337 réponses à ce sujet

[Hayllee]

Alright, now that I've played Awakening I can give proper feedback. The answer to the question is yes, but I would buy it out of loyalty to the game, not because I would enjoy it. I think Bioware knows that no matter how they make the game, we will complain and then buy it (which is not a bad thing, I guess)

But, anyway, I never thought about Aurelet's suggestion, which sounds better then one or the other. I liked how my character could participate outside- for instance looking at the board in Amaranthine and talking to Oghren about his... rash. But I also think that I should be able to ask party members about things when the day is over. Now it's more like "Hey, Nathaniel, here's a sextant, can you talk to me about how you feel about your father?"

EDIT: On a side note, this is the second time today I've started a new page.

Modifié par Hayllee, 02 juillet 2010 - 02:04 .

[Hollingdale]

Oxtail Soup wrote...

My two pence worth..

If they have a word budget; I'd prefer there to be just two party members with the depth of DA:O, than six of the painfully 2D characters in Awakening.

I've spent the last three days trying to play Awakening, then getting bored and replaying Origins for this very reason.

I'd be happy with one rogue, one mage, one warrior and a dog if it meant I actually got attached to them.

Actually it's the characters in DA:O that are shallow. They are completely locked in their own philosophies and very predictable (except perhaps Alistair).

The characters you meet in Awakenings are actually a lot more like normal human beings and thus naturaly also deeper than their Origins counterparts.

[Oxtail Soup]

Hollingdale wrote...

Oxtail Soup wrote...

My two pence worth..

If they have a word budget; I'd prefer there to be just two party members with the depth of DA:O, than six of the painfully 2D characters in Awakening.

I've spent the last three days trying to play Awakening, then getting bored and replaying Origins for this very reason.

I'd be happy with one rogue, one mage, one warrior and a dog if it meant I actually got attached to them.

Actually it's the characters in DA:O that are shallow. They are completely locked in their own philosophies and very predictable (except perhaps Alistair).

The characters you meet in Awakenings are actually a lot more like normal human beings and thus naturaly also deeper than their Origins counterparts.

Hm, I'm not convinced.

People can be locked in philosophies, but can still be unpredictable - eg. Morrigan's ritual plot was a nice twist. 

The big advantage of DA:O was that a PC can talk to his team at any stage and go to cut scene for it, it felt less like a 'game' and more like you were actually engaging them. The awakenings system seems like you are just clicking on a sprite. 

[Hollingdale]

Oxtail Soup wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

Oxtail Soup wrote...

My two pence worth..

If they have a word budget; I'd prefer there to be just two party members with the depth of DA:O, than six of the painfully 2D characters in Awakening.

I've spent the last three days trying to play Awakening, then getting bored and replaying Origins for this very reason.

I'd be happy with one rogue, one mage, one warrior and a dog if it meant I actually got attached to them.

Actually it's the characters in DA:O that are shallow. They are completely locked in their own philosophies and very predictable (except perhaps Alistair).

The characters you meet in Awakenings are actually a lot more like normal human beings and thus naturaly also deeper than their Origins counterparts.

Hm, I'm not convinced.

People can be locked in philosophies, but can still be unpredictable - eg. Morrigan's ritual plot was a nice twist. 

The big advantage of DA:O was that a PC can talk to his team at any stage and go to cut scene for it, it felt less like a 'game' and more like you were actually engaging them. The awakenings system seems like you are just clicking on a sprite. 

Indeed, but the statement I was refuting was that; the cast of Awakenings is shallow (regardless of wordbudget) in comparisation to that of Origins which is simply not true, I would even argue as to the contrary. Although naturally you may feel more in touch with the cast of Origins since there is so much more dialogue with them that doesn't make it superior in essence to that of Awakenings.

[Suron]

I'm definately going to be more cautious about it then I was when buying Abortion..I mean Awakening...there was a time BioWare could do no wrong to me....



those days are ****ING over...they've butchered **** too much...between the abortion the expansion was..to the tripe and ripoff feastday pranks..to the idiotic Darkspawn Chronicles...the dumbing down of Mass Effect 2...taking what made the first so successful and turning it into a choose-your-own adventure third-person shooter.



