anubite

Here are my feelings: If you're using a particular party composition for a while, it's extremely unlikely for you to suddenly swap out stuff -- unless there are game mechanics like permanent death or if it's rather easy to piss off somebody and make them leave. You might experiment a little bit in the early game, while you're still gathering new companions. But that's probably it. Many RPGs (like DA2) have given party members you're not using free experience. It feels... wrong. But it's just a feeling. We should encourage people to mix up their play, but at the same time, I like the feeling of permanence. It's one of those 'choice things'. You know, where you choose to make your character to become a mage? And then use daggers? You're developing some kind of a story here. To mix and match party members on the fly, without any sort of barrier, feels wrong. It feels like you're trivializing the journey. You're turning the PnP roleplay into arcade-ish mechanics. I guess I'd be fine with either mechanic. People who grew up on less hardcore RPGs probably are going to expect free level ups for party members. It's the same with respecs really. I think a good compromise though, would have experience-based mechanics that give tons of bonus experience to "under-leveled" characters, so if you do swap out people, you can quickly get someone up to speed.

This is mainly where I'm coming from. Yes, yes randomization on its own does not imply the game is more replayable. But don't patronize me. Think the idea through not in a vacuum, but in a finished game. Sections of levels are created with randomly selected small pieces (or tiles) that connect together. In these random zones, encounters are more random. You might fight unusual combinations of enemies in unusual combinations of terrain - you might get a group of 8 spellcaster enemies with are of effect spells and they might be positioned so that you're fighting in a choke point. Certainly invites some kind of desperate strategy to overcome an encounter like that. If randomization makes a game tedious instead of fun, I seriously think one should rethink this statement - it is highly suggestive that the gameplay is not well-designed or fun. Part of enjoying an IE game SHOULD be the combat and the strategy/tactics. If you don't like that or you don't find that element fun, then I would argue the game is either flawed, or you're just looking for a CHYOA. Which is fine, but... what I'm suggesting would improve replayability for those of us who want more than a CHYOA and I hardly think a small amount of randomization in the game would be detrimental. If you already think the game is tedious, making certain areas random would hardly make it so more tedious that it would make you curse Oblivion and never play the game again. The problem I have with replaying IE games over say, Fallout, is that I can of course employ a team of all Warriors if I want (though this means I have to not use any scripted companions, which is actually kind of boring usually), but that doesn't mean my strategy or tactics change that much. I know the encounters I'm going up against before I encounter them, so it's not like I even have to think on my feet or pause for a few minutes to devise a strategy before trying the encounter again. I think adding some amount of random element to this game would drastically improve the gameplay, because you would be forced to build a party that can handle most situations, rather than a narrow number of them (because you always have metaknowledge of every encounter you will fight in the future, it allows for easier min/maxing). Part of the fun of playing most RPGs is discovering this optimal built set up. But if you don't like IE-like gameplay, then I guess randomization does sound like a waste of Obsidian's resources. It does make me worry for the future of RPGs though, if all major RPGs must now cater to this group of people who only want to be told a story. You know there are books right?

Sony owns Demon's Souls therefor it will never come to the PC. In case you didn't realize, Sony is not only hemorrhaging money, but desperate. What benefit is there in just keeping Demon's Souls exclusive? It's already had its effect in making people buy PS3's. I think they would give From the rights to port it, for a proper price.

Yeah I don't know how to defend that statement. It needs qualification. Immersion shouldn't be broken by random events - it's what makes FO/FO2 come alive most of the time. Real life is random. Are you saying that things that emulate randomness are in offense to verisimilitude?

I don't think religion or spirituality is the core of the question here. Why do humans believe? Because if they didn't, they wouldn't be here to talk about it. Belief in anything stems from the choice to live. The crux of all philosophical questions can be reduced to: Shall I live? Or shall I commit suicide? Those that pick the latter aren't here. Those that don't pick it may not have asked themselves the question yet, or believe. One needn't believe in a higher power to have faith. Faith that life has some meaning at all, even if it's the meaning that it has no meaning, is sufficient. Asking why one has faith at all is a question that goes beyond this and too personal to try and squeeze into a single sentence. Just be content that people have faith to stay sane. Without faith that what you're standing on is real, even at some vague paranormal level, leads directly to mental breakdown.

It's not like it can't be done. The XBOX version is always easier to port, you're right. But they could port it, it would probably just be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. Or at least, I'm sure nobody at From wants to do it even if it might be relatively simple.

