130 réponses à ce sujet

[Zebron is reaL]

I had this whole argument lined up for defending the use of Hawke and how this game will be great no matter what but then I thought better of it. There's no point in arguing with people over the very little information we have especially on the same day the game is announced.



This isn't an expansion to DAO, its a different game. Get over it.

[Krytheos]

Zebron is reaL wrote...

I had this whole argument lined up for defending the use of Hawke and how this game will be great no matter what but then I thought better of it. There's no point in arguing with people over the very little information we have especially on the same day the game is announced.

This isn't an expansion to DAO, its a different game. Get over it.

Agreed.

[Aratham Darksight]

Solidbebe wrote...

Why do people hate walking so much? People always want vehicles or they want no backtracking whatsoever. What does it matter? I love walking a free roaming game. Old rpg's like sacred and baldur's gate (forgive me if I'm wrong there, I haven't played baldur's gate) used to be full of backtracking or simply walking and I never heard people about it. So is it the old-rpg-loving community or is it the console-fps-I want action only-community, that doesn't want any walking.

Baldur's Gate frequently had "back doors" at the bottom of multi-level dungeons that allowed you to come straight to the surface. On surface maps, you only needed to reach the nearest transition point to access the world map and be able to instantaneously travel to any area you already visited.

I'm no big fan of backtracking through empty terrain and even less of a fan of arbitrarily respawning enemies in inappropriate places just to give players something to do on the way out. If an RPG offers a Town Portal equivalent spell, I make it a priority to get that ASAP.

[Solidbebe]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

Solidbebe wrote...

Why do people hate walking so much? People always want vehicles or they want no backtracking whatsoever. What does it matter? I love walking a free roaming game. Old rpg's like sacred and baldur's gate (forgive me if I'm wrong there, I haven't played baldur's gate) used to be full of backtracking or simply walking and I never heard people about it. So is it the old-rpg-loving community or is it the console-fps-I want action only-community, that doesn't want any walking.

Baldur's Gate frequently had "back doors" at the bottom of multi-level dungeons that allowed you to come straight to the surface. On surface maps, you only needed to reach the nearest transition point to access the world map and be able to instantaneously travel to any area you already visited.

I'm no big fan of backtracking through empty terrain and even less of a fan of arbitrarily respawning enemies in inappropriate places just to give players something to do on the way out. If an RPG offers a Town Portal equivalent spell, I make it a priority to get that ASAP.

Sacred also had some back doors and ofcourse I don't like going through the whole dungeon, defeating the boss and then going through the whole dungeon back again. But dragon age didn't do this at all. Only part where I actually backtracked in dragon age was in the deep roads, because there were some parts I still wanted to explore. But still people complain about backtracking. So I ask myself: Where in Dragon Age did you have to backtrack??

[Kalcalan]

Krytheos wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

Krytheos wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

I loved playing Elves and Dwarves so I'm a bit disappointed, variety is good (but that's not something a mod won't be able to fix as there will be non human NPCs).

Now regarding the "Hawke" thing that seems to me to be a major step in the direction of Mass Effect and I can't say that it is a move that I find appealling.

Last but not least, I know it's all about the hype but this is just bad:

"Think like a general and fight like a Spartan."

That is just ridiculous...

It isn't as ridiculous as it may sound. Fighting like a Spartan tends to be a *good* idea. You know why? They were some of the fiercest warriors this side of the planet; possibly even the best warriors known. The ferocity is known, and it can make for some very exciting battles. As well, thinking like a General; ever heard of Hannibal, or Scipio Africanus? Two of the smartest generals in history. 

I don't know about you, but that sounds fairly appealing to me, from the get-go. Kind of like that 5th Avenue Candy bar. Dangit, now I'm hungry. > <

You're completely idealizing 300... Don't believe that everything in 300 is true.

That whole Spartan line is just corny as hell:

This is madness? Madness? No, this is Ferelden! [loud cheering as Duncan kicks darspawn down the pit]

It doesn't make the hype any good nor does it make 300 a documentary on Ancient Greece.

What does it tell you? It states the fact that the audience Bioware have in mind for DA2 is the same audience that raved about 300.

Uh, no, I'm not. Where did I ever reference 300? Not even once did I reference that movie. SPARTANS were, and -are- historically, the fiercest warriors that were ever gotten out of that time period. Period. They bathed their children in red wine to harden their bodies, and yes, they -really- did throw newborn babies off of a cliff if they cried. I am not idealising 300, I am telling what is known to be a true fact.

