16183 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

adneate wrote...

soignee wrote...

gossip which i know about and probably shouldn't mention on the forums, but oh well: a bunch of the original creative team who worked on DA:O were made redundant around about Febuary this year. I don't think any original art guys and girl are on the team still, apart from of course the writers, so it makes sense the art style in DA2 would be drastically different.

Not saying my sources as I don't want to get people in trouble >.>

Knowing Electronic Arts and what they've done in the past it wouldn't surprise me, they have a reputation for taking studios over and then slowly bleeding them to death. Also it fits into my theory that Origins had a low return on investment and EA came in to force drastic changes on the team.

Yeah, which is sad because for any first game in a brand new IP, you're going to be incurring high costs- it will be in the future iterations that you'd hopefully start seeing higher revenue given the foundation you established in the first game.

With the game taking a more console centric approach I wonder how much the departure of executive producer Dan Tudge had to do with things. Tudge was the executive producer for Origins and left in April 2009 after the game was delayed for the PC. Seems like perhaps he was one of the voices in keeping Origins a PC-centric title and once the PC version was done in early 2009 he left for another studio.

All speculation of course, but it just seems very very odd as to why they'd seemingly do a 180 with DA2 when it was a seemingly successful game, especially for a new IP.

And to just rub salt in the wounds of all PC gamers, right before the DA2 announcement last week you had this treasure trove of quotes from this interview:

 
Bioware designer and writing director Daniel Erickson said that the PC's interface was "less restrictive" than console equivalents.

"Every two or three years we hear the announcement of fantasy being dead, PC gaming being dead and RPGs being dead," he said. "And yet, all of the biggest games that ever come out - that set the records - are nearly always PC games, and a lot of them are fantasy games.

"The biggest game in the world is a fantasy, PC, RPG MMO. We all know the drawbacks of PC. We all scream at our boxes and try to make stuff work. But at the same time, the interface is made for games. The mouse/keyboard interface allows so much less restriction [than console]. 

He added: "There was not a question when we started Old Republic - or any of our games, for that matter - [what the lead format would be]. There's a reason the lead SKU for Dragon age was PC as well. When we're developing an RPG, it's a natural place to be."

*facepalm*

[GardenSnake]

Just read the GI article (thanks again Brock) well, half of it. Still didn't get rid of any of my concerns though. The graphics and overall look of DA2, to me at least, look WAY worse than Origins. Those screen shots seem like they're what we're going to be looking at in March, I'm assuming that because the article is filled with them. Also, the party members not leaving the party and still getting combat bonuses even when your a dick towards them doesn't make much sense to me. The Leliana and Wynne excuse the article provides is dumb because if you really did need a rogue and mage in that situation, you could just take Morri and Zev, two characters that would have reacted positively to dick moves. I'll have to see more of everything but for now I'm still baffled at all of these changes. It worked so well in Origins and sold very well also. Why change everything?



Seems to me like they want the Mass Effect crowd on board from what I've seen.

[Brockololly]

Yeah, the GI article just seems to raise more questions than it provides answers to, and not in a good way. Its just confusing really.

I'll quote the part about the party members which is kind of odd to me:

Not all of Hawke's choices tip the scales of power in the Free Marches- some of them are aimed at establishing a rapport with his followers and allies. your party members still respond to your actions and words, gaining or losing respect based on their personal views. However, even if they disapprove, you don't need to worry about them ditching you.



In Origins, party members were incompatible with certain moral stances, For example, Leliana and Wynne wouldn't tolerate cruelty and would abandon the Warden if their approval rating fell low enough. This led many evil-inclined players to avoid using Leliana or Wynne even if they were optimal characters in term of balancing the party. This kind of meta-game is no longer necessary in Dragon Age II.



If a character disagrees with your choices, they may still complain, but it isn't necessarily bad. In fact, you can even be openly hostile to your party members and still unlock combat bonuses- a benefit previously reserved for those who established positive relationships. Finally, players can tell off the characters that annoy them.