If BioWare let's EA make them even more money-hungry and they dumb down DA:O2 and give it some half-ass convo system (it was bad enough the problems in DA:O were there after SO ****ING LONG of a dev time..like the ****ty weapon scaling, mediocre skills, etc)..there's no way in ****ing hell I'll buy the sequel.



but the ****ed up thing is..it won't matter...too many drones will purchase it cause of name alone..while Bio sits back counting their cash and having circle-jerks

[Hollingdale]

Mass Effect 2 isnt dumbed down its got deeper more tactical combat than Mass Effect 1. Dumbing down is just a word that dogmatic wrpg-players use for games that deviate from the traditional wrpg-formula. It's kind of a narrowsighted thing to do actually.

What you call commerciality I call innovation.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 02 juillet 2010 - 10:25 .

[Suron]

Hollingdale wrote...

Mass Effect 2 isnt dumbed down its got deeper more tactical combat than Mass Effect 1. Dumbing down is just a word that dogmatic wrpg-players use for games that deviate from the traditional wrpg-formula. It's kind of a narrowsighted thing to do actually.

What you call commerciality I call innovation.

hurray for you.  the rpg aspects were in fact dumbed down.  you say it's streamlined.  and yer right..for a choose-your-own adventure third person shooter..which is what it was dumbed down too.  dumbed down character customization.  dumbed down loot system.  you can call that streamlining if you want.  doesn't change the fact that it's a watered down "rpg".  And let's not even get into the no-changing of outfits and the ****-outfit miranda has.  Oh no..it's not dumbed down or comercialized at all nope....not..at...all. <_<

but that's not what this thread is about and past what I just posted I will not bother arguing this with the ADD boom-headshot crowd.  so why don't you stay on topic, or does your ADD go that far also

Modifié par Suron, 02 juillet 2010 - 11:11 .

[Chuvvy]

Axekix wrote...

It would be a tough sell I think. I'd still be curious to see what it's about, but I'm definitely not a fan of the Awakening dialogue model.

[ArseBot]

Hollingdale wrote...

Mass Effect 2 isnt dumbed down its got deeper more tactical combat than Mass Effect 1. Dumbing down is just a word that dogmatic wrpg-players use for games that deviate from the traditional wrpg-formula. It's kind of a narrowsighted thing to do actually.

What you call commerciality I call innovation.

Sounds more like a re-tooling to me; trying to appeal to a difference audience.  I don't know if I would use "dumb-down" but it sounds like they provided less of some sort of options. Which I think the other poster was upset about. No?  Are you sure they are being dogmatic? Or simply disappointed with game? I mean if there was a third game that had less emphasis on tactical combat would you not be disappointed?   

[Suron]

ArseBot wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

Mass Effect 2 isnt dumbed down its got deeper more tactical combat than Mass Effect 1. Dumbing down is just a word that dogmatic wrpg-players use for games that deviate from the traditional wrpg-formula. It's kind of a narrowsighted thing to do actually.

What you call commerciality I call innovation.

Sounds more like a re-tooling to me; trying to appeal to a difference audience.  I don't know if I would use "dumb-down" but it sounds like they provided less of some sort of options. Which I think the other poster was upset about. No?  Are you sure they are being dogmatic? Or simply disappointed with game? I mean if there was a third game that had less emphasis on tactical combat would you not be disappointed?   

Mass Effect -was- an RPG/shooter hybrid.  It had a lot of RPG elements..inventory...stats..level up skills..."dice-rolls" to hit...etc...everything that defines an RPG...YES there was a lot of clunkiness to it..a lot of things that needed to be better organized and "streamlined".

However what this guy is talking about was in fact -NOT- streamlining...instead of altering to get rid of needless things and EXPANDING on it with better GUI, better organization, etc...they CUT IT OUT...NO INVENTORY...bare-boned leveling and skill selection..and they got rid of the "dice-rolls" to hit in favor of turning it into Gears of War: A Mass Effect Tale.

