69 réponses à ce sujet

[Xandurpein]

HaloKT wrote...

I don't like the new conversation system either. And I miss my Leli...

Edit:
Plus the bugs are a slight bit annoying, yeah. Oh, and I found Awakening to be a bit overpriced actually. I paid almost as much for Awakenings as I did for Origins, and somehow I do find that a bit steep, considering the difference in actual playtime between the two.

Part of the problem is that there seems to be de facto rule that says there is an upper limit of what any game may cost, regardless of how much work went into it. There are loads of games out there with as much playtime and replayablilty as Awakening. It's really that the original DA:O is very low priced compared to how much content is actually there compared to many similiar games. Mass Effect 2 lasted a bit longer than Awakening but not even half as long as DA:O to finish once.

[Sabriana]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

MutantSpleen wrote...

Ignus Burns wrote...

Axekix wrote...

Volourn wrote...

A chaarcters, as a awhole, are deeper than most O chaarcters.

And you actually think people complaining about DA:A are the "vocal minotiry?"  Are you for real?

Of course they are. They are a vocal minority that posts alot. Those who have no problems have less incentive to post and even visit this forum. The majority is silent.

Most of the majority will accept anything shoved down their throat as well.  They don't post because they don't care one way or another. Just because the majority is too unconcerned to be bothered to offer their critique does not mean that the product is great.  Apathy is not a benchmark to strive for.

So because the majority is silent they are apathetic and not just contend? Wow.. that's a little arrogant. That's like saying: because the vocal minority are so vocal, they are just neurotic...

That's ridiculous and speculative, and if saying the opposite from what you want to hear is 'arrogant' then think again.

Mutant Spleen is absolutely right. Just because the majority is silent does not mean they are the approving silent majority. Either one is speculation. Saying that the silent majority is silently approving is conjecture as well.

None of us know whether they are silently approving or silently disapproving. So when one poster claims that the silent majority is approving, it's just as valid to claim that the silent majority could well be disapproving or apathetic and can't be bothered to post.

[Xanfaus]

-Awakening is pretty buggy, especially graphically. Lots of instances of weapons, armors, characters, and spells not displaying properly. Fixing stuff like this shouldn't be something that's delayed until after release.

-Some quests can become impossible to start or finish depending on the order in which the main missions,and some side missions too, are carried out. Considering that the player is allowed to complete the missions in any order, its nonsensical that this was not noticed at any point before release.

-Many of the "new" enemies do little else other than Overpower (or try to anyway) you and your party constantly. Its as if the AI couldn't be improved or that Bioware realized that the expansion was too easy and through in a slew of cheap enemies.

-On PS3 at least, the framerate is absolutely abysmal. The game stutters so badly and so frequently that the game has a difficult time acknowledging my button inputs so much so that commands must be entered a couple times during practically every single battle.

[Volourn]

"Most of the majority will accept anything shoved down their throat as well. They don't post because they don't care one way or another. Just because the majority is too unconcerned to be bothered to offer their critique does not mean that the product is great. Apathy is not a benchmark to strive for."



Complete and utter garbage. The silent majority aren't one big glob. Some like the game and some don't. However,t eh ones who don't just move on and don't worry about it. The vocal minmority are the ones bashing and whining and crying about Bio being 'crap' dumb' 'some other nasty thing' yet will be amongst the first to purfhase the next DA/BIO game. That's why they ultimitaley aren't worried about you. They already have your dollars.



You'll accept anything that's 'shoved down your throat'. Don't like, don't buy it. Think BIO suck then don't buy and play their games.



btw, This isn't about sharing criticism. Criticism is fine. Whining si not. heck, I have criticism of A. One being it's way too easy compared to O. But, there is a way to get your opinion across without going emo.





A is not without its flaws. Neither is O.

[Upper_Krust]

Suprez30 wrote...

1. People want ALL downloadable content to carry over in all expansions.

Untrue . I don't care.

A lot of people do though.

2a. People want the relationships back in the game.

It's an expansion

An expansion to a game that had relationships, therefore they should also be present in sequels.

2b. Twelve hours may not be long enough to ferment relationships in the game.

You answer your own question.