"They won't necessarily leave. They may still join you, but they're going to try to show you up, and that may influence battle in a different way," Darrah says. "We'd really rather encourage players to be consistent in their interactions with characters, rather than have to play towards the gamey-ness of the system."

That seems to me like they're getting rid of the gift system and kind of killing a bit of role playing in so far as keeping party members happy. Its kind of confusing to me what they're trying to say...

[Herr Uhl]

They can still leave you for your actions, but not for your approval it seems.

[Brockololly]

Yeah, it seems maybe they only leave if its some big Yoshimo type moment, not by just consistently saving kittens.

Its hard to say until you see it in action I guess, but that sort of seems like a step backwards to me...

[tmp7704]

Brockololly wrote...

That seems to me like they're getting rid of the gift system and kind of killing a bit of role playing in so far as keeping party members happy. Its kind of confusing to me what they're trying to say...

It sounds similar to the system used in Alpha Protocol -- in that game you'd get a bonus if NPC "handler" liked you, but if they disliked you, you'd also get a bonus, just different. The justification for example would be, you absolutely couldn't stand the thought of dying while under guidance of some guy because it'd give him the last word... hence bonus to your endurance/hp or whatever.

It didn't really "kill role playing" in my eyes but then i don't exactly see trying to keep everyone happy as something that has much to do with role-playing in the first place (unless you role-play a character who feels they have to be liked by everyone even if it requires pretending to be someone they aren't, i suppose)

[Herr Uhl]

It doesn't kill roleplaying. And even if you want your character to care about what everyone thinks of them, you still can.



It can be seen as a weird attempt to get powergamers to play a consistent role.

[GardenSnake]

It almost feels like, from the scarce details we have got, that they're putting the loyalty system from ME2 into DA2. Where choices that party members don't agree with don't really matter and it all comes down to the loyalty missions. If that's the case than the only thing keeping me from not buying the game is the continuity feature. I could be wrong of course, I most probably am, but if the system is vaguely like ME2's, that's going to destroy any possible connection I could have had with the characters. The loyalty missions in ME2 could be compared to a person sitting on a horse and coaxing it forward with a carrot. BW is the person, we're the horse and the awesome ability that is only unlocked after we get the character's loyalty is the carrot. Finding out about the characters was more of a chore to me than it was an experience in Origins. I only really got everyone to like me so that they could all survive for the achievement, and by the end of the game, I felt like I didn't know anybody's character any better. Even Garrus felt like a stanger almost! The loyalty system and less dialouge from the companions because of full VO were the problem, so DA2 could have a similar fate. Now I'm really worried about how companions work.......

[tmp7704]

Herr Uhl wrote...

It can be seen as a weird attempt to get powergamers to play a consistent role.

Yes, more like this. I expect to see the same complaints people make about ME, how it "forces" people to pick one angle or the other because it's the only way to get some advantages. As if these advantages are absolute must-haves and the game is ruined without them... meh.

[Brockololly]

tmp7704 wrote...

It sounds similar to the system used in Alpha Protocol -- in that game you'd get a bonus if NPC "handler" liked you, but if they disliked you, you'd also get a bonus, just different. The justification for example would be, you absolutely couldn't stand the thought of dying while under guidance of some guy because it'd give him the last word... hence bonus to your endurance/hp or whatever.

It didn't really "kill role playing" in my eyes but then i don't exactly see trying to keep everyone happy as something that has much to do with role-playing in the first place (unless you role-play a character who feels they have to be liked by everyone even if it requires pretending to be someone they aren't, i suppose)

Seeing as how it seems a bunch of DA2's "new" features seem to borrow from Alpha Protocol, I should really try that game out eventually...

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I just don't quite understand why if you ****** off a companion and they hate your guts, they would get some sort of combat bonus or why they'd want to stick around. It just seems more natural that they'd up and leave if they disapproved of your actions- unless they're trying to justify it that Hawke is so awesome no one wants to leave. I'm sure gameplay vids will hopefully clear this up, like so much of the uncertainty surrounding DA2...

[tmp7704]

Brockololly wrote...

