530 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

No offence, but to me you people are just strings of digital letters which form words, sentences... I do not want to hear your problems, same as I don't want to hear any personal problems from a guy from Gaborone I'm never gonna meet.

No offence, but you might want to re-read your own post about the basics of savoir vivre. You do not want your interlocutors to get a clearly wrong idea about your possible egocentrism, do you now.

[tmp7704]

This is an important point, because you could argue without much debate, that Bioware could have (and should have from experience) left many of the 'filler' quests that, by simply changing text, or enemy type or even requisitions for example, they could have left these on the cutting floor, given you a fully fleshed out zone story or incorporated many war table missions as playable setpieces without anyone saying "I wish I could wander more of the Hinterlands and find 4 more mage caches."

A person arguing along these lines would be missing entirely the current "filler" quests are created with precisely that intention of 'fleshing out zone story' that supposedly could be created if only they were cut. Possibly because they aren't quite paying attention to that content, approaching it from the typical "well it's just standard MMO stuff so I don't care, i skip all the text and just go where the quest marker tells me".

[Marakov7]

You sound exactly like every other fan boy that posts in every other game thread when a game doesn't live up to the hype. You could have copied and pasted that post and no one would know the difference. You also never addressed any points. You just said, "Meh, I like this game." lol... good for you I guess?

 

So, you hate the game. Good for you, I guess...no need to lash out at somebody just because they disagree with you. This kind of attitude makes me regret having wasted time reading your initial post. Oh, well, time to cut my losses and move onto something more interesting...

[Razir-Samus]

So, you hate the game. Good for you, I guess...no need to lash out at somebody just because they disagree with you. This kind of attitude makes me regret having wasted time reading your initial post. Oh, well, time to cut my losses and move onto something more interesting...

you're one to talk about attitude... having the mentality that someone that has something negative to say about the game hates it instead of has passion and wans to see the game improve is a very very very poor attitude to adopt

[Marakov7]

you're one to talk about attitude... having the mentality that someone that has something negative to say about the game hates it instead of has passion and wans to see the game improve is a very very very poor attitude to adopt

 

I have no problem with his original post, it's his opinion and I have no problem with that (I agree with several of his points). The issue I had was with his response to the other person...the one that I replied to - labeling them a fan boy and dismissing their opinion. The part where I said "So, you hate the game. Good for you, I guess..." was turning around his statement regarding that person...the knife cuts both ways. I do understand that subtlety is lost on some people, though.

[scrutinizer]

A person arguing along these lines would be missing entirely the current "filler" quests are created with precisely that intention of 'fleshing out zone story' that supposedly could be created if only they were cut. Possibly because they aren't quite paying attention to that content, approaching it from the typical "well it's just standard MMO stuff so I don't care, i skip all the text and just go where the quest marker tells me".

So it all boils down to 'quality or quantity' dilemma. What if they decided to sacrifice a few zones, so that the most promising ones receive more attention and work? Would that help the game? I believe so. The Witcher 2 has two bigger zones (three in total actually, but during one playthrough you can only experience two out of three available), and a few smaller ones (ie. prologue, the last chapter), but they are extremely well-crafted. The game is shorter, but its time is sweeter. 

Here, one of the main selling points was the length of the game, and sadly, it turned out the majority is eaten up by pointless filler quests and the mechanics that forces you to run around a lot (wasting your time).

 

No offence, but you might want to re-read your own post about the basics of savoir vivre. You do not want your interlocutors to get a clearly wrong idea about your possible egocentrism, do you now.

None taken. I did re-read it. Just because I'm presenting proper manners from savoir vivre doesn't mean I follow them. To answer your next potential question; I presented them to show the contrast between how Elhanan addresses his interlocutor, and what he expects in return ('civil behavior'). Maybe if you didn't cut a piece of my response out of context and read the whole conversation instead, you wouldn't have had to waste your time for a meaningless reply.

 

Peace. 

