348 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

And I'm still waiting for all of these supposedly "objective" rules that define what makes stories "good" or "bad"........

 
Mostly simple things like consistency being good and plot holes being bad. Things need to make sense, unless you're doing a story where the point is that they don't make sense, which needs to be set up properly. Major events need to matter to characters.

 

For example; Shepard's death and the Normandy's destruction in ME2 are rendered pointless and meaningless by their immediate return. The Collector's ability to see the stealthed Normandy ruined what made the Normandy special. These are bad.

 

In ME3, Shepard contemplates the questions and implications regarding his death and resurrection. This is fantastic, but a game too late. it should have been in ME2.

[Heathen Oxman]

 
Mostly simple things like consistency being good and plot holes being bad. Things need to make sense, unless you're doing a story where the point is that they don't make sense, which needs to be set up properly. Major events need to matter to characters.

 

For example; Shepard's death and the Normandy's destruction in ME2 are rendered pointless and meaningless by their immediate return. The Collector's ability to see the stealthed Normandy ruined what made the Normandy special. These are bad.

 

In ME3, Shepard contemplates the questions and implications regarding his death and resurrection. This is fantastic, but a game too late. it should have been in ME2.

 

Again, I'm waiting for the "objective" rules that make a story "good" or "bad."

 

You've just given me a list of subjective opinions.  Not a speck of "objectivity" in sight.

[Natureguy85]

Again, I'm waiting for the "objective" rules that make a story "good" or "bad."

 

You've just given me a list of subjective opinions.  Not a speck of "objectivity" in sight.

 

What was subjective? Explain how plot holes can be good. Explain how nonsense is good. Explain the meaning of the things I claimed were meaningless. Explain how removing the special nature of something yet still assigning it significance makes sense.

[Heathen Oxman]

What was subjective? Explain how plot holes can be good. Explain how nonsense is good. Explain the meaning of the things I claimed were meaningless. Explain how removing the special nature of something yet still assigning it significance makes sense.

 

Please present evidence that your interpretation of what constitutes "nonsense" and "meaninglessness" are, in fact, objective.

[Jestina]

Lack of tactical system is really ruining the game for me and the lack of support magic which makes AI mages completely useless to have around. If you are going to have a party based game then you need a deep tactical system to compensate for the incompetence of the AI companions.

[Natureguy85]

Please present evidence that your interpretation of what constitutes "nonsense" and "meaninglessness" are, in fact, objective.

 

The fact that you can not give any sense or meaning to them.

[hong]

The fact that you can not give any sense or meaning to them.

Who exactly is "you"?

[Kurt M.]

Wut ?

Someone doesn't like grinding filler quests in empty space for hours on end, and somehow you conclude that it's because that's because the "Dragon Age universe is not suited to him" ?

When was the Dragon Age universe defined to revolve around filler quest ?

 

So, what exactly do you want to do in a RPG game apart from going to point A), killing what it is on it or retrieving something, then report/deliver it in Point B )? A baking cake contest?

 

Besides, it's only a "filler quest" if you don't bother to read the little stories behind that (aka, Codex) that most of them have, you know, roleplay a minimum in a Role-Playing game?

 

I agree it can get a bit tedious from the 3rd playthought, maybe even the 2nd if you're extra picky. But if you're tired of them in the 1st...-facepalm-.

 

But there's not only that. I highly doubt anyone that has only played 60 hours has seen all the companions' cutscenes, or done his side missions, or anything, and some posts here just confirms that. Just "rushed thou the game", justifying it on it's poor gameplay (which I agree, it's pretty terrible, althought IMO not enough to justify that waste of an experience).

 

Well, your loss

[Salaya]

Of course, I said earlier that rules can be bent and broken, but you have to be careful when doing so.

 

Give me an actual example of what you are talking about. Also, a work can still be good despite a particular part being bad or problematic, but that isn't a defense of that one part.

 

I think I'd agree that there is no single rule; there are many of them and it's a sum of the parts thing.