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I just don't quite understand why if you ****** off a companion and they hate your guts, they would get some sort of combat bonus or why they'd want to stick around. It just seems more natural that they'd up and leave if they disapproved of your actions- unless they're trying to justify it that Hawke is so awesome no one wants to leave. I'm sure gameplay vids will hopefully clear this up, like so much of the uncertainty surrounding DA2...

I think it can make sense, given competition and pride are big drives for people to strive to do better -- and it's not always viable option to up and leave just because you don't personally like one guy on your team (or for that matter your superior) So in such situation i can easily see someone trying their hardest to show Hawke or whoever just how wrong their judgement was and how little his opinion matters.

[Herr Uhl]

It will depend on why they follow Hawke. Hawke's plans probably coincide with their own personal agendas.

[Brockololly]

Yeah, I just hope they don't make Hawke some big infallible character with plot armor like Shepard. The one thing I liked in Origins was how the companions all felt like unique characters and had minds and ideals of their own and if your actions went against those ideals, they wouldn't be afraid to leave.

[phaonica]

Brockololly wrote...

Seeing as how it seems a bunch of DA2's "new" features seem to borrow from Alpha Protocol, I should really try that game out eventually...

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I just don't quite understand why if you ****** off a companion and they hate your guts, they would get some sort of combat bonus or why they'd want to stick around. It just seems more natural that they'd up and leave if they disapproved of your actions- unless they're trying to justify it that Hawke is so awesome no one wants to leave. I'm sure gameplay vids will hopefully clear this up, like so much of the uncertainty surrounding DA2...

This seems strange to me too. On the one hand I don't like the idea that you can be a jerk to your party members and they'll stick around anyway. On the other hand, I know I've seen complaints, for example, that if Wynne will leave your party after giving you all that "anything to stop the Blight" and "choosing your duty over your loved one" stuff that she'd abandon you after all. What a jerk!

I guess my point is that while I might feel that someone might wrong for leaving (Alistair, for example), it doesn't necessarily mean that I think the game should be programmed so that they can't leave. And it especially shouldn't *reward* you for having low approval with someone, I don't get that at all. If you don't get along with your party members, why would they stick around? And quite frankly, what if I don't want them around, and that's why I'm mean to them?

[Herr Uhl]

phaonica wrote...

[And quite frankly, what if I don't want them around, and that's why I'm mean to them?

You can tell them to leave.

[Fntsybks]

Herr Uhl wrote...

It will depend on why they follow Hawke. Hawke's plans probably coincide with their own personal agendas.

Another possibility is that since you are the Champion of Kirkwall, some people, like a squire or whatever, could be bound to you. Their duty is to stay and help you fight, and if they leave, it is desertion punishable by death. Of course, that would not work for all characters - but it could explain a few.

As for why companions gain bonuses for not liking you, I'm not too sure - I could see them ignoring tactics or whatever, but not gaining bonuses. Then again, there isn't a huge reason for them to get bonuses once they like you.

[adneate]

Brockololly wrote...

Seeing as how it seems a bunch of DA2's "new" features seem to borrow from Alpha Protocol, I should really try that game out eventually...

No you don't want to try Alpha Protocol, that game isn't even worth $5. You'd have more fun breaking your fingers with a hammer than playing that thing.

[Brockololly]

adneate wrote...
No you don't want to try Alpha Protocol, that game isn't even worth $5. You'd have more fun breaking your fingers with a hammer than playing that thing.

So I've heard....thanks for the warning!


Since the DA2 screens are fairly widespread at this point, here they are from gametrailers.com:

Bethany and Hawke


Dragon Flemeth with darkspawn in hand:






Odd looking spell effect. Looks like maybe smoke billowing up in the background?



Severed limbs on the ground?



New Hurlocks... they look like Skeletor, IMO:

Modifié par Brockololly, 16 juillet 2010 - 07:43 .