Well, I'd agree it's probably not the best way. But the best way is probably outside the scope of a game like this. What I'm suggesting I don't think would harm anyone replaying the game for a second time and would probably benefit some players. The best thing about this suggestion is that it's (probably) reasonably cheap and easy to implement and would make everyone's experience with the game a little more unique.

Well, the point of randomizing an area is to force the player to find the stairs to the next area, or to find the location of a specific item or NPC. Otherwise, on a second replay, the player can use metaknowledge to always find the correct path in the minimal number of steps. If gameplay is a chore and boring, then of course we want players to find the stairs to the next area right away! But if the game is good, a player shouldn't mind that parts of a zone are random and force them to continue making decisions based on their party's well being and resources. Furthermore, with regards to randomization of enemies, it means you have to employ a potential wider of range of strategy, if the zone you enter rolls a monster encounter that has monsters that are resistant to your primary damage type (for instance). With regards to specifically randomizing a map, it may be for tactical purposes. If you enter a wide room, you can avoid splash damage easier. Positioning SHOULD be important for a IE-based game, even if positioning wasn't always important, I think tactical gameplay could have been improved for IE games, had positioning mattered more. You should be tactically aware of the environment you're in. It should provide some level of difficulty, to be in a zone which is cramped or choked, or a zone which has pillars to put your companions behind (or that foes can use), or a zone which has a bridge you can lure monsters over (to walk into your traps). Knowing that these environmental designs are coming up ahead of time, trivializes encounters because you never have to come up with new strategies or make decisions you didn't already know you weren't going to make. When a game becomes trivial one generally loses interest.

I believe this is highly unlikely, namely because I think FromSoftware is exhausted after doing the mad-dash to port Dark Souls in under nine months or so. That required their whole studio going *choochoo*. And it was work that almost seemed thrust upon them. I think they'd like to do their own thing and either develop a new series or a new game in the Souls franchise. They probably don't want to spend another year tirelessly porting an old game. It would be more sensible to beg them to make a sequel to Dark Souls and this time build the sequel with easy porting to PC in mind. I am not entirely sure if Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are built with the same engine or not. It would make porting Demon's Souls much easier if they do share the same engine, but I'm not sure how much easier that would be.

Areas can be "handcrafted" and still be semi-random. That's what I mean by tiles. And yes, 'randomization' can be heavy on an engine, but not in the way I'm describing. What I'm describing is that some zones (especially dungeons) have "pieces" that are built by hand. Let's say 30 pieces. These pieces may be square and have 4 sides. If each piece can connect to any other piece (obviously not always the case), then you can have 32 comb per pair * 15 pairs = 480 different tile connection combinations, which is sufficiently complex I think and wouldn't be expensive to create. A system like this could make dungeons more unpredictable - you could have 1-2 fully handcrafted floors which are always the same, with 1 floor in between them which is random. Or, you could have 3 partially hand-crafted areas, where certain zones within these dungeons being random. I'm not suggesting this as a way to replace hand-crafted zones, but as a way to extend the replayability. If you go through the same level over and over, you know how to expect something. And yes, RPGs may be replayable just so you can make different choices, but RPGs should have some mechanical things which make replaying a game less monotonous. Not knowing what you're going to fight, when, for certain areas in the game, is a great balance/compromise I think and would add suficient unknownness to an area, making it more fun/challenging no matter how many times you've played the game. RPGs often have a finite number of possible quest oucomes, that rarely exceeds 4. By adding some random elements to map design, you introduce more complexity and make the game have better longevity. I am not suggesting Diablo-esque zones where everything is randomized because that "depersonalizes" the quest you're on. What I am suggesting is something which furthers replay value, by adding small sections of areas that are semi-random with semi-random encounters.

IE-style games are very replayable. Games like Fallout especially so - because many events in the game randomly driven. In order to strengthen the longevity of PE, I'd like to see: -Some areas of dungeons/zones are randomly generated; you can do this with "puzzle pieces" of a level which can be rotated and placed randomly by the engine -Some areas of dungeons/zones have random monster pools/locations - where the engine draws from a collection of pre-arranged or semi-random enemy groups -Random events in cities and while travelling in the wilderness

Alan if you're close to the writing team, you need to convince them to play this for inspiration http://www.talesofgames.com/related_game/barkley-shut-up-jam-gaiden/. It's free. I am not kidding when I say it's one of the greatest RPGs of our generation.