 

I've already gave you an example, but you don't seem to understand it, given this post. And you are not bending rules, you are defending that objective rules are possible at the same time as you defend the possibility of exceptions. Those two statements alone are contradictory if you want to defend the existence of an objective set of rules for discerning the "good"/"bad" writing.

 

You are talking about general conventions or general laws in a given time at best. If that's the case, yes, of course, those conventions exist. But they are not objective.

[Heathen Oxman]

The fact that you can not give any sense or meaning to them.

 

Again, please provide objective evidence that no humans can "give any sense to them," and that your opinions are "objectively correct."

[Heathen Oxman]

I've already gave you an example, but you don't seem to understand it, given this post. And you are not bending rules, you are defending that objective rules are possible at the same time as you defend the possibility of exceptions. Those two statements alone are contradictory if you want to defend the existence of an objective set of rules for discerning the "good"/"bad" writing.

 

You are talking about general conventions or general laws in a given time at best. If that's the case, yes, of course, those conventions exist. But they are not objective.

 

At this point, I'm going to guess that some folks just don't understand this distinction between "subjective" and "objective."

[Darkly Tranquil]

Still, it's gameplay is pretty horrible, but fun enought for me, I guess. Not so much for you, that you spent 60 bucks in something you could have seen for free on YouTube, or Wikia

I spent a lot more than that. I got the Inquisitor's edition, and bought a GTX 980 specially to play it on (close to) max settings. All up I spent almost AU$1000 on DAI. Imagine my disappointment.

[Elhanan]

Lack of tactical system is really ruining the game for me and the lack of support magic which makes AI mages completely useless to have around. If you are going to have a party based game then you need a deep tactical system to compensate for the incompetence of the AI companions.

While the AI is apparently not up to the exacting quality of the past games, it is still better than many others. Pls try setting defensive Talents & Spells to Preferred, and in Behavior set Mana/ Stamina restrictions down to 20-30%, Potion consumption to 20%, and Targeting set to Follow themselves (or for ranged NPC's, to Follow the Warrior of choice). These work well in my game as a rule.

Also, issue Hold, Disengage, and All Attack commands from the Tac-Cam; seem to work longer.

[Kurt M.]

I spent a lot more than that. I got the Inquisitor's edition, and bought a GTX 980 specially to play it on (close to) max settings. All up I spent almost AU$1000 on DAI. Imagine my disappointment.

 

Well, at least you've got GPU for the next Mass Effect ...unless it's a dissapointment, too, that's it... xD

[theluc76]

I spent a lot more than that. I got the Inquisitor's edition, and bought a GTX 980 specially to play it on (close to) max settings. All up I spent almost AU$1000 on DAI. Imagine my disappointment.

I almost did that too, I was soooo hoping for a good RPG, then we got that farce of a game. Very happy I kept my wallet closed.

 

DivinityOS dosent need a super PC to run correctly.

[Elhanan]

I almost did that too, I was soooo hoping for a good RPG, then we got that farce of a game. Very happy I kept my wallet closed.
 
DivinityOS dosent need a super PC to run correctly.

Aye, but that was released 5 months prior to DAI, and TW3 seems to ask for greater specs as it is to be released later. Tis called progress for a reason, I guess.

[dragonprince]

I have yet to complete the game. I have put in 70 hours so far and the only reason I am where I am in the main story is because I needed to advance to continue my relationship with Lady Montilyet. I am a completionist and try my hardest to find everything and do everything. I did not even have anyone besides the first three companions until I was level 9 or 10. I enjoy this game, I would not say that I like it more than the previous two, but it is fun. There are big faults with it to me though.

 

I really wish that I could carry more than a set amount of potions. In the previous games, that is practically all I spent my money on. I would stockpile those badboys just in case I came into a scuffle. Also, for this game being so open, there is too much lacking in the form of roads, dirt paths, or even fences. There have been numerous times where I have been trying to find a landmark, and have not been able to find my way up the mountain because there just happens to be a path that starts on the hill and does not give you much of a hint. So I instead go to my Skyrim skills and jump and run at angles to the top of the mountain. Finally, I do not want to gather. But since it is in the game, you have to use it for specs and requistions and upgrades, I am constantly doing it and not even focusing on the fighting. Why would you force the head of the Inquistion to do such a trivial task, we should have people for that!