[MoSa09]

Seems this Flemeth shapeshifting into human form, greeting with he well known words "well well, what do we have here" scene is real then. I truly hoped it was just a bad joke as it sounds just so ridiculous. I do wonder how it takes until the thread "OMG MORRIGAN IS FLEMETH" will pop up again

[bl00dsh0t]

Damn it took me 2 hours of reading to catch up, 2 friggin hours!!!! Its like a return to the good old days in the morri group where we went through pages worth of discussions an hour, I approve

Well i find some of the images look like a slight improvement over origins, the human faces for instance are definetely better. BUT what they have done with the darkspawn is just horrid. Sure it is in early stages but these guys make your run of the mill hurlok in origins look detailed damn...
At least the timeline made me a bit excited, but that it seems that none of the some crucial va's like valentine dispute being on the project at this state is disheartening. I mean Alistair was one of the characters I was looking forward to seeing changed depending on the hardening for instance or finding him as a drunk in the free marshes would also be a nice detail.

Shame really, but at least my favourite german gamin mag gamestar is getting a big article before I go back to sweden. They were very big fans of origins and write good articles with a bit more brains than your run of the mill PC Gamer knockoff so I'm sure they will do the material justice at least and to some degree mirror the thoughtpatterns of those more into the whole rp thing. Ill post some info once I get my hands on it if there is anything new.

I was somewhat hoping tht there would be some moving images leaked to show us these "improved" animations and the voices. Frankly DAO was for me at least about the characters, if they don't **** that up I think I will be fine with most of the changes but they better not go the short game route, that would be a bit of a killer for me.

[Addai]

MoSa09 wrote...

Seems this Flemeth shapeshifting into human form, greeting with he well known words "well well, what do we have here" scene is real then. I truly hoped it was just a bad joke as it sounds just so ridiculous. I do wonder how it takes until the thread "OMG MORRIGAN IS FLEMETH" will pop up again

That bridge has been crossed repeatedly already in the DA2 forum.

But yes, according to Game Informer, Flemeth shows up like you described.

Modifié par Addai67, 16 juillet 2010 - 07:58 .

[Brockololly]

Yeah and seeing the Flemeth Dragon's horns it all but confirms that Flemeth is the white haired mage person who has the horn shapes in her hair and the metal spike visor thing has the one big spike in the middle, just like the dragon form:

Modifié par Brockololly, 16 juillet 2010 - 08:07 .

[Herr Uhl]

Addai67 wrote...

MoSa09 wrote...

Seems this Flemeth shapeshifting into human form, greeting with he well known words "well well, what do we have here" scene is real then. I truly hoped it was just a bad joke as it sounds just so ridiculous. I do wonder how it takes until the thread "OMG MORRIGAN IS FLEMETH" will pop up again

That bridge has been crossed repeatedly already in the DA2 forum.

But yes, according to Game Informer, Flemeth shows up like you described.

The fact that Morrigan got her speech patterns from Flemeth is wholly inconsequential.

[MoSa09]

Addai67 wrote...

That bridge has been crossed repeatedly already in the DA2 forum.

But yes, according to Game Informer, Flemeth shows up like you described.

*sigh* one more reason to avoid the DA 2 forum.

Besides, am i the only one who thinks that Flemeth as a Hifh Dragons killing 2 Darkspawns in flight, and while keeping one dead in her claws turns back into her human form and gives us that kind of welcome speech is less ubercool and much more ridiculous?

C'mon, that is neither cool nor impressive, even John Milius the one responsible for Conan the Barbarian, would be ashamed. This is just way over the top, sometimes less is more *shakes head*

[Brockololly]

MoSa09 wrote...

Besides, am i the only one who thinks that Flemeth as a Hifh Dragons killing 2 Darkspawns in flight, and while keeping one dead in her claws turns back into her human form and gives us that kind of welcome speech is less ubercool and much more ridiculous?

C'mon, that is neither cool nor impressive, even John Milius the one responsible for Conan the Barbarian, would be ashamed. This is just way over the top, sometimes less is more *shakes head*

Oh but its more cinematic!

I'll reserve judgement until I see it myself, but I'm wondering how Flemeth would shapeshift down from dragon form and still be holding a human sized hurlock in her hand...

And as for the whole "Well, well what do we have here?" line, the devs I think clearly want you to probably think its Morrigan or something...