[JCFR]

So it all boils down to 'quality or quantity' dilemma. What if they decided to sacrifice a few zones, so that the most promising ones receive more attention and work? Would that help the game? I believe so. The Witcher 2 has two bigger zones (three in total actually, but during one playthrough you can only experience two out of three available), and a few smaller ones (ie. prologue, the last chapter), but they are extremely well-crafted. The game is shorter, but its time is sweeter. 
Here, one of the main selling points was the length of the game, and sadly, it turned out the majority is eaten up by pointless filler quests and the mechanics that forces you to run around a lot (wasting your time).

In general, i'm thankful for the amount of content inside the game. I would`ve just wished for it to be better bedded into the actual story. I mean, there are severeal huge maps, having nothing to do with the main plotline like the forbidden oasis, stormcoast or hissing wastes. They're not even parts of epic sidequests, just areas for some minor MMO-Jobs.
And while those maps are big and well developed, other parts are not, like Val Royeaux. I mean, just one marketplace is everything we see from the capital of Orlais? Geez, and i had hoped for some massive, condensed city.
So there's definitely a huge amount of unused potential in the game... but i don't think cutting them out would have helped the game. It would just have made it's lacking more obvisous.

[Akka le Vil]

care to explain why you think so poorly of ME3? i love hearing people's exquisite reasoning

 

I'm not the guy you asked to, but considering how much I hated ME3, I'm happy to answer :

 

- Excessive auto-dialog which makes it dangerously close to "movie with some interaction" instead of "game designed with a movie feel".

- Excessively simplified choices ("paragon" vs "renegade", nearly always, no more neutral or alternative options) which are often completely pointless (many times, if you replay a conversation, you realize that both choices ends up exactly the same, sometimes even playing the same text with the same voice...).

- Of course, the whole ending debate. No point going further in it, it's been beaten to death and isn't even the main problem in my view.

- The entire basis of the plot ("Reapers are wrecking havoc on the galaxy !") is a terrible idea, just cashing in some easy and shallow emotional pressure while disservicing what could have been a much more interesting plot ("finding a way to NOT have to fight the Reapers") which was the basis of all the serie until then.

- The entire story is so full of plot holes you wonder if there is even a plot around it (to be fair, the entire serie has been riddled with plot hole since the beginning, but it's especially grating here).

- Cerberus is wasted. The whole set-up in ME2 about making them extremely ambiguous is lifted to make them cookie-cutter dumb villains.

- Cerberus, bis, being an even bigger antagonist than the Reapers. It's just retarded.

- The whole, entire, cretinous deus ex machina with the Crucible. It's just so cliché, contrived and ridiculous... But then they wrote them in a corner with the aforementioned stupid "Reapers are here to blow up Earth !" and needed a magical gun to get out. Which, somehow, actually doesn't make them feel like any better.

- Day one DLC made by content cut from the game (don't give me the "it was content made after the game has gone gold" crap, leaks from a full year before already included lines from the Prothean companion, and the whole DLC content was already on the disc and required only to be activated from the get go).

- The kid. Ugh.

- Repeating the same decisions about the same subjects we already made in the past (Rachni queen again ! Genophage cure again !).

 

ME3 had some great moments (renegade choices for the genophage or the geths), some excellent dialogues (Garrus' favourite spot, the whole banter in the Geth cruiser mission) as typical of Bioware, but all the plot wreck ruined the game (and the trilogy as a whole, I can't even play the first two knowing how it leads to the third).

Notice that, even if I absolutely loathe the ending, it's barely a single entry in that list, and not even the worst one IMO.

[Razir-Samus]

I'm not the guy you asked to, but considering how much I hated ME3, I'm happy to answer :

 

- Excessive auto-dialog which makes it dangerously close to "movie with some interaction" instead of "game designed with a movie feel".

- Excessively simplified choices ("paragon" vs "renegade", nearly always, no more neutral or alternative options) which are often completely pointless (many times, if you replay a conversation, you realize that both choices ends up exactly the same, sometimes even playing the same text with the same voice...).

- Of course, the whole ending debate. No point going further in it, it's been beaten to death and isn't even the main problem in my view.

