934 réponses à ce sujet

[10K]

 The biodrone phenomena always makes it hard to detect how worthy people are of being taken serious.

This is so true!

[straykat]

I thought I was a Biodrone myself.

 

Until this game. Funny how things can change.

[AlanC9]

Given that I beat the game on nightmare with the same abilities throughout; no it doesn't.

Sure. I didn't bring this issue up because I thought you need to use a competent build to win. Like many --most?-- Bio games, DAI has lousy balance, and unlike, say, DA:O, it can't be easily fixed with modding. DA:I has a particularly bad case because of the power of crafted gear.

I was intending to question whether slogging through with inefficient abilities was a fun playstyle for you, though I didn't actually make that point.. Sometimes self-imposed restrictions can work -- I have to do this most of the time in Paradox games or they fall apart, for instance. But in an RPG I generally prefer to go for efficient play and curbstomp everything. (One of the mods here back in the NWN days --Syrsuro, I think -- sold me on that WRT Morrowind, and I've found it to be generally useful.)

[In Exile]

What an absolutely asinine claim to make. The fact alone that BG and BG2 runs on the same engine shoots a hole in it, but truth be told there are so many other glaring examples that I hope you are being intentionally obtuse in both your attempt of being shocked and the attempt of finding more simularities between the DA:O and the super sayan engine that was DA2.

The biodrone phenomena always makes it hard to detect how worthy people are of being taken serious.

Get ready to have your mind blown: DAO used the same engine as DA2. I'm surprised you would defeat your own post in the first paragraph alone, though I suppose there is something to be said for efficency.

So I will put the shoe on the other foot: if there are do many examples let's have them.

[BBMorti]

Get ready to have your mind blown: DAO used the same engine as DA2. I'm surprised you would defeat your own post in the first paragraph alone, though I suppose there is something to be said for efficency.

So I will put the shoe on the other foot: if there are do many examples let's have them.

You trying to bridge the gap between the Eclipse Engine (Used for DA:O) and the heavily "upgraded" engine, Renamed the Lycium engine used for DA2, as "the same" just nails how foolishly your neurons conduct logic.

 

You hearing my point go *woooosh* over your head doesn't mean I self-defeated any point, at all. All you did here is prove that any point made would never get through your biodrone tinted apologetic glasses that allows you to stretch things enough to see a bigger difference between BG/BG2 than DA:O/DA2.. something that really speaks for itself more than I could ever put better into perspective, with any amount of further examples.

[Nimlowyn]

Jesus dude cool your jets no need to be so rude.

[BBMorti]

Jesus dude cool your jets no need to be so rude.

I take offense to intellectual dishonesty. But sure, I usually frequent forums with a very loose view on free speech.

[AlanC9]

You trying to bridge the gap between the Eclipse Engine (Used for DA:O) and the heavily "upgraded" engine, Renamed the Lycium engine used for DA2, as "the same" just nails how foolishly your neurons conduct logic.

You hearing my point go *woooosh* over your head doesn't mean I self-defeated any point, at all. All you did here is prove that any point made would never get through your biodrone tinted apologetic glasses that allows you to stretch things enough to see a bigger difference between BG/BG2 than DA:O/DA2.. something that really speaks for itself more than I could ever put better into perspective, with any amount of further examples.

Besides ranting, what's your point? Your argument seems to be that your point is so obvious that you can't actually articulate it.

[Iakus]

 
I was intending to question whether slogging through with inefficient abilities was a fun playstyle for you, though I didn't actually make that point.. Sometimes self-imposed restrictions can work -- I have to do this most of the time in Paradox games or they fall apart, for instance. But in an RPG I generally prefer to go for efficient play and curbstomp everything. (One of the mods here back in the NWN days --Syrsuro, I think -- sold me on that WRT Morrowind, and I've found it to be generally useful.)

In my experience, just going down the trees of the weapon trees +whatever specialty tickles your fancy gives you all you need to get through the game.  No need to pick up extras.

[10K]

Sure. I didn't bring this issue up because I thought you need to use a competent build to win. Like many --most?-- Bio games, DAI has lousy balance, and unlike, say, DA:O, it can't be easily fixed with modding. DA:I has a particularly bad case because of the power of crafted gear.

