Game News Dragon Age 2 Announced

[Vault Dweller]

True, speaking absolutely, Fallout is not the best in this area. However, speaking relatively, in comparison with DA, there is more gameplay variation in Fallout.

Absolutely. Overall, Fallout is one of the best RPGs and DA doesn't come close.

So when you say "So? Combat filler is the undeniable design flaw, which brings down the overall quality of the game, but it doesn't make the choices meaningless," no, it doesn't make the choices meaningless, but it does mean you are spending a lot of gameplay time doing the same thing no matter what build or what choices you've made.

I agree.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes because the only difference between storming Hightower's compound or stealthily murdering him is weapon choice.

Stealthily murdering sure does sound awesome. I mean, it would sound awesome if it actually was more complicated than walking toward Hightower (stealthily, I presume) and dropping a bomb in his pocket.

My point is, Fallout does NOT have stealth mechanics. Furthermore, you can approach most NPCs openly and drop bombs in their pockets openly, so the word "stealthily" in stealthily murdering doesn't mean shit, which is why your choices are:

- approach an NPC and shoot him in the face
- approach an NPC and drop a bomb in his pocket

Decisions, decisions...

 

[Fomorian]

You can't just walk up to Hightower you either have to bluff your way past the guards via speech or sneak into the house.

Furthermore dropping a bomb into someone's pocket requires use of the steal skill regardless so it's not just an alternate kill method that any character can use as you're trying to pretend.

 

[Vault Dweller]

And using a rocket launcher requires the use of Big Guns skill, so it's not like any character can use it, you know.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Your reply to Mangoose dealt with "different experiences." Just because sneaking in to Hightower's compound isn't a radically different experience from storming it to you doesn't mean there aren't multiple ways to kill him and therefore complete the quest.

"You can shoot him with the shotgun, rifle or the handgun, there is a lot of choices how to solve this quest".

"Your choice is weapon"?

And Oblivion RAI was intended to be the ultimate role-playing experience. What's your point?

That I never said every quest in Fallout could be solved via diplomacy or even in multiple ways like you tried to pretend earlier.

Ok. Go ahead and explain what this sentence was supposed to mean then:

"A glowing example of the former is Fallout where every quest was intended, however imperfectly, to have the option of being able to complete it via stealth, combat, or diplomacy. "

So the quest is to kill Hightower and you're complaining there are no multiple quest solutions because even though there are multiple ways to accomplish this you have to kill Hightower to complete the quest.

I'm not complaining about anything. I merely pointed out in my first post in this thread that contrary to your claims that every quest was amazingly awesome and "intended" to have multiple solutions, including diplomacy, it was not the case:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic ... 26#1238726

"The Hub's (the biggest town) quests:

- Dispose of Jain
- Dispose of merchant
- Find the missing caravans
- Steal the necklace

Please indicate the multiple ways to get it done, especially via dialogues..."

You're missing the point. There's only one way to complete that quest: combat.

Complete? No, because you can complete the quest by talking to the demon. What you're trying to say is that no matter what direction you pick, there would be some combat filler in it, which is a fair statement, but all that means is that the game doesn't support pure non-combat paths, which doesn't mean that the choices are of the same variety as choosing a corridor in Diablo.

You can change the amount of combat you have to complete or get different encounters but combat is the only solution to the quest. If, in Diablo II, after fighting your way through several levels of a dungeon you could take two different corridors to grab an item and one had a bunch of monsters and one was totally clear would you claim it has multiple quest solutions since you can alter the amount of combat you have to endure to complete the quest?

Yeah, it's exactly the same.

 

[Fomorian]

"You can shoot him with the shotgun, rifle or the handgun, there is a lot of choices how to solve this quest".

"Your choice is weapon"?

Yes because a path to kill Hightower that involves no combat and requires the use of three different skills (sneak, lockpicking, and steal) versus storming the entire compound and killing all his guards in open combat is no different from choosing whether you want to kill him with a pistol or shotgun.

Ok. Go ahead and explain what this sentence was supposed to mean then:

"A glowing example of the former is Fallout where every quest was intended, however imperfectly, to have the option of being able to complete it via stealth, combat, or diplomacy. "

That every quest in Fallout was intended to have multiple solutions with the three primary supported paths being speech, stealth, or combat. Not a hard sentence to follow.

I'm not complaining about anything. I merely pointed out in my first post in this thread that contrary to your claims that every quest was amazingly awesome and "intended" to have multiple solutions, including diplomacy, it was not the case:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic ... 26#1238726

"The Hub's (the biggest town) quests:

- Dispose of Jain
- Dispose of merchant
- Find the missing caravans
- Steal the necklace

Please indicate the multiple ways to get it done, especially via dialogues..."