Actually I edited it because someone made a very good point that while 12 hours may not be long enough to create new relationships its definately long enough to continue old relationships.

3b. Enemies in the game do not force the player to make difficult choices (or any choices at all). It means all the pretty new spells, talents and runes become next to useless.

What do you mean?You mean like .. Should i use x abilities for this fight to beat it?I do agree.

Such choices could include (but are not limited by):

1. In which order do I attack the enemies?

e.g. We need to attack the enemy healer or summoner first. But we could also have creatures that should be attacked last such as a monster which, if destroyed, possesses any remaining allies...or perhaps an enemy leader that if killed, inspires his troops to fight even harder.

In addition, humanoid enemies could also attack in formation (square, wedge etc.) forcing you to attack certain members of a group (for instance the corner of a square is its weakest point).

2. How do I position my characters?

e.g. I should spread my characters out against foes that use area attacks (Genlocks with Grenades for instance), but bunch my characters together against mobs of Shrieks that swarm individual players en masse.

3. Which character attacks which enemy?

e.g. For instance, how about making golems only take 10% damage from magic. Other enemies (maybe spirits) may only take 10% damage from physical attacks. Others might only be injured by critical hits. etc.

Play up the usefulness of each class.

4. With what weapon/spell should I use?

ie. Lets have more creatures that are overtly either immune or heavily resistant to certain types of attacks.

Golems have high armour, but I never felt there was any pressing need to switch to using a mace rather than an axe against them.

5. Should I buff a character for a particular fight?

In Dragon Age, with the possible exception of the High Dragons, you are never forced into a situation where you need to buff against a certain type of attack or defense.

6. Should I de-buff an enemy?

Again, at no point in Dragon Age do you need to de-buff an enemy. These sorts of things are a staple of the genre.

As well as player choice, we also have enemy variables.

A. The composition of an encounter.

ie. After regular fights with certain enemies you have tougher fights using enemies with complimentary abilities.

e.g. The greater rage demon has an aura of fire, while lesser rage demons are healed by fire.

B. The enemy positioning.

It really makes a difference for ranged enemies to actually attack from a distance of more than 10 feet away. It also makes a difference for them to attack from cover.

In an ambush, have enemies attack from multiple directions. In DAO I remember one memorable encounter on a bridge where Shrieks attack from the front and back simultaneously. That was probably the only instance of the whole game where an ambush actually was effective (because the two groups were strong enough to cause problems) whereas typically even an unattended mage will defeat 2-3 basic enemies even on auto tactics.

C. The enemy tactics.

e.g. How about something as simple as an enemy leader using a potion 5 seconds after they reach 50% health. That way players have 5 seconds to drop that one character to gain the potion they carry.

D. The enemy morale.

Would a pack of wolves or genlocks all fight to the death? How about setting up morale for enemies.

1. Cowardly - run away when outnumbered (if they escape, add these enemies to the next battle)
2. Normal - surrender if the last man standing (players have the moral choice to kill them or give quarter)
3. Immune to Fear - things like undead and golems
4. Heroic - gain a bonus to attack/damage when they are outnumbered and perhaps an additional bonus when they are the last man standing.

E. Enemy reinforcements.

For higher difficulty levels (Hard and Nightmare) have the possibility of Vanguard and Rearguard forces joining the fight.

ie. If you have three encounter groups, instead of fighting them one at a time, on Nightmare difficulty you might battle them all simultaneously or one after the other with no break in between.

F. Defend NPC Ally/Object.

Never in the game do you need to protect anything other than your own characters. I definately think it would be a welcome change to use this now and again.

e.g. Darkspawn want to destroy the Altar of Andraste...or you have to defend King Alastair from assassins (and if he dies, its game over).

G. Time Limit put on Battle

Watched some Final GFantasy 13 clips and the DOOM counter really does add an urgency to the battle.

4. Level scaling ruins any sense of progression (personally I think it should be replaced by rank scaling). If I've killed the Archdemon, what makes you think 3-4 Hurlocks will be a threat?

Level in video game i hate.It's a single player game.I'm sure there's way to get more powerful without the need of level.See 3a .  You complain  the game's to easy and  complain about level scaling. So what do you want?