What? A way to cure possession? Sounds kind of lame. At this point, I'd rather the writers of Shut Up and Jam Gaiden write the script for DA3. Post apocalyptic, medieval fantasy bball sounds fun.

I figured they were - but if he's going to Tevinter, isn't the third game going to take place in... Orlais? I dunno the geography well, but I would assume that puts Feynriel as a possible antagonist or party member in DA4, not DA3.

DA2 does not significantly break the mold in any way. I'll have to note this in my video. The only thing it tries to do is "tell a more personal story" which it utterly fails to do. Also, in DA:O, some quests have different outcomes, but I can't think of a single one in DA2. I mean, yes, Feynriel becomes a demon, a tranquil or a "dream mage" depending upon your choices during his last quest, but the results of that quest are all superficial. If Feynriel becomes a demon, you fight 3 guards at the end of the game who were possessed by him. If Feynriel becomes tranquil his mother kills herself. If Fynriel becomes a dream mage, there are no more scenes with him, he doesn't say goodbye to anyone, he just runs off to Tevinter. You do have one end-game quest where an NPC mentions his presence in their dreams, but that's it. The outcome of the quest is always: Nobody sees Feynriel again Nobody talks to Feynriel again Nobody sees Feynriel's mother again (whether she dies or not) Feynriel is mentioned in passing by a small group of NPCs (<4) toward the end of the game And none of that has any bearing on any other quest or anything, even if he is mentioned. And Feynriel's quest is probably the only one where something remotely like this even happens. Thrask? I blackmailed him early on in the game and he still insisted I help him with apostage mages running away. Why the hell would he trust me? He shouldn't, but the game always gives you the option of taking his quest. Furthermore, no matter your choices, Thrask lives towards the end of the game when your sister is Kidnapped. No matter what choices you make there whether you've helped him all game or spurned him all game, he dies. The same goes for Grace, the bloodmage, not only can she not be reformed, but you cannot even kill her in Act 1 knowing that she cannot be reformed with meta-knowledge. It's bull****, Dragon Age 2 is entirely deterministic, the biggest slap in the face being that you always obliterate the mages or the templars at the end of the game, regardless of how pro-templar or pro-mage you've been, you will always kill Meridith and you will always kill the Archmage-Abomination. And yes, NWN1's campaign was bad. I don't think anybody uses it as a standard to defend DA2 by. And there is nothing inherently wrong with reusing assets or areas or backtracking. Many games have done this. But I cannot name a single game that has done it to the extent DA2 has. Video games have to reuse assets to be efficient, but DA2 goes about it in all the wrong way. Instead of making us visit the same exact cave 12 times, they should have just written an easy randomizer program so that you're literally not going through the same literal cave all game (these caves are usually not even sharing the same logistical location on a map, it's as though you enter a worm hole and enter to the same coordinates in space every time you encounter a cave or a house or a beach).

I'm not entirely sure how you would stop save scumming. The suggestion to "write/read to a file" all the time, even if it's not your save file, is a bad one. Loading from a file is a slow action and it's sure to be corrupted at some point. What's stopping me from not just reloading from my last save if I screw up some random encounter? If I screw it up, I'd rather not get the encounter at all, so I'll just reload it anyway. There's nothing stopping anyone from force quitting an application and stopping any autosave or post-save method you have.

Monsters do not tend to become more "challenging" when you simply add to their life and damage values. They just tend to FORCE you to use some lame strategy to win, like kiting, or some spell combination abuse. It narrows the number of viable strategies. The best way to enhance difficulty is to give monsters access to more active skills/spells, boost their damage/life slightly per difficulty increase, add a few more monsters per area per difficulty increase, increase the variety of monsters in a zone per difficulty increase, increase their AI and planning per difficulty increase, and to give them special passive abilities per difficulty increase (maybe some monsters become heavily resistant to fire, or high evasion / block chance). You cannot make harder difficulties fun or challenging if all you do is change one or two statistics.

I think it's important not to let "stat entropy" happen. Keep stats as low as possible, because they will skyrocket into huge numbers quickly if you don't pay careful attention. Low integer values for most attributes/systems is a good long-term plan.

All the Templars are mentally challenged. You can walk aorund with a party of 4 characters with staffs and robes and nobody seems to care.