- The entire basis of the plot ("Reapers are wrecking havoc on the galaxy !") is a terrible idea, just cashing in some easy and shallow emotional pressure while disservicing what could have been a much more interesting plot ("finding a way to NOT have to fight the Reapers") which was the basis of all the serie until then.

- The entire story is so full of plot holes you wonder if there is even a plot around it (to be fair, the entire serie has been riddled with plot hole since the beginning, but it's especially grating here).

- Cerberus is wasted. The whole set-up in ME2 about making them extremely ambiguous is lifted to make them cookie-cutter dumb villains.

- Cerberus, bis, being an even bigger antagonist than the Reapers. It's just retarded.

- The whole, entire, cretinous deus ex machina with the Crucible. It's just so cliché, contrived and ridiculous... But then they wrote them in a corner with the aforementioned stupid "Reapers are here to blow up Earth !" and needed a magical gun to get out. Which, somehow, actually doesn't make them feel like any better.

- Day one DLC made by content cut from the game (don't give me the "it was content made after the game has gone gold" crap, leaks from a full year before already included lines from the Prothean companion, and the whole DLC content was already on the disc and required only to be activated from the get go).

- The kid. Ugh.

- Repeating the same decisions about the same subjects we already made in the past (Rachni queen again ! Genophage cure again !).

 

ME3 had some great moments (renegade choices for the genophage or the geths), some excellent dialogues (Garrus' favourite spot, the whole banter in the Geth cruiser mission) as typical of Bioware, but all the plot wreck ruined the game (and the trilogy as a whole, I can't even play the first two knowing how it leads to the third).

Notice that, even if I absolutely loathe the ending, it's barely a single entry in that list, and not even the worst one IMO.

appreciate the extensive response but i'm gona need to disappoint you in return

 

i don't usually delve into the realm of plot holes and inconsistencies... if the gameplay takes a huge turn then i'm up in arms (like DA2>DA:I, dungeon siege 2>3, sacred 2>3 etc)... and then what annoys me most is mechanical and technical flaws/issues, such as glitchy animations that end up screwing me over more than a few times... or in DA:I's case, the fact that you have to spam hop to get over rocky surfaces, and try jumping over a fence and the "sliding down a hill" animation will activate...

 

i do have issue with cerberus being put into the spotlight even in ME2 where it was shown to be an evil organization during a handful of missions in ME1 though, but i rolled with it, given the series of events it made sense, who else but a highly advanced company to revive and use shepard

 

i see the paragon and renegade conversation options as extreme responses compared to the standard choices you already get, even if they do have the same overall outcome (if you choose their respective normal options), it's a different method of dealing with the situation and you get a nice little action to go along with your choice

 

didn't have an issue with the ending, as explained above, for me it just seemed to fit in

 

day 1 DLC/cut content is not a reason to hate the game, but the company instead

 

the kid?

 

same decisions regarding genophage and other subjects... that i can't recall, i do remember fighting rachni in ME3 but i'm currently playing through the series again right now and haven't touched 3 in about a year and a half

[tmp7704]

So it all boils down to 'quality or quantity' dilemma. What if they decided to sacrifice a few zones, so that the most promising ones receive more attention and work? Would that help the game? I believe so. The Witcher 2 has two bigger zones (three in total actually, but during one playthrough you can only experience two out of three available), and a few smaller ones (ie. prologue, the last chapter), but they are extremely well-crafted. The game is shorter, but its time is sweeter.

I'm really not convinced that sacrificing a few zones would result in the sort of "more attention" that would actually change things in a way people complaining about quality (or lack thereof) would see as improvement. Seriously, how do you tie the side quests to the zone plot more if they already are connected with the main zone plot, but the player simply doesn't care to examine/realize this connection? The dominant suggestion seems to be "it needs cutscenes and/or choices!" but cutting few zones worth of landscaping efforts and basic writing isn't going to create resources for that -- the animation department already isn't spending any of their time on these zones, you gain nothing but 'freeing' these zones from their workload.