Rank Scaling to replace Level Scaling.

ie. Basic Hurlock is a Level 8 Normal Rank enemy. But it could also be a Level 3 Lieutenant Rank or a Level 13 Weak Normal Rank.

Make each rank jump a 5 Level difference.

Weak Normal = -5
Normal = +/-0
Lieutenant = +5
Boss = +10
Elite Boss = +15

So if we make a Genlock Level 3 Normal and an Ogre level 18 Normal, the Ogre could be a Level 3 Elite Boss, or a Level 8 Boss or a Level 13 Lieutenant. etc.

So at the start of the game you might be battling Genlocks...then you'll progress to Hurlocks...then Shrieks...then Ogres...for example...

Level 3 Weak Normal: Deepstalker
Level 3 Normal: Genlock Sneak, Genlock Grenadier
Level 3 Lieutenants: Genlock Alpha (Assassin), Genlock Emissary, Blight Wolf
Level 3 Boss: Genlock Forgemaster
Level 3 Elite Boss: Ogre

Level 8 Weak Normal: Genlock Sneak, Genlock Grenadier
Level 8 Normal: Hurlock Warrior, Hurlock Archer
Level 8 Lieutenant: Hurlock Alpha (Berserker), Hurlock Emissary, Bereskarn
Level 8 Boss: Hurlock General, Ogre
Level 8 Elite Boss: Disciple

Level 13 Weak Normal: Hurlock Warrior, Hurlock Archer
Level 13 Normal: Shriek, Hurlock Alpha
Level 13 Lieutenant: Shriek Alpha, Shriek Emissary, Ogre
Level 13 Boss: Shriek Omega, Ogre Alpha
Level 13 Elite Boss: Broodmother

Level 18 Weak Normal: Shriek, Hurlock Alpha
Level 18 Normal: Shriek Alpha, Hurlock General
Level 18 Lieutenant: Ogre Alpha, Ogre Emissary, Disciple
Level 18 Boss: Ogre General (Armoured Ogre), Disciple Emissary
Level 18 Elite Boss: Archdemon

Also defeating an Archdemon don't make you immune to hurlock sword. Does it? If you can bleed you can be killed. Plus you was not alone. Defeating the Archdemon  was somewhat great. But the true epic deed of the Warden was his journey that lead him to kill the Archdemon.

Its more to do with a sense of progression than can a hurlock still cut you with a sword. I'm struggling to think of an RPG where you fight the same enemies at the end of the game as you do at the beginning...other than Dragon Age that is.

Plus why ppl care so much about being some kind of all-powerful god that can destroy an high-dragon with his fart and shake the world with his sight!What make some of these game great , it's being an ordinary human that accomplish great deed. I don't want to play god.

The Warden he's a simple human but a talented fighter. Level and abilities MEAN JACK STORY wise. It's only there to give  gameplay variety .. Loghain was not level 24 in the book . He was simply Loghain.  Do you follow me? Flemeth was not level 20 in the game. She was FLEMETH. Sure she had a level attached to her so she give the player a challenge. But inside the game .. those number are there only for gameplay purpose.Don't have any meaning with the story

I disagree. Loghain wasn't just some fool dragged in off the street he was one of the greatest warriors of his time. Likewise Flemeth may or may not have been one of the most powerful witches in the world, certainly in Ferelden.
 
It is the heroes journey to come from humble beginnings and end up an inspiration to the masses.

The Warden could start at level 1 in  da2 for all i care.bcause it's has no impact on the story.Just like Shepard in mass effect.He's still Shepard.No NPOC wil llook at you and tell you - WOW you're level 30!! YOU,RE SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO POWERFUL!!! BRRRRRRRRR!!

Characters are shaped by their experiences, thus when experience is intrinsically linked to level, the more powerful characters will be higher level.
 

IN d2 .. you was certaintly not fighting level 1 with your level 99.No .. you was fighting level 1 in nightmare mode that was now level 90.

...not sure I understand the point you are making here...?