I find it so funny Gaider is intimidated by the Cullen worshipers. What stopped them from turning Tali into a stock photo? Nothing. Are they seriously afraid the Cullen fan base could do worse if the equivalent thing happening to Cullen? This guy needs to get a grip. Gaider should include Cullen just because he's so popular. Is he uncomfortable because Cullen is male? I mean, he's clearly exploited the power of the female sex image in the past, do the same with Cullen. Make him into a sex, stud machine. DA3 will print money. Look at Twilight.

Of course I've made up my mind. It's only reinforced every time BioWare says I'm entitled or a vocal minority. Or that I'm crazy. I'm not crazy. And every time you post in this thread in defense of DA2, I know how sane I really am. The only one left. Because it makes me realize. How do I know YOU aren't John Riccitiello? You'd post that you hate him, just throw me off your trail, wouldn't you? Don't think I'm not onto you. I have charts to suggest... as well as your ip address... and it's rather suspicious. Isn't "North Bay, Ontario, Kanada" an anagram for, "A Databank Oration Horny"? It makes me rather suspicious that my suspicions are correct. I mean, I know what you're capable of. You had bots posting for EA http://www.eurogamer...ijacked-by-bots. I'm not putting it past you John. You made this thread to call me out. Populating it with your bots, having them post at irregular intervals. It's smart. Killing two birds with one stone. You'll also convince Obsidian to copy Dragon Age 2 by showing how popular its defense is. And when they copy it, it'll make BioWare's RPGs look better and crush the competition. I'm not one to express... what you might call paranoia (it's not, no it's not, shut up), but the circumstances of this thread violate everything. Everything. You'd think it wouldn't, but it does. And if you're not John -- who are you working for? I could have this all wrong, maybe, but, something here is fishy. You must be working for somebody. I can tell - I've been fully trained. And I know, if I can find out who you really are, then the lies will end. I know I'm missing a few pieces, but it's almost complete. I know none of you can probably see it. Like I see it. But I have a feeling. That EA is in bed with Activision. It explains the Mass Effect 2 discs - I mean, I knew it all along. That they were sharing data. The intelligence community knows about it too, but they aren't doing anything about it. The monopoly. Don't think all of us are sheep, missing the strings of the puppet masters. The media would have you believe that EA isn't nefariously conspiring to process and water down its products like a cheap lemonade stand. That it wouldn't manipulate its market data to eschew the economic realities. If people were to dig up the facts, they'd find that they're neither man nor milk. Optics. Operatives. Ocularities. Everywhere. It's why I'm trying to make it. A video, I mean. I'm sorry if this is a little jumbled, but I'm trying to keep it from THEM. Maybe this will help 46 69 6c 74 65 72 20 6f 6e 2e. But if it doesn't it's okay that's what COME, I will make the continent indissoluble; I will make the most splendid race the sun ever yet shone upon; I will make divine magnetic lands The Master leads by emptying pe0xople's minds and filling their cores, by weakening the2ir ambition and toughening their resolve. He helps people lose everything they know, ever7ything they desire, and creates confusion in those who think that they know. (yes, of course it wasn't Oswald use gaussian interpolation) Sorry I can't say any more or they'll find

"Crysis® 2, Dragon Age™ 2, and Dead Space™ 2 each sold in more than two million units." I suppose I can't argue with that*, but my chart above is not necessarily invalidated, it only shows 10 weeks and as you say, cannot take digital sales into account. The report talks about total sales, not sales during the first 10 weeks. *EA has lied in the past, or used tricky logic to falsify their numbers. Case in point: SWTOR's "active" accounts were claimed to be as high as 1.1 to 1.4 to 1.7 million - this was completely ridiculous considering they gave everyone a free month out of the blue, before their fiscal conference, making some deactivated accounts active. And without more strict raw data to look at, they might be able to wiggle out of the distinction between sold and shipped. Who's to say John Ravioli just didn't buy 100k copies of DA2 at their wholesale value just to make the numbers look good for the investors? My trust in EA is low and I'd wish there were a third party who could verify their claims, as it seems inconsistent with their behavior regarding BioWare.

EA acknowledged DA2 was a failure - low dlc, no expansion. Remember? If it shipped only 2 million units, then it probably only sold close to half of them. This would be consistent with EA agreeing that DA2 did not do well. Thus, my above chart should be reasonably accurate.

Numbers shipped != units sold. Also, http://tinyurl.com/c7jhqsx

Where's your source? I'd like to see some proof DA2 sold 2 million copies in one month.