Cutting out and making what WAS left bare-bones is -NOT- streamlining..it's dumbing it down..making it simpler...less complex....etc...DUMBING...DOWN.

to cater to the Gears of War/Halo Boom Headshot crowd.

which obviously paid off for them.  And I do still enjoy playing the game (though I've only finished it 4 times...whereas ME1 I've played literally 20..but can't bring myself to want to play ME2 more)...so I'm NOT saying it's a bad game...however..it is..in FACT..dumbed down..to the console shooter boom-headshot kids.

Cutting things out entirely is NOT streamlining..as I said..but keep telling yourself that.

and yes I said I wasn't going to debate it anymore but this post I quoted made me feel like I had to expand on my origin post about it to get the point across to the simple (which doesn't include the quoted member)

[ArseBot]

Suron wrote...

ArseBot wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

Mass Effect 2 isnt dumbed down its got deeper more tactical combat than Mass Effect 1. Dumbing down is just a word that dogmatic wrpg-players use for games that deviate from the traditional wrpg-formula. It's kind of a narrowsighted thing to do actually.

What you call commerciality I call innovation.

Sounds more like a re-tooling to me; trying to appeal to a difference audience.  I don't know if I would use "dumb-down" but it sounds like they provided less of some sort of options. Which I think the other poster was upset about. No?  Are you sure they are being dogmatic? Or simply disappointed with game? I mean if there was a third game that had less emphasis on tactical combat would you not be disappointed?   

Mass Effect -was- an RPG/shooter hybrid.  It had a lot of RPG elements..inventory...stats..level up skills..."dice-rolls" to hit...etc...everything that defines an RPG...YES there was a lot of clunkiness to it..a lot of things that needed to be better organized and "streamlined".

However what this guy is talking about was in fact -NOT- streamlining...instead of altering to get rid of needless things and EXPANDING on it with better GUI, better organization, etc...they CUT IT OUT...NO INVENTORY...bare-boned leveling and skill selection..and they got rid of the "dice-rolls" to hit in favor of turning it into Gears of War: A Mass Effect Tale.

Cutting out and making what WAS left bare-bones is -NOT- streamlining..it's dumbing it down..making it simpler...less complex....etc...DUMBING...DOWN.

to cater to the Gears of War/Halo Boom Headshot crowd.

which obviously paid off for them.  And I do still enjoy playing the game (though I've only finished it 4 times...whereas ME1 I've played literally 20..but can't bring myself to want to play ME2 more)...so I'm NOT saying it's a bad game...however..it is..in FACT..dumbed down..to the console shooter boom-headshot kids.

Cutting things out entirely is NOT streamlining..as I said..but keep telling yourself that.

and yes I said I wasn't going to debate it anymore but this post I quoted made me feel like I had to expand on my origin post about it to get the point across to the simple (which doesn't include the quoted member)

Yikes! I didn't mean to irritate.  I think the dumb-down/streamline issue might not be an issue.  I'm sure there are cases where stream lining means taking features/functionality out.  I'm not trying to say I disagree with what your saying but it might seem like that. The way you describe dumbing down as removing features and or functionality. Both seem to me to suggest a simplification of something (in this case a game.) As far as I can see, the difference between dumbing down and stream lining reflects the speaker's feelings about the change.

How does this sound? I'm trying to see what the disagreement is about because these types of things interest me. 

@Suron,  I understand your disappointment, if I was expecting a game to be in a particular tradition only to find out that its part of another I would be upset. I might still like the game but I wouldn't be to happy about that change.  

If any of this bothers a reader please let me know. At this point I'm interested in discussing the difference between dumbing down and stream lining. 

[Hollingdale]

The thing is people completely ignore the fact that the actual combat plays out a lot better in ME1 because they are so busy whining at the fact that certain relatively unimportant typical WRPG elements were cut out. But it's probably not even worth attempting to discuss it on theese boards people just go bat****crazy as we've just seen.

[Suron]

ArseBot wrote...

Suron wrote...