[Xanfaus]

Upper_Krust wrote...
F. Defend NPC Ally/Object.
Never in the game do you need to protect anything other than your own characters. I definately think it would be a welcome change to use this now and again.
G. Time Limit put on Battle

Agree with most of what you said but can't object more to protect/escort missions or arbitrary time limits. Defend/protect missions are almost always the worst parts of any game. The player's chances for success should NEVER be subject to the ability or lack thereof of the "friendly' AI to act like they posses some measure of self-preservation.
As for the time limit idea, the problem comes from choosing a limit that's fair to different player/team builds. You can't have a time limit that's too long or you might as well as not have one at all, but you cannot have one that's too stringent as the mission would become nigh impossible for those without the optimum builds. 

[Upper_Krust]

Xanfaus wrote...

Agree with most of what you said but can't object more to protect/escort missions or arbitrary time limits. Defend/protect missions are almost always the worst parts of any game. The player's chances for success should NEVER be subject to the ability or lack thereof of the "friendly' AI to act like they posses some measure of self-preservation.

 
I agree they can be frustrating, but they can also be memorable.

I remember having to play Level 16 on N64 Goldeneye (on 007 difficulty) about 100 times because Natalya kept getting killed. The sense of achievement after I completed it was worth it though.

As for the time limit idea, the problem comes from choosing a limit that's fair to different player/team builds. You can't have a time limit that's too long or you might as well as not have one at all, but you cannot have one that's too stringent as the mission would become nigh impossible for those without the optimum builds. 

I think this is linked with forcing players to make intelligent choices.

For instance using cold spells and cold runes on a Fire creature might make all the difference to defeating it before the time limit runs out.

So I think just attacking it normally should not be enough to win Players against a time limit, they should have to make a correct choice somewhere along the way. Of course before you just throw something like that at players you have to 'teach' them to think in that manner with previous fights. At the moment Dragon Age doesn't force players to think or make choices. Its mentally a very lazy game, but it shouldn't have to be.

[Xanfaus]

Upper_Krust wrote...
I agree they can be frustrating, but they can also be memorable.

I remember having to play Level 16 on N64 Goldeneye (on 007 difficulty) about 100 times because Natalya kept getting killed. The sense of achievement after I completed it was worth it though.

I don't get a sense of accomplishment from succeeding at missions like that. I generally get more a sense of relief that I hopefully never have to protect [insert idiot's name here] again. Of course some games just make you do it again later...multiple times in a row...with no checkpoints.
 

I think this is linked with forcing players to make intelligent choices.

Of course before you just throw something like that at players you have to 'teach' them to think in that manner with previous fights. At the moment Dragon Age doesn't force players to think or make choices. Its mentally a very lazy game, but it shouldn't have to be.

Yeah, I see your point. Virtually the entire game can be beaten with a handful of strategies with little to no reason to ever change tactics or equipment even on Nightmare difficulty. The game at no point challenges the player to do anything other than stupendous amounts of raw damage to anything with a red circle underneath them. Mass Effect 2's version of Nightmare mode at least requires more intelligent use of abilities while the Awakening expansion's answer to encourage better tactics is "Moar Overpower!". 

[payroo]

I understand not being able to get the LI voice actors again, but would a goddam letter have been too much to ask? Especially when the text was in the game files already?
/rant

And great dissatisfaction with the new conversation system. They made it more like Mass Effect, whereas I think they should have made Mass Effect dialogue more like Dragon Age.
although it would be cool if we had paragon/renegade interrupt in DA...

But I was actually pretty happy with it otherwise. Thought Nathaniel was a great character.

[Spinnazie]

A combination of the new and old conversation systems would be amazing IMO. More challenging enemies would also be appreciated.



Don't rush the next expansion / game either plx.

[munrohk]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

1 through to 3b is all okay but: 4. Level scalling is fine as it is. Yes you've jsut taken down the Archdemon and no four Genlocks AREN'T a threat (when were they ever anyway). Besides just because you've taken down a dragon doesn't mean that 4 guys can't beat the living **** out of you. Trust me..

and 5: Pff no. Mages are supposed to be ridiculed in all games they appear, thus stupid hats and robes are the norm.

Wait... 'Trust you'?  So are you speaking from personal dragonslaying experience or something?!

[Joshd21]

COMBAT/BALANCE
3a. The game is far too easy on
the harder difficulties.