Your example of the Witcher 2 actually feels like confirmation of that for me. There's few quests which aren't part of the main plot in that game, and most of them are very basic tasks which are utterly unmemorable, to the point where i had to check the wiki, http://witcher.wikia...itcher_2_quests to see if i wasn't missing anything. This hardly strikes me as extremely well crafted. If this is what the "more attention" is supposed to produce then it really doesn't seem worth it.
 

None taken. I did re-read it. Just because I'm presenting proper manners from savoir vivre doesn't mean I follow them. To answer your next potential question; I presented them to show the contrast between how Elhanan addresses his interlocutor, and what he expects in return ('civil behavior'). Maybe if you didn't cut a piece of my response out of context and read the whole conversation instead, you wouldn't have had to waste your time for a meaningless reply.

The intention of my reply was to tell you "no one cares" about your inability to see people as people if you don't have them at arms reach, and that all it achieves is to make you look bad. It might've been too politely worded but i'm skeptical it was meaningless -- after all, it produced this very reaction.

[scrutinizer]

I'm really not convinced that sacrificing a few zones would result in the sort of "more attention" that would actually change things in a way people complaining about quality (or lack thereof) would see as improvement. Seriously, how do you tie the side quests to the zone plot more if they already are connected with the main zone plot, but the player simply doesn't care to examine/realize this connection? The dominant suggestion seems to be "it needs cutscenes and/or choices!" but cutting few zones worth of landscaping efforts and basic writing isn't going to create resources for that -- the animation department already isn't spending any of their time on these zones, you gain nothing but 'freeing' these zones from their workload.

Sacrificing or cutting has to be done at the very beginning in the development process (then it's not really sacrifice, is it?) - when ideas are not yet implemented. If sacrificing or cutting is done later on, you basically waste your time and resources. I understand how hard it is to simply erase half-a-year of your hard work. I do believe that at some point Bioware noticed that they had spread themselves too thin - the goal of creating all these zones proved to be too ambitious, too time and resource-consuming. What would you do then? Mercilessly delete them, or at least try to make them look respectable and slightly relatable to the main story? I think that's what happened. They realized that their goals are out of reach, and the deadline is unforgiving. These are just people, they are prone to mistakes.

 

Your example of the Witcher 2 actually feels like confirmation of that for me. There's few quests which aren't part of the main plot in that game, and most of them are very basic tasks which are utterly unmemorable, to the point where i had to check the wiki, http://witcher.wikia...itcher_2_quests to see if i wasn't missing anything. This hardly strikes me as extremely well crafted. If this is what the "more attention" is supposed to produce then it really doesn't seem worth it.

I agree with many forum members claiming that DA:I simply lacks coherency (on multiple levels: story-wise, side content-wise, technically, design-wise) and I echo their complaints. The Witcher games does not. You can say anything about them, but not that they lack coherency. I remember the side-quests fondly; not all of them obviously, but some were entertaining and helped flesh out the world (one of the main functions of side content). I've just finished TW1 again (fantastic side content), and proceed to TW2 (getting ready for TW3), so may come back with fresh updates on side content. Oh, if you want to argue that TW games lack coherency, then by all means!

 

The intention of my reply was to tell you "no one cares" about your inability to see people as people if you don't have them at arms reach, and that all it achieves is to make you look bad. It might've been too politely worded but i'm skeptical it was meaningless -- after all, it produced this very reaction.

Indeed, friend. No one cares. That's my original message, which you seem to restate now. How funny.

 

Peace.

[Akka le Vil]

Your example of the Witcher 2 actually feels like confirmation of that for me. There's few quests which aren't part of the main plot in that game, and most of them are very basic tasks which are utterly unmemorable, to the point where i had to check the wiki, http://witcher.wikia...itcher_2_quests to see if i wasn't missing anything. This hardly strikes me as extremely well crafted. If this is what the "more attention" is supposed to produce then it really doesn't seem worth it.

The difference is, TW2 fetch quests (which exist in large numbers) are far less intrusive.