I was intending to question whether slogging through with inefficient abilities was a fun playstyle for you, though I didn't actually make that point.. Sometimes self-imposed restrictions can work -- I have to do this most of the time in Paradox games or they fall apart, for instance. But in an RPG I generally prefer to go for efficient play and curbstomp everything. (One of the mods here back in the NWN days --Syrsuro, I think -- sold me on that WRT Morrowind, and I've found it to be generally useful.)

Truthfully, I didn't find myself slogging though the game. Not even on nightmare. I used the same tactic as I used from previous DA games: In short, put the warrior with the shield in front of my ranged companions (I.e: Cassandra, Aveline, and Alistair) and have them distract everything while I pick off enemies with my archer or mage from afar. Rinse and repeat, no crafting required. As long as they had a skill like taunt, and decent gear, I was guaranteed to almost never get hit because they would never die. Straykat's profile pic is evident of that. The games were never challenging, which is why I said switching skills is pointless. As long as the player knows how to position their team correctly, skills make little difference IMO.    

[Realmzmaster]

Truthfully, I didn't find myself slogging though the game. Not even on nightmare. I used the same tactic as I used from previous DA games: In short, put the warrior with the shield in front of my ranged companions (I.e: Cassandra, Aveline, and Alistair) and have them distract everything while I pick off enemies with my archer or mage from afar. Rinse and repeat, no crafting required. As long as they had a skill like taunt, and decent gear, I was guaranteed to almost never get hit because they would never die. Straykat's profile pic is evident of that. The games were never challenging, which is why I said switching skills is pointless. As long as the player knows how to position their team correctly, skills make little difference IMO.    

 

Forgot to ask. When you played on Nightmare was that with Trespasser installed? If so was it with friendly fire and all the trials on? Because that is the way I play.

[10K]

Forgot to ask. When you played on Nightmare was that with Trespasser installed? If so was it with friendly fire and all the trials on? Because that is the way I play.

No haven't played with Trespasser installed, haven't played any DLC, but yes I've played with friendly fire on.

[von uber]

I have never competed this. Ran out of enthusiasm when I realised that the latest area I was trekking through served no real purpose in my actually being there, and worse wasn't even that interesting.

By that point the big bad seemed long gone and not even relevant.
Shame really as some parts were quite good but they were just too far in between the sheer amount of drudgery.

[AlanC9]

In my experience, just going down the trees of the weapon trees +whatever specialty tickles your fancy gives you all you need to get through the game. No need to pick up extras.

Umm... you did read my post, right? I explicitly said that I wasn't talking about need.

The question is whether it was more fun to do it that way, or not. 10K's method worked -- although the DLCs are substantially more difficult -- but it strikes me a being a little dull and a lot slower than more advanced methods.

[straykat]

Umm... you did read my post, right? I explicitly said that I wasn't talking about need.

The question is whether it was more fun to do it that way, or not. 10K's method worked -- although the DLCs are substantially more difficult -- but it strikes me a being a little dull and a lot slower than more advanced methods.

 

I only played a mage, and deleted a warrior. The mage was boring... so I don't know what to say. As for warrior, if I did it again, I'd pick skills that simply weren't dumb. Like the earthquake stuff. I'd try to roleplay something a little more realistic and just allot skills on the bar for that. Even if they weren't optimal. I'd also forgo using hammers and axes and only use narrow looking greatswords. Although axes are clearly better for my uses.

 

My 2c. Basically, I'd still emphasize roleplaying. But there isn't much to work with.

[In Exile]

You trying to bridge the gap between the Eclipse Engine (Used for DA:O) and the heavily "upgraded" engine, Renamed the Lycium engine used for DA2, as "the same" just nails how foolishly your neurons conduct logic.

 

You hearing my point go *woooosh* over your head doesn't mean I self-defeated any point, at all. All you did here is prove that any point made would never get through your biodrone tinted apologetic glasses that allows you to stretch things enough to see a bigger difference between BG/BG2 than DA:O/DA2.. something that really speaks for itself more than I could ever put better into perspective, with any amount of further examples.

 

Right, so you don't have a point. You have a series of slurs. The engine in DA2 is effectively identical in every meaningful respect. I would be happy to do a one for one comparison with the way the BG engine evolved, expect we aren't having a conversation. 

 

I take offense to intellectual dishonesty. But sure, I usually frequent forums with a very loose view on free speech.

 

Slurs, and conclusions without argument, are the height of intellectual dishonesty. 

