy game, but making unrealistic skills really breaks the experience for me. Dragon Age shouldn't feel like some anime.

 

The UGLY:

 

- still no video showing PC interface in action and game requirements ?

- Interface is a bit too colorful, radial menus, everything I have seen so far reminds me of consoles.

- I'd like to have minimap at the top right corner of my screen, minimap size should be adjustable.

[I Miss Minsc]

About story... I hear the presenter say "story matters" and "this is why we come to this point" but I do not see it. It's like listening to a baseball game highlight on the radio versus reading the box scores.

 

Yet lots of attention is given to showing combat. The last video I saw, it looked like the bodies of the dead were exploding. Exploding bodies is not immersive in a sword fight.

 

Demo: 99.9% Here is a fetch quest. Look at the fighting. Flashing lights. Kills shots. Tactical positioning. Explosions of bad guys. Here is how to defeat the bad guy fighting. %0.01 Oh and your decison matters. You form the story. The world informs your decisions.  [Actually I have yet to hear that last bit.] 

 

First Impression: It's a great Duke Nuk'em for 2014. The fact the demo is for console adds the impression. Hopefully the marketing communications is bad and there is something about this game close enough to DA: Origins I will like.  I am definitely a wait and see a Let's Play before making a purchase decision. The only reason I am here is because I think Origins is a good game and DA2 (which I pre-ordered) was so bad.

 

 

It is difficult to imagine a more spot on statement than the above.+6 Rep.

 

I personally dodged DA2, and only finished ME3 AFTER I downloaded the MEHEM mod, to "fix" the high "art".

 

"Mods Make the Difference" (formely Yuni LOCKDOWN! Sticks it deep").

[Pen-N-Paper]

 

Here are some thoughts I have after watching the latest gameplay videos available on youtube.

 

- Varric doing jumping acrobatics

 

TWO WORDS:

Dwarf Toss.

[Pen-N-Paper]

It is difficult to imagine a more spot on statement than the above.+6 Rep.

 

I personally dodged DA2, and only finished ME3 AFTER I downloaded the MEHEM mod, to "fix" the high "art".

 

"Mods Make the Difference" (formely Yuni LOCKDOWN! Sticks it deep").

 

Thank you for the compliment.

[boissiere]

If DA I is as awesome as it looks like, I would have no other impressions to say... (I'm just sad that there is no female dwarf companion and that she is not romanceable).

[Doominike]

So far I have only minor gripes. Qunari hair not looking good, female models possibly being too thin (though they could be fit slim like Hawke and not actually skinny) and the female run animation looks ridiculous

[Paridave]

About story... I hear the presenter say "story matters" and "this is why we come to this point" but I do not see it. It's like listening to a baseball game highlight on the radio versus reading the box scores.

 

Yet lots of attention is given to showing combat. The last video I saw, it looked like the bodies of the dead were exploding. Exploding bodies is not immersive in a sword fight.

 

Demo: 99.9% Here is a fetch quest. Look at the fighting. Flashing lights. Kills shots. Tactical positioning. Explosions of bad guys. Here is how to defeat the bad guy fighting. %0.01 Oh and your decison matters. You form the story. The world informs your decisions.  [Actually I have yet to hear that last bit.] 

 

First Impression: It's a great Duke Nuk'em for 2014. The fact the demo is for console adds the impression. Hopefully the marketing communications is bad and there is something about this game close enough to DA: Origins I will like.  I am definitely a wait and see a Let's Play before making a purchase decision. The only reason I am here is because I think Origins is a good game and DA2 (which I pre-ordered) was so bad.

Yeah, I had a pre-order for this and cancelled it.  Very little news about the storyline.  Even with Casey "everyone must die" Hudson gone they still may kill off quite a few so I'm just going to sit back and wait it out.

[dekarserverbot]

The reason they are showing the combat is because it won't spoil the story, and because people voiced disappointment with DA2's combat system. People whined and moaned about story being spoiled after the E3 demo came out.

 

Truth to be told, when i saw the skill tree of rogues i thought they would be just another Kratos clone like Isabella was in DA2 (and i sent her to the qunari people... IT DIDN'T MATTER AT ALL)

 

And DA2 combat was just a big pinata party with infinity waves, even Plants vs Zombies was more enjoyable than that.,, good riddance, i preffer inquisition gameplay: It looked like a mix beetween Soul Calibur and Jagged Alliance. Still my guard is not down, equipment issues are still on the line, so story is... also punch daggers and daggers are not enough for rogues, i expected some swords for them too but i guess those sissy daggers and punch daggers will have to do.

[Eri]

Okay so my total list of downers from the game now include (bearing in mind that this is just my personal opinion):

* Qunari hair options (and texture) - More and better quality would be nice (and at least one long style, come on!).

* Dwarven beard options  - only two scraggly options for braid styles are poor in comparison to the Dwarven-style beards they offered in DAO.

* Dwarven female beards - 20 types of stubble is not what I was expecting. Not even one flowing/long beard amongst them? really? I wasn't aware that stubble constituted as a beard, and pretty sure it's not what people were expecting when they expressed interest in beards for female Dwarves either..

* The flashy spell and ability effects during combat (especially when in tight-knit situations) are also quite annoying, and it can be hard to follow what is happening in real time when your whole view is blocked by all that dazzle.

 

Everything else I'm relatively okay with so far. I'm a little iffy on how the cut-back healing will be, but am interested in the challenge of it all the same, so keeping it off my list so far.