Never claimed every quest was awesome. Claimed Fallout was awesome and every quest was intended to have multiple solutions. How do you know it was "not the case" that every quest was intended to have multiple solutions?

Complete? No, because you can complete the quest by talking to the demon. What you're trying to say is that no matter what direction you pick, there would be some combat filler in it, which is a fair statement, but all that means is that the game doesn't support pure non-combat paths, which doesn't mean that the choices are of the same variety as choosing a corridor in Diablo.

But you can only talk to the demon after a number of mandatory combat encounters. What I'm trying to say is that no matter what ending you choose for the quest, the only way to complete the quest is with combat.

Yeah, it's exactly the same.

Indeed it is. Change two different corridors to a demon you can talk to who offers to let you have the McGuffin without resistance if you spare him and have some character back at the camp have different flavor dialogues depending on whether you spare the demon or kill it and you have almost exactly recreated the multiple quest solutions you claim the Dragon Age quest has.

These are not multiple quest solutions because the only solution to the quest is combat. The fact that you can choose to alter the amount of combat is irrelevant. This quest has multiple endings but it does not have multiple solutions.

 

[Silellak]

That every quest in Fallout was intended to have multiple solutions with the three primary supported paths being speech, stealth, or combat. Not a hard sentence to follow.

What the fuck do I care about Fallout's designers intended to do? I'm sure Obsidian intended for AP to be a great game, so does that mean all conversations about AP should revolve around what the devs intended to do? All that matters is the game that I can install and play, not some hypothetical game based off the best of intentions.

Never claimed every quest was awesome. Claimed Fallout was awesome and every quest was intended to have multiple solutions. How do you know it was "not the case" that every quest was intended to have multiple solutions?

You do know that since you made the claim that "every quest in Fallout was intended to have multiple solutions, you are the one who has to prove that claim, right? "Prove they DIDN'T intend to do that!" does not in any way resemble a valid argument.

Indeed it is. Change two different corridors to a demon you can talk to who offers to let you have the McGuffin without resistance if you spare him and have some character back at the camp have different flavor dialogues depending on whether you spare the demon or kill it and you have almost exactly recreated the multiple quest solutions you claim the Dragon Age quest has.

These are not multiple quest solutions because the only solution to the quest is combat. The fact that you can choose to alter the amount of combat is irrelevant. This quest has multiple endings but it does not have multiple solutions.

How is it exactly the same when the dialog solution to the quest is based on character skill? Or the fact that if you have enough character skill, you can actually get another variation of the "diplomacy" ending? Or that different characters in your party can deal with the demon in different ways? Or the fact the PC can't even enter the Fade unless they're a mage?

Or the fact the option to go into the Fade may not even exist?

Note: Irving will perform the ritual to send a mage in the fade with Lyrium but only Jowan, Morrigan, or Wynne will tell you this ritual is possible. If Morrigan left the party ( if you refused to recover Flemeth grimoire or another reason) or you killed or left Jowan escape your only option is to kill Connor.

It's true the quest cannot be solved entirely without combat, but that's more of a fundamental problem with DA than with the quest itself - there's just too much Goddamn filler combat.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Note: Irving will perform the ritual to send a mage in the fade with Lyrium but only Jowan, Morrigan, or Wynne will tell you this ritual is possible. If Morrigan left the party ( if you refused to recover Flemeth grimoire or another reason) or you killed or left Jowan escape your only option is to kill Connor.

You can also convince First Enchanter Irving to go into the Fade. (probably needs high persuade)

 

[Silellak]

Note: Irving will perform the ritual to send a mage in the fade with Lyrium but only Jowan, Morrigan, or Wynne will tell you this ritual is possible. If Morrigan left the party ( if you refused to recover Flemeth grimoire or another reason) or you killed or left Jowan escape your only option is to kill Connor.

You can also convince First Enchanter Irving to go into the Fade. (probably needs high persuade)

True, but I think the point was, if you don't have Jowan, Morrigan, or Wynne around, the player doesn't even have the option of performing the ritual, because the PC doesn't "know" about it.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Yes this quest is a good example of a well designed quest in DA. You have quite some different approaches. Too bad they didn't follow up with some consequences to your choices, like the Arl being pissed if wife/son is dead.

 

[Silellak]

Yes this quest is a good example of a well designed quest in DA. You have quite some different approaches. Too bad they didn't follow up with some consequences to your choices, like the Arl being pissed if wife/son is dead.