 

And while I'm sure the point will be totally lost on you, "free speech" is about government regulation of speech. As wikipedia says, freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. A forum banning you for slurring someone isn't infringing anything.

[Nimlowyn]

I laugh when people who sign a TOS rage about free speech, and then cry because their ignorance is so sad. 

[BBMorti]

Besides ranting, what's your point? Your argument seems to be that your point is so obvious that you can't actually articulate it.

My point is that Exile is being intellectually dishonest, when he tries to argue that BG and BG2 are further from each others, as games, than DA:O and DA2. The way BG and BG2 plays are utterly simular, where DA:O and DA2 isn't, making it an asinine attempt at biodroning to even attempt the claim.

[BBMorti]

Right, so you don't have a point. You have a series of slurs. The engine in DA2 is effectively identical in every meaningful respect. I would be happy to do a one for one comparison with the way the BG engine evolved, expect we aren't having a conversation. 

 

 

Slurs, and conclusions without argument, are the height of intellectual dishonesty. 

 

And while I'm sure the point will be totally lost on you, "free speech" is about government regulation of speech. As wikipedia says, freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. A forum banning you for slurring someone isn't infringing anything.

If you are saying something rediculous, you are setting yourself up to be rediculed. The simularities of the base engines are pointless, which is what my wooosh comment was about. The main point here is that the games simularities is where you are arguing for a point absurd enough to consider either biodroning or intellectual dishonesty.

 

BG was essentialy copy and pasted onto the BG2 engine, by modders. Simular. Good luck trying that with DA:O onto the Lycium engine model they used for DA2. If you just look at the base engine model of a game and from that alone conclude "They are simular" you might as well say that Morrowind and Civilization IV are simular, since they also run on the same base engine.

 

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. Like you attempted in your defence of bioware by trying to say that they made less drastic changes from DA:O to DA2 than they did from BG to BG2.

 

Not sure what point you feel should be so hard to grasp with your little wiki-link, but thanks for the definition. Freedom of speech is the right to call a spade a spade, or in more dramatic terms, allowing someone to hang himself with his own words, as well as calling him out for it.

 

 

I laugh when people who sign a TOS rage about free speech, and then cry because their ignorance is so sad. 

I neither rage or cry, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't attempting that strawman on me.

[In Exile]

If you are saying something rediculous, you are setting yourself up to be rediculed. The simularities of the base engines are pointless, which is what my wooosh comment was about...

 

BG was essentialy copy and pasted onto the BG2 engine, by modders. Simular. Good luck trying that with DA:O onto the Lycium engine model they used for DA2...

 

Hmm... it's interesting that you make the point that the similarities of the engine are pointless. One of the beautiful features of the internet is that it is in writing, where the literal things people say are preserved. Here's what I said:

 

I'm shocked to see that you're so opposed to BG2, which was a far more radical change to the BG franchise than DA2 was for DA:O. I for one admire Bioware radically re-inventing their dungeon crawler into one of the finest story-driven RPGs of that generation.

 

If you don't believe me, just ask Sylvius the Mad on his thoughts about the transition. As he was more a fan of BG1, he's far more qualified than I to point out the radical changes in design. 

 

The facetious point clearly certainly did a fair bit of "whooshing" over your head. I then followed it up with a much clearer explanation:

 

The "IMO" is my point. We could have a debate on this, but it's ultimately fruitless because whether or not they're "the same kind of game" turns completely on what you think are the essential features of that type of game. 

 

BG2 makes a lot of radical changes. It's not just linearity. It's everything from the dialogue, to the focus of the combat, to the variety of magic items, to the openness of the world,  to the actual type of plot. 

 

How very strange that the word "engine" comes up not at all. And then here we have:

 

What an absolutely asinine claim to make. The fact alone that BG and BG2 runs on the same engine shoots a hole in it...

 

They are not the "same" engine. BG2 modifies the engine, quite materially. You say it's good enough that BG1 was "copied and pasted" into BG2 by modders. BG1 was "copied" in the NWN2 engine. Ah, you'll say. The fact that - through some degree of effort - one game can be modified into another isn't proof of similarity. There's an inane point being made, but it isn't by me.  

There's certainly a "failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion", but that's consistently been your bag. 

 

First we have the "same engine", then we have the "base engine" - all meaningless terms with no explanation, but otherwise filled with a chest-thumping rant, with no argument or explanation. It's all meaningless verbiage to cover up your completely vacuous point. 