I still wipe on easy, thank you very much. I personally think the Orge wearing all that armor was diffcult enough

[Nikatjef]

Greetings,



IMO, the level scaling works well in DA:O, I felt a sense of accomplishment, while still being challenged regardless of the order I did things in.



Having said that, however, the difficulty problem in DA:A seems to be more symptomatic of what I think was poor QA. This touches on point 3, 4 and 8 in the OP.

1. Mobs seemed to be missing basic skills. As such all of the archers and spell casters were interruptible, including the bosses.

2. Mobs didn't appear to use any AI other than attack if you can or stand around if you can't. In DA:O, I remember a scene where a Genlock Emissary kept healing a Hurlock Alpha that I was fighting. I never saw that in DA:A, but imagine how tough those Armored Ogres would have been in the Disciples were healing and buffing them.

3. Mobs were too stationary. When you attempt to save the farm, all of the mobs are standing in three (four) small groups. What would have happened of those Hurlock Snipers just happened to go on "patrol" towards the first group when you engaged the Hurlock Emissary and the Ogre Alpha.

4. Spell casting Mobs didn't appear to have (m)any of the more advanced spells.

[Dragon Age1103]

They need to learn if they're going to set the bar so high they NEED to meet those standards on any DLC or expansion which they failed to do with Awakening length wise. I'm glad I played through it & felt it was much more superior to Origins BUT the length killed it for me making me immediately regret spending $40 on such a short expansion. I hope if they plan to make a sequel they know a large majority of fans(IMO) will expect 50+ hours at the VERY minimum.

[Varenus Luckmann]

sylvanaerie wrote...
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And for Pete's sake, FIX what is broke please?"

This. Don't screw around with the stuff that is already working and focus on fixing what's not.

[wwwwowwww]

Simple answer.



Play the hell out of the game before releasing it to the public, I spent two days playing the game and not getting past 1 part because of a serious bug, and because I prefer to play without venturing through forums for help I didn't even know there was a bug, until I'd exhausted everything 3 times over and was forced to come seek help.



The two arguing about vocal minority/majority, c'mon guys really? You know how long I played video games before I realized there were forums for them? A long time, some have praise and complaints but have no idea there are forums for the games.

[BroBear Berbil]

I agree completely with OP's points and I would add that BioWare can learn from Dragon Age in general is that you don't need to make so many skills and spells. I play on PC which is nice because I can just extend the action bar but even on PC it's really kind of ridiculous.



I get why they would have a new skill in almost every talent slot because passive bonuses just aren't that exciting and they want the appearance of having more buttons to push but the result is a very bloated talent system and too many situational skills. The issue is exacerbated when it comes to mages.

[Teredan]

One thing they should have learned from mass effect 2 already is, although they can make amazing new characters, nothing beats even more fleshed out characters we already know

[Zocat]

payroo wrote...

I understand not being able to get the LI voice actors again, but would a goddam letter have been too much to ask? Especially when the text was in the game files already?
/rant

Completly agree. I would've imagined something like this:

During the initial quest (after freeing the Vigil) a dialog option with Alistair (or Anora? Dont know^^) like this:
Alistair: "Well I have to go now. Good luck my friend"
Me: "Bye, and send Leliana (Zevran) my regards and tell her/him that I miss her/him"
Alistair: "Yeah I'm sorry I took them from you. But she needs to help me with the nobles at the court for a while / he has to do some important buissness for me. I'll send them your way as soon as I can spare them. But dont worry, dog is keeping an eye on her/him"
And after finishing ~2 plot areas you receive the letter.

I personally would have been satisfied with something like this (and them being mentioned in the epilogue).

And great dissatisfaction with the new conversation system.

Also agreed. Cant imagine running through something like the Deep Roads in Origins with multiple characters just to advance their storyline *shudders*


I dont think I need to mention the bugs.
And the game was way to easy (on nightmare) even without min/maxing the party. Continuing my "main character may not die"-quest from Origins was way easier in Awakenings.

[zchen]

how about some thorough beta testing, including compatibility with your own DLCs enabled even though you forbid players from importing items from the said DLC for no good reason. cough::Vigilance-Starfang graphic bug::cough.....