Yeah, the only real gameplay consequence is unlocking the Blood Mage specialty, and if you're a powergamer, you'll just choose that option once to unlock it for all your characters, then reload an older save anyway.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

The thing with DA isn't how the quests are solved, but more of how they are approached. It's the exact same problem with AP, all Bioware games, and I assume most Bethesda games. The way to make a game fun and replayable isn't to guide them through a preset level and then at the end of said level give them a CHOICE, but rather to give them a large level with multiple paths and multiple ways to advance. That's the only way to insure replayability on a serious scale. That's what FO did, and that's what most of the games praised on the Codex did. It's not how you finish the quest, but rather how you got there.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That every quest in Fallout was intended to have multiple solutions with the three primary supported paths being speech, stealth, or combat. Not a hard sentence to follow.

Do you realize how retarded it sounds? Especially when used as an argument to attack another game?

How do you know it was "not the case" that every quest was intended to have multiple solutions?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

That every quest in Fallout was intended to have multiple solutions with the three primary supported paths being speech, stealth, or combat. Not a hard sentence to follow.

What the fuck do I care about Fallout's designers intended to do? I'm sure Obsidian intended for AP to be a great game, so does that mean all conversations about AP should revolve around what the devs intended to do? All that matters is the game that I can install and play, not some hypothetical game based off the best of intentions.

I have a feeling this will end with something about the "soul" of the game, or some equally intangible, unverifiable quality that puts it above everything else.

It was awesome because it was intended to be awesome, as opposed to these other games that were intended to be shit from the get go.

 

[Mangoose]

True, speaking absolutely, Fallout is not the best in this area. However, speaking relatively, in comparison with DA, there is more gameplay variation in Fallout.

Absolutely. Overall, Fallout is one of the best RPGs and DA doesn't come close.

So when you say "So? Combat filler is the undeniable design flaw, which brings down the overall quality of the game, but it doesn't make the choices meaningless," no, it doesn't make the choices meaningless, but it does mean you are spending a lot of gameplay time doing the same thing no matter what build or what choices you've made.

I agree.

I think this is what Formorian is trying to describe by using the phrase "multiple quest solutions." Not that there are simply multiple solutions of completing each quest, but that each solution uses different methods of gameplay.

Can you expound on why you believe C&C providing gameplay variation is important? I've been thinking about this for a while, and I thought of two possibilities:


1) It gives more meaning to your character's development of stats, as the most concrete representation of your character and his development is his stats. So in the end C&C makes your character himself more meaningful, and that's what's important in an RPG.

2) It makes the world seem more "realistic," or at least more lively. The intention of an RPG is not for the player to roleplay a character in a world full of paper mache NPCs, but to be a character in a world full of fellow characters.

 

[Fomorian]

That every quest in Fallout was intended to have multiple solutions with the three primary supported paths being speech, stealth, or combat. Not a hard sentence to follow.

Do you realize how retarded it sounds? Especially when used as an argument to attack another game?

How do you know it was "not the case" that every quest was intended to have multiple solutions?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_vision_statement

3. There will always be multiple solutions. No one style of play will be perfect.

Sure looks like the Fallout devs intended for every quest to have multiple solutions to me.

 

[Silellak]

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_vision_statement

3. There will always be multiple solutions. No one style of play will be perfect.

Sure looks like the Fallout devs intended for every quest to have multiple solutions to me.

What the fuck do I care about Fallout's designers intended to do? I'm sure Obsidian intended for AP to be a great game, so does that mean all conversations about AP should revolve around what the devs intended to do? All that matters is the game that I can install and play, not some hypothetical game based off the best of intentions.

 

[Fomorian]

What the fuck do I care about Fallout's designers intended to do? I'm sure Obsidian intended for AP to be a great game, so does that mean all conversations about AP should revolve around what the devs intended to do? All that matters is the game that I can install and play, not some hypothetical game based off the best of intentions.

No. Who the hell has ever said anything about Fallout's awesomeness being dependent on it's designers intentions? Fallout is a great game. Fallout was intended to have multiple quest solutions. Dragon Age wasn't. Dragon Age was intended to have C&C which it does in abundance.

You do know that since you made the claim that "every quest in Fallout was intended to have multiple solutions, you are the one who has to prove that claim, right? "Prove they DIDN'T intend to do that!" does not in any way resemble a valid argument.

Yes I know but I was in a hurry yesterday.