 

Not sure what point you feel should be so hard to grasp with your little wiki-link, but thanks for the definition. Freedom of speech is the right to call a spade a spade, or in more dramatic terms, allowing someone to hang himself with his own words, as well as calling him out for it.

 

The point that you should grasp, and which you seem to have missed, is that freedom of speech is not the right to "call a spade a spade". It's the right to freedom from (unreasonable) government interference with expression, and doesn't apply to private internet forums. What you are entitled to say on an internet forum is defined by the TOS. Here, the TOS specifically does not give you the right insult someone. 

 

All of this is, of course, "another  failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. "

[BBMorti]

The good old "But I was joking, lol" line.

 

They are not the "same" engine. BG2 modifies the engine, quite materially. You say it's good enough that BG1 was "copied and pasted" into BG2 by modders. BG1 was "copied" in the NWN2 engine. Ah, you'll say. The fact that - through some degree of effort - one game can be modified into another isn't proof of similarity. There's an inane point being made, but it isn't by me.  
 

I will just let this stand for itself, as it puts your rationalitation better into perspective than me answering that nonsesne post seriously. It truly takes a drone to make such a wide definition of simularity. We simply live in different worlds.

 

You claiming that that the base engine are suddenly meaningless just shows how densely you look upon the issue. To see the engine part as something 'meaningless and verbiage' just makes it clear I, likely, wouldn't even be able to convince you that there would be a difference between the tutu mod compared to 'copying' BG into a spreadsheet.

 

The point that you should grasp, and which you seem to have missed, is that freedom of speech is not the right to "call a spade a spade". It's the right to freedom from (unreasonable) government interference with expression, and doesn't apply to private internet forums. What you are entitled to say on an internet forum is defined by the TOS. Here, the TOS specifically does not give you the right insult someone. 

 

All of this is, of course, "another  failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. "

This forums TOS have nothing to do with freedom of speech, at least you grasp that. You trying to play internet scholar and posting some wiki-link with the definition of Freedom of Speech only serves as a reminder that what some people sees as obvious as 'the grass is green' is something you deem a tricky enough concept to try and educate others on, with the help of wiki-links.

 

The TOS on this site says not to insult others. What someone finds insulting is subjective. It really comes down to the sensitivities of the individuals, which is why me usually frequenting web-pages with a more direct language was mentioned.

Let's face it, if you truly wanted to you would be able to feel insulted or attacked by just about anything, including having someone point out when you make an inane statement "facetiously".

[bEVEsthda]

The "IMO" is my point. We could have a debate on this, but it's ultimately fruitless because whether or not they're "the same kind of game" turns completely on what you think are the essential features of that type of game. 

 

BG2 makes a lot of radical changes. It's not just linearity. It's everything from the dialogue, to the focus of the combat, to the variety of magic items, to the openness of the world,  to the actual type of plot. 

 

No, it makes a lot of changes (not radical changes). Same as pretty much every other sequel in other's franchises. Just like the changes through every iteration of, for example, ES or CoD. But it doesn't change the world, tone, fashion or change the heart of what the gameplay experience is. Old gamers notes and likes and/or unlikes, but greedily dives into the experience, soon adapt and forget the differences to the previous game.

 

Yes, I know that "IMO" is your point. You want to make my argument irrelevant by calling on subjectivity. But that everything is subjective doesn't change that some things deserve to be considered facts. DA2 represents a radical change. Regardless of descriptions, the audience reaction to DA2 makes this a fact.

 

I don't agree with BBMorti that the game engine represents any kind of conclusive argument in this case. I'd argue it's perfectly possible to change engine, and even make changes like between 2D and 3D, and still preserve the identity of a franchise. But preserving the identity is exactly what DA2 didn't do.

And that was also entirely intentional and very deliberate.

(And while I, personally, don't have any interest in playing games like DA2, it was pretty much the only thing DA2 did wrong. If it hadn't postured as the sequel to DA:O, it might have been well received.)

[straykat]

No, it makes a lot of changes (not radical changes). Same as pretty much every other sequel in other's franchises. Just like the changes through every iteration of, for example, ES or CoD. But it doesn't change the world, tone, fashion or change the heart of what the gameplay experience is. Old gamers notes and likes and/or unlikes, but greedily dives into the experience, soon adapt and forget the differences to the previous game.