ArseBot wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

Mass Effect 2 isnt dumbed down its got deeper more tactical combat than Mass Effect 1. Dumbing down is just a word that dogmatic wrpg-players use for games that deviate from the traditional wrpg-formula. It's kind of a narrowsighted thing to do actually.

What you call commerciality I call innovation.

Sounds more like a re-tooling to me; trying to appeal to a difference audience.  I don't know if I would use "dumb-down" but it sounds like they provided less of some sort of options. Which I think the other poster was upset about. No?  Are you sure they are being dogmatic? Or simply disappointed with game? I mean if there was a third game that had less emphasis on tactical combat would you not be disappointed?   

Mass Effect -was- an RPG/shooter hybrid.  It had a lot of RPG elements..inventory...stats..level up skills..."dice-rolls" to hit...etc...everything that defines an RPG...YES there was a lot of clunkiness to it..a lot of things that needed to be better organized and "streamlined".

However what this guy is talking about was in fact -NOT- streamlining...instead of altering to get rid of needless things and EXPANDING on it with better GUI, better organization, etc...they CUT IT OUT...NO INVENTORY...bare-boned leveling and skill selection..and they got rid of the "dice-rolls" to hit in favor of turning it into Gears of War: A Mass Effect Tale.

Cutting out and making what WAS left bare-bones is -NOT- streamlining..it's dumbing it down..making it simpler...less complex....etc...DUMBING...DOWN.

to cater to the Gears of War/Halo Boom Headshot crowd.

which obviously paid off for them.  And I do still enjoy playing the game (though I've only finished it 4 times...whereas ME1 I've played literally 20..but can't bring myself to want to play ME2 more)...so I'm NOT saying it's a bad game...however..it is..in FACT..dumbed down..to the console shooter boom-headshot kids.

Cutting things out entirely is NOT streamlining..as I said..but keep telling yourself that.

and yes I said I wasn't going to debate it anymore but this post I quoted made me feel like I had to expand on my origin post about it to get the point across to the simple (which doesn't include the quoted member)

Yikes! I didn't mean to irritate.  I think the dumb-down/streamline issue might not be an issue.  I'm sure there are cases where stream lining means taking features/functionality out.  I'm not trying to say I disagree with what your saying but it might seem like that. The way you describe dumbing down as removing features and or functionality. Both seem to me to suggest a simplification of something (in this case a game.) As far as I can see, the difference between dumbing down and stream lining reflects the speaker's feelings about the change.

How does this sound? I'm trying to see what the disagreement is about because these types of things interest me. 

@Suron,  I understand your disappointment, if I was expecting a game to be in a particular tradition only to find out that its part of another I would be upset. I might still like the game but I wouldn't be to happy about that change.  

If any of this bothers a reader please let me know. At this point I'm interested in discussing the difference between dumbing down and stream lining. 

didn't mean it with any animosity towards you...was just expanding on my point for the person I originally quoted.  Sorry if it came across otherwise.

and Hollin...lmao...relatively unimportant wrpg elements huh? you mean like almost everything that defines an RPG..instead of fixing what was wrong and expanding on it..they watered it down (which is the same thing as dumbing it down)...got rid of inventory..gave barely a handful of skills..etc....that is -not- streamlining...that's dumbing it down..and totally changing the games focus to the point the only thing making it resemble an RPG is dialogue.  Yes the combat is much better then ME1....but did they have to sacrifice almost ALL RPG elements to bring us that combat? And I love how someone with no argument resorts to only accusations of whining and whatnot because they can't produce ANY facts against what's being said..everything I'm pointing out are facts on the changes....which cannot be disputed...everything RPG in the game is watered-down (dumbed down).  So continue to debate if you must as I'm not wasting my breath anymore..I already responded one too many times with counter-points.  Besides this isn't the forum for that debate anyway.

[spikey84]

yeah i buy it dragon age is the best game of 2009 and they still keep us entertanted with lots of new dlc hopefully they should keep us entertanted with dragon age 2 i hope the choices we make effect the game like they did with mass effect 2

[thenemesis77]

I hope that they would keep it like in DAO but here we go again, EA putting the screws to Bioware and having hollow and emty, characters and story at the cost of pushing Bioware to put a game out way too soon and in the end you do what EA has done many times and that is take good companys and games and make them back of the bus.