How is it exactly the same when the dialog solution to the quest is based on character skill? Or the fact that if you have enough character skill, you can actually get another variation of the "diplomacy" ending? Or that different characters in your party can deal with the demon in different ways? Or the fact the PC can't even enter the Fade unless they're a mage?

Or the fact the option to go into the Fade may not even exist?

Any mage character can skip the final battle it is not dependent on dialogue skill. It's dependent on dialogue skill to get the reward along with skipping the battle but I don't see anyone praising Fallout 3's "multiple quest solutions" since you can use speech skill to extort some extra cash from quest-givers. Different characters in your party can deal with the demon in different ways? I've never heard of this and frankly I doubt it since the one time I played through DA I was a warrior and when I sent Morrigan in she was forced into every combat encounter.

The real issue here is you're confusing C&C with multiple quest solutions as I've said earlier. DA has tons of C&C. This quest has tons of C&C. It does not have multiple quest solutions.

It's true the quest cannot be solved entirely without combat, but that's more of a fundamental problem with DA than with the quest itself - there's just too much Goddamn filler combat.

The only way to resolve this quest is combat. The fact that you can choose (C&C) to alter the amount of combat does not constitute multiple quest solutions.

 

[Mangoose]

The only way to resolve this quest is combat. The fact that you can choose (C&C) to alter the amount of combat does not constitute multiple quest solutions.

Actually, yes, the possibility of choosing to alter the amount of combat does constitute different solutions. The key distinction is the actual variation between the different solutions in each case. But qualitatively speaking, there are distinct and separate solutions in both FO and DA. If you want to talk about the degrees of multiple quest solution implementation, then talk about that. Instead of speaking in absolutes.

 

[circ]

Seriously, this inane shit is still ongoing? Some people are seriously convinced that switching weapons and sneaking constitutes another quest approach? Holy shit I switch to the raleguyn in Quake from the shotsgun and now it's a different gaym! You completely killed any valid arguments that Fallout had going for it vs. Dragon Age. Unless there is a specific option to talk a guy to give up in addition to shooting his ass, that does not mean it is another quest approach.

 

[Fomorian]

Seriously, this inane shit is still ongoing? Some people are seriously convinced that switching weapons and sneaking constitutes another quest approach? Holy shit I switch to the raleguyn in Quake from the shotsgun and now it's a different gaym! You completely killed any valid arguments that Fallout had going for it vs. Dragon Age. Unless there is a specific option to talk a guy to give up in addition to shooting his ass, that does not mean it is another quest approach.

I'm assuming this is satire since the degree of stupidity required to seriously type this is beyond comprehension.

 

[Fomorian]

The only way to resolve this quest is combat. The fact that you can choose (C&C) to alter the amount of combat does not constitute multiple quest solutions.

Actually, yes, the possibility of choosing to alter the amount of combat does constitute different solutions. The key distinction is the actual variation between the different solutions in each case. But qualitatively speaking, there are distinct and separate solutions in both FO and DA. If you want to talk about the degrees of multiple quest solution implementation, then talk about that. Instead of speaking in absolutes.

Okay again going back to the hypothetical Diablo II example if you can skip a boss battle at the end or can choose a different set of enemies to fight does the quest have multiple solutions?

 

[kris]

"You can shoot him with the shotgun, rifle or the handgun, there is a lot of choices how to solve this quest".

"Your choice is weapon"?

Yes because a path to kill Hightower that involves no combat and requires the use of three different skills (sneak, lockpicking, and steal) versus storming the entire compound and killing all his guards in open combat is no different from choosing whether you want to kill him with a pistol or shotgun.

Good you had the retarded smilie there. You know that you can do this in almost every single mission in alpha protocol. The best RPG ever. You even can sedate them to be a nice guy. I wish fallout missions was the same.

 

[circ]

Exactly, you can do it in AP. You can spot the difference in approach with something like AP. Fallout, um no. But just like in Fallout, it doesn't matter. This is not a different approach to a quest, it's just being a pedantic little shit.

 

[Mangoose]

Okay again going back to the hypothetical Diablo II example if you can skip a boss battle at the end or can choose a different set of enemies to fight does the quest have multiple solutions?

You tell me. If you have a choice on who to fight, in other words, which set of enemies your skills can deal with easier, is that not an example of multiple solutions?

I like how you have to add in that it's Diablo II, as if that has any bearing on the argument. Trying to subliminally argue that there are no multiple solutions because it's a simple hack & slash game. It's not as if the lack of choice in Diablo II is for the unrelated reason that you're intended to take out every single enemy anyway in order to maximize loot and experience.