 

Yes, I know that "IMO" is your point. You want to make my argument irrelevant by calling on subjectivity. But that everything is subjective doesn't change that some things deserve to be considered facts. DA2 represents a radical change. Regardless of descriptions, the audience reaction to DA2 makes this a fact.

 

I don't agree with BBMorti that the game engine represents any kind of conclusive argument in this case. I'd argue it's perfectly possible to change engine, and even make changes like between 2D and 3D, and still preserve the identity of a franchise. But preserving the identity is exactly what DA2 didn't do.

And that was also entirely intentional and very deliberate.

(And while I, personally, don't have any interest in playing games like DA2, it was pretty much the only thing DA2 did wrong. If it hadn't postured as the sequel to DA:O, it might have been well received.)

 

I think it followed up pretty well. What's so inconsistent? For the most part, the magic schools are still in tact. You're playing a Ferelden refugee, which ties to DAO's story. It's just more down to earth.

 

Nothing about the blight or Grey Wardens are different. Or the mage/Templar dichotomy. The Qunari definitely changed in appearance, but their culture was just the same and just as frustrating for most people. They also managed to present the Arishok as a complicated villain, who thought he was serving the "people", much like Loghain was. I think it's almost as good as Loghain (but Loghain had far more material). The elves looked different, but the Dalish were probably improved imo. Merrill was a bit like Borat - a funny and naive outsider. That's better than both DAI and DAO, where they can be so familiar and chummy with everything that they end up ruling and dictating over everyone. Stolen Throne started with Dalish being so rare people barely thought they existed. The main thing that sucks since DAO is dwarves.. they're all surface dwarves and just act like human criminals. There's no point to the race humans can't do themselves, other than appearance. And I hate fantasy races (or real races, for that matter) simply being categorized on appearances.

[Andraste_Reborn]

If it hadn't postured as the sequel to DA:O, it might have been well received.

 

In hindsight, I think calling it Dragon Age 2 was a major mistake. They should have gone with the original title - Dragon Age: Exiles, I think it was. Fingers crossed they've learned their lesson and we won't get any more numbered installments from here on out.

[In Exile]

The good old "But I was joking, lol" line.

 

That's not what facetious means, and as the context makes apparent. I was being flippant, which isn't the same thing. 

 

I will just let this stand for itself, as it puts your rationalitation better into perspective than me answering that nonsesne post seriously. It truly takes a drone to make such a wide definition of simularity. We simply live in different worlds.

 

We apparently live in exceedingly different worlds. In the one I come from, we use reasons to justify conclusions. In the world you come from, apparently, we just use the word "drone" a lot. 

 

You claiming that that the base engine are suddenly meaningless just shows how densely you look upon the issue. To see the engine part as something 'meaningless and verbiage' just makes it clear I, likely, wouldn't even be able to convince you that there would be a difference between the tutu mod compared to 'copying' BG into a spreadsheet.

 

Let's quote my post, which you didn't do:

 

First we have the "same engine", then we have the "base engine" - all meaningless terms with no explanation, but otherwise filled with a chest-thumping rant, with no argument or explanation. It's all meaningless verbiage to cover up your completely vacuous point. 

 

I never said the "engine part" is something "meaningless and verbiage".What's meaningless and verbiage is your undefined use of terms. First, you say - literally - that "fact" that " BG and BG2 runs on the same engine". You then immediately disagree with yourself when you say "BG was essentialy copy and pasted onto the BG2 engine, by modders.". 

 

This forums TOS have nothing to do with freedom of speech, at least you grasp that. You trying to play internet scholar and posting some wiki-link with the definition of Freedom of Speech only serves as a reminder that what some people sees as obvious as 'the grass is green' is something you deem a tricky enough concept to try and educate others on, with the help of wiki-links.

 

The TOS on this site says not to insult others. What someone finds insulting is subjective. It really comes down to the sensitivities of the individuals, which is why me usually frequenting web-pages with a more direct language was mentioned.

Let's face it, if you truly wanted to you would be able to feel insulted or attacked by just about anything, including having someone point out when you make an inane statement "facetiously".

 

The definition of freedom of speech: "the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.". This isn't a subject of debate. It's not a tricky concept. You're just wrong. 

 

You said: "I usually frequent forums with a very loose view on free speech." You're the person that tied interest forums to free speech.