 

That all being said, the game is beautiful, I enjoy the companions and really enjoy their personal quests so far, I have only done 4 of the Inner Circle's so far.

[Natureguy85]

Who exactly is "you"?

 

In specific Salaya and Heathen Oxman, though I'd gladly take submissions from anyone on this point.

 

I've already gave you an example, but you don't seem to understand it, given this post. And you are not bending rules, you are defending that objective rules are possible at the same time as you defend the possibility of exceptions. Those two statements alone are contradictory if you want to defend the existence of an objective set of rules for discerning the "good"/"bad" writing.

 

You are talking about general conventions or general laws in a given time at best. If that's the case, yes, of course, those conventions exist. But they are not objective.

 

No you didn't. You rambled on about some generic situation, but did not give a concrete example. We are talking about the same thing when you call them
"conventions" and maybe that is a better word for them. The existence of exceptions is why I wouldn't call them laws. You could probably name some that are purely subjective, but the ones I mentioned, such as plot holes being bad, are not.

 

Again, please provide objective evidence that no humans can "give any sense to them," and that your opinions are "objectively correct."

 

Why ask me to prove a negative? Why not just prove me wrong by giving a counter-example?

[hong]

In specific Salaya and Heathen Oxman, though I'd gladly take submissions from anyone on this point.

I don't think you understand what "objective" means.

[Heathen Oxman]

Why ask me to prove a negative? Why not just prove me wrong by giving a counter-example?

 

Your original (positive) claim was that stories could be "objectively" demonstrated to be either "good" or "bad."  I asked for you to support that assertion, which you subsequently, and repeatedly, failed to do.

 

In any case, it's clear that you do not understand the concept of "objective" verses "subjective, or what qualifies something as either a fact or an opinion; therefore, this debate is pointless.

 

Tootles.

[Natureguy85]

Your original (positive) claim was that stories could be "objectively" demonstrated to be either "good" or "bad."  I asked for you to support that assertion, which you subsequently, and repeatedly, failed to do.

 

In any case, it's clear that you do not understand the concept of "objective" verses "subjective, or what qualifies something as either a fact or an opinion; therefore, this debate is pointless.

 

Tootles.

 

Actually, you asked for what some of the rules were and I gave those. I also adjusted my statement to allow that it may be subjective how many good or bad elements it takes to judge the entire work as good or bad. However, no counter has been given against my statement that, for example, plot holes are objectively bad.

[theluc76]

Aye, but that was released 5 months prior to DAI, and TW3 seems to ask for greater specs as it is to be released later. Tis called progress for a reason, I guess.

I update my PC hardware each 10 years or so except for Video card and memory ( more around 5-7 years ) but I wont upgrade for The Witcher 3, as I dont play that series.

[Elhanan]

I update my PC hardware each 10 years or so except for Video card and memory ( more around 5-7 years ) but I wont upgrade for The Witcher 3, as I dont play that series.

Neither do I; missing the point. With the advent of new Tech, it seems inevitable that what was current then is no longer top of the now, and perhaps unplayable in the near future. It should be expected.

Personally am content with DAI in terms of mechanics and performance, and I am both Techless and disabled. Yet I keep reading posts of complaints on matters that I was able to handle even with my admitted lesser abilities. For those with actual troubles, they have my sympathy, but for some of these complainants, not so much.

[dlux]

I spent a lot more than that. I got the Inquisitor's edition, and bought a GTX 980 specially to play it on (close to) max settings. All up I spent almost AU$1000 on DAI. Imagine my disappointment.

I'm glad I didn't buy a new Radeon for DA:I. 10 hours of boredom and a subsequent refund wouldn't have been worth the upgrade.