They are mainly done at the same time as the other regular quests (you do a meatish quests with lots of dialogue and yadda yadda, and the monsters you kill do it fills most of the side-quest quota), requiring just a bit of completion which feels like taking a lil' break, and a few more makes you explore a bit to find the special items required. So they aren't the "okay, I've done the interesting MQ for two hours, now here comes five hours of long, boring, over-stretched trekking in wide empty space to find a string of contrively-placed items to complete a serie of 'quests' that are just a note with a few lines".

 

If DAI fetch quests had been less grindy, the terrain less empty, the navigation less F-ING ANNOYING and all of that much more integrated with the MQ instead of being so completely ASIDE, it would not be so grating and could be a refreshing change of pace instead of being a long moment of boredom.

[Wevryn1]

If you really want tactical combat, why do you care about the companion AI? Shouldn't you be controlling them all the way?

Tactical doesn't mean controlling every character fool I.E making all the choices yourself..  Its about setting up the combat field in your favor.  Issuing commands/executing those commands/doing your own strategic combat which you can't do .

 

Tactical does not mean you control every characters choices, its actually quite more depth.  Instead of charging in with your AI you would like them to do certain things on their own at times to control the field.  Like having your tank rush into the middle of all mobs, using an aoe taunt, and then unbowed immediately thereafter (if low on guard).  The problem with this is you can't set the gambits on this game at all.  You can put in prefer skills to use, but not in what order they're  used and what will trigger them.

 

There is almost zero tactical usage in this game, besides only able to que 1 skill at a time and then fast forwarding till they use that skill.  Who wants to pause and play all day?

[northsidelunatic]

the truth of the matter s  if you really take a good look at this game a in depth analysis of it,  ,   my point is the negative reviews of this game have more depth to them  then  this game...  look at the positive reviews   , they cant even constructively tell you why they think its so good usually a few one liners giving it praise   while giving it a 10/10

[Reymoose]

I'm really not convinced that sacrificing a few zones would result in the sort of "more attention" that would actually change things in a way people complaining about quality (or lack thereof) would see as improvement. Seriously, how do you tie the side quests to the zone plot more if they already are connected with the main zone plot, but the player simply doesn't care to examine/realize this connection? The dominant suggestion seems to be "it needs cutscenes and/or choices!" but cutting few zones worth of landscaping efforts and basic writing isn't going to create resources for that -- the animation department already isn't spending any of their time on these zones, you gain nothing but 'freeing' these zones from their workload.

 

I don't know the specifics of Bioware's internal handling of resource allocation (people), but in development it does tend to work the way scrutinizer mentioned.

 

The difference being is this is done in the pre-development/concept/planning stage, any developer worth his salt will tell you the vast bulk of the 'work' is, and has to be, done in pre-development. You have to have your fundamental design before jumping into development.

 

If Emerald Graves (for example) was left on the cutting room floor in the concept phase, that would allocate design/animation/scripting/writing over to a finalized portion of the game, like Val Royeaux for example, because it has several aspects to it that would lend itself to be a 'fundamental' design choice.

 

Val Royeaux is a hub, for one, so you have your merchants, npc's, etc., and a place that the player can, and expects to return time and again to purchase items that they might not have had money for or unlocked earlier (like Denerim). It also serves as a hub for the main quest as well as companion quests. 

 

So, by cutting one zone, you can flesh out and extend another zone that is more fundamental (and referenced many times in previous games), and add myriad content specific to that zone that can relate to many other zones.

 

I would for example, add a bread-crumb quest to a fleshed-out Val Royeaux that would lead to Emprise du Lion, Michel de Chevin could have been an npc in Val Royeaux, maybe in trouble (considering his backstory) or say, drinking in a tavern, adding a bit more lines/depth to his character/motivations and lead you to Emprise (similar to Levi Dryden).

 

That's just one example of giving a little bit more context than "Red Templars in Emprise."

 

Just as an aside, before DA:I I always thought if Val Royeaux were ever to be in a DA game it would look similar to Divinity's Reach from GW2, or BG2's Athkatla

A sprawling city,with alleyways, landmarks and persons of interest that could be a game in and of itself:

 

[I Miss Minsc]

I don't remember threads like this in Dragon's Age Origins.