[SnakeHelah]

I'd buy it only from the Loyalty to bioware and DA. I am not a fan of the awakening dialogue system, First time I played it I got lost and all, and didn't do half the companion quests

[ozaniel]

I prefer the old system but it's not a big deal to not to buy Dragon Age:2 .

[DadeLeviathan]

If the game was as in depth and good as Dragon Age, then I would buy it. But if it was the same quality as awakening, I wouldn't buy it.

[Teddie Sage]

Not really. I prefered Dragon Age Origins' dialogues system better. It gave you more freedom and more things to do without running here and there on the maps, only to unlock conversations by clicking on objects. Though, while entering the HQs, I like it when characters come and talk to my character. It's more inviting, more interactive that way.

[Hollingdale]

Suron: Yeah that's like your opinion man and it's stupid. For you guys anything that deviates from the typical WRPG genre is automatically bad. As if though WRPG were the final answer to what perfect games should be. You might not have liked ME2 for some reason but I think you are bull****ting yourself if you claim it is because it's ''supposedly watered down'', either that or you are truly proposing the kind of conservatism and standardised genrebound games that allow for no innovations whatsoever and which if it had been ideologicaly dominant earlier on, say, in the eighties, would've meant that games today were still the same as back then albeit with better graphics or if you go back even further there would've been no games at all.



A poor attitude in short.

[Janni-in-VA]

Avoiding the whole Mass Effect debate (which should really be over in the ME forums, right?) and given that I've now played Awakening through a couple of times, I finally feel I can offer a comment. There were times in DA:O where I wanted to hear what a given character's opinion was on a given matter, but I couldn't find out. There were times in Awakening where I just wanted to have a nice little chat with a character, but couldn't do that either. I think what I would like is a combination of the two systems. I'd like to see the Awakening system used out in the world with the addition of a conversation feature for the party base similar to DA:O's system. Such a combination would be the ideal compromise for me.

[Querne]

No, I would not.
Finished Awakening for the first time some minutes and was absolutely horrified how this system deadens actually interesting characters.
And noone will be able to explain to me reasonable why I have to talk to a barrel when Oghren stands two steps besides.
The calm camp and looking forward if somebody has something new to tell me was one of the aspects I enjoyed most in DA:O. Still getting nostalgic when I hear the camp music.

Finally I could live with a mix of both, but please no more stupid oneliners if I talk to my friends.

[Suron]

Hollingdale wrote...

Suron: Yeah that's like your opinion man and it's stupid. For you guys anything that deviates from the typical WRPG genre is automatically bad. As if though WRPG were the final answer to what perfect games should be. You might not have liked ME2 for some reason but I think you are bull****ting yourself if you claim it is because it's ''supposedly watered down'', either that or you are truly proposing the kind of conservatism and standardised genrebound games that allow for no innovations whatsoever and which if it had been ideologicaly dominant earlier on, say, in the eighties, would've meant that games today were still the same as back then albeit with better graphics or if you go back even further there would've been no games at all.

A poor attitude in short.

you dont' get it do ya.  this isn't the place for it.  stop derailing the thread.  I said I wasn't going to waste my breath arguing with the ADD crowd.  now get lost. (and no I didn't bother reading this, just saw it was directed to me and know the drivel you're spewing)

not only that but you still can't give concrete things to counter my claims..all you can do is insult...which makes your "defense" of Mass Gears Effect War 2 even more hilarious.

[Teddie Sage]

I just finished Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening after 14 hours or so of playing. I'm going to say this wasn't what I expected. The expansion felt too short and I wanted more of it. I think they should had kept the characters and their backgrounds for the original Dragon Age Origins with more options to date Velanna, Sigrun, Anders and Nathaniel, while still killing the Mother and/or the Architech. The whole Awakening experiance was dreadful to me, although I liked the new characters and the new abilities. Bioware should expand their original game instead, giving it more sidequests and companions options, while we'll be waiting for Dragon Age 2, but I guess I'm asking too much.