[Vox Draco]

ME3 had some great moments (renegade choices for the genophage or the geths), some excellent dialogues (Garrus' favourite spot, the whole banter in the Geth cruiser mission) as typical of Bioware, but all the plot wreck ruined the game (and the trilogy as a whole, I can't even play the first two knowing how it leads to the third).

Notice that, even if I absolutely loathe the ending, it's barely a single entry in that list, and not even the worst one IMO.

 

Amen to that. I am still so glad they never tried to have a coherent storyline for Dragon Age as in Mass Effect...and I am still baffled by the incompetence that occured in the series' plot with ME2 until the infamous "end", not to speak of the gampleay getting weaker and weaker (though it was still fun to some degree, no arguing here) ...

 

Yet I'd rather gather another ten-thousand ram-meat and get the damn Druffalo a hundred times than experience the ME-trilogy again just once. I just can't play thiswithout thinking how good all could have been if they had stayed truer to their vision and moved the plot forward after ME1, and not had set everything back to status quo with ME2...Which makes ME2/3 (I can't seperate them anymore, as they are both part of the same mess) the worst Bioware has made so far (in my book, mind you)

[Shechinah]

(to I Miss Minc) That may be because the oldest of the threads are labeled (empty). According to some who were around during Origins' release, it recieved it's fair share of blows especially in regards to being compared to the games predating it.

[Sartoz]

So it all boils down to 'quality or quantity' dilemma. What if they decided to sacrifice a few zones, so that the most promising ones receive more attention and work? Would that help the game? I believe so. The Witcher 2 has two bigger zones (three in total actually, but during one playthrough you can only experience two out of three available), and a few smaller ones (ie. prologue, the last chapter), but they are extremely well-crafted. The game is shorter, but its time is sweeter. 

 ---------

Snip

Wasn't that the original intent of the game? Laidlaw mentioned, in the early PR videos, that depending on your choice(s), whole areas would either open  or close to you. In this game, they are all available for exploration once you have the Power Points.

 

Talking about areas, didn't Laidlaw or Darrah mention that you needed to defeat a Dragon to open up other areas or was this replaced by Power Points?   Anyone?

[wolfhowwl]

Inexperience with Frostbite 3 and/or creating an open world game? Plain old over-ambition? Some just outright poor decisions along the way?

[Razir-Samus]

Inexperience with Frostbite 3 and/or creating an open world game? Plain old over-ambition? Some just outright poor decisions along the way?

either is sufficient... though we won't hear the devs saying they made any mistakes, because that would be career suicide

[scrutinizer]

either is sufficient... though we won't hear the devs saying they made any mistakes, because that would be career suicide

Not really. Imagine, if they acknowledged their mistakes, broke their ties with EA and turned to kickstarter to make a game they always wanted to make without compromises, the players would go mad and stuffed money in their pockets, no questions asked.

But the safety and steadiness of being on EA's lap is something they never gonna let go.

I do not blame them for that. Some people want and prioritize money, some want and prioritize the pursuit of their dreams and the possibility to do things their way. You cannot really have both.

 

Peace. 

[Sartoz]

Inexperience with Frostbite 3 and/or creating an open world game? Plain old over-ambition? Some just outright poor decisions along the way?

Well, theoretically, there is good news from this. The DAI folks did most/all of the RPG conversion effort.  Now if only ME4 staff can run with it and produce a worthy game with MODDING ability.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Inexperience with Frostbite 3 and/or creating an open world game? Plain old over-ambition? Some just outright poor decisions along the way?

 

Sounds about right, yes.

 

The game needs another year of development to reach its potential. What we have now is... meh.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Well, theoretically, there is good news from this. The DAI folks did most/all of the RPG conversion effort.  Now if only ME4 staff can run with it and produce a worthy game with MODDING ability.

 

Yeah... as if ME4 is going to be a RPG. It'll be an action game, nothing else.