During the Battle of Thermopaylae, 300 Spartans and 1000 Greeks stood to defend the Gates, unto the very last man. Everyone of those soldiers were hardened warriors, especially the Spartans. They may have lost, but it does not change the fact; SPARTANS are one of the fiercest warriors there ever was. Weakness was, more-or-less not allowed. When someone says 'SPARTAN' it says and means power, ferocity, strength. Most of all, it invokes emotion.

There is no 'idealistic views' in 300, nor will I cite it as a fact, or true. What I am speaking of is historical documents over the centuries of the Spartans. There is no 'idealism' in these documentaries, and not full truth, because you would have to have been there FOR the full truth, but there is no doubt left by many, that the Spartans are, realistically speaking, still some of the fiercest warriors. Perhaps they did not kick someone down a pit of death, or anything, but that doesn't matter. Whatm atters is truth, and the truth is just that; that the Spartans WERE  and still ARE regarded highly. 

If it tells you anything, they considered themselves to be the descendants of Heracles, and they based themselves around -his- image, whether real or not, and grew to become what they are. Do NOT think someone is idealising 300 just because they say spartans are fierce warriors. It is because they ARE. Not because of some 2007 movie.

Oh, and by the way; where is it that they mentioned they were going for the 300 vibe? By just saying Spartans? If that's your reasoning, then it's QUITE faulty.

And where does the Spartan thing come from if not from 300? From Halo? From Demolition Man? 

I seriously doubt that before that movie someone would have used a cheesy line like this to promote a game.

I won't convince you and that is not related to the game itself, it's just my opinion that it is a very corny way to promote a game. Even if what they had in mind wasn't 300 per se, the analogy is still there and anyone will be likely to think about that movie no matter what.

To me a Grey Warden is a much more interesting warrior and if I were to look at Ancient Greece I would rather think of Greek mythology and heroes like Achilles and his Myrmidons who in my opinion are better models than a bunch of Spartans who got butchered at the battle of Thermopylae. It was a defeat and the Persians won on all levels. The last stand of the Spartan warriors didn't prevent the conquest of Greece.

Alexander the Great's conquest is a better example of Greek tactical and strategic supremacy on the battlefield and his armies actually did defeat the Persians. Alexander's conquests also shaped the world, extending the reach of Hellenistic culture throughout the ancient world. Sparta's achievements pale in comparison.

As far as "great warriors" are concerned there are many elite warriors in different cultures and at different times who could be said to match such a reputation. The Persian Immortals were even more fearsome than the Spartans. So no, I don't buy the whole glorification that surrounds Sparta in popular culture (and 300) and I don't think that the phrase would have been used if the movie hadn't been made.

[WilliamShatner]

I'm not too fused with the lack of origin stories. For me it was like DA:O had two tutorial levels every time you played it - the origin and the wilds. But I am very disappointed with the lack of races. Sequels should add, not take away.

Modifié par WilliamShatner, 09 juillet 2010 - 12:29 .

[Johnny_Pathetic]

Wasn’t Dragon Age supposed to be a spiritual successor to the Baldur’s Gate games… as in: a series dealing with a single over-arching plot? Bioware can get away with forcing Commander Shepard on you because, whether you like it or not, all 3 Mass Effect games focus on his (or her) story. But how does that work with DA? Dragon Age: Origins was about the warden, and you guys are comfortable with losing that in Dragon Age 2? I bought Origins and Awakening; I bought all the DLC. I did it because I had always assumed that Dragon Age 2 would let me continue on that investment. If your warden is gone though, then all Dragon Age 2 represents is another story in Ferelden (or wherever). Maybe that’s fine for most of you. Personally, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Cypher0020]

ok... I'm going out on a limb and say its going to be a great game... there's been something in every Bioware game that fans have liked...



remember all the drama Mass Effect 2 took? I think it turned out pretty well

[Kalcalan]

WilliamShatner wrote...
Sequels should add, not take away.

My sentiment exactly.

I think the game will probably turn out ok but that is a direction that is better suited for a Fable lookalike than a true sequel to DAO.

I must say that I don't like ME2. I tried it once at a friend's and I wasn't convinced at all. If DA2 ends up being like ME2 (and that Hawke thing is definitely a clue) then I'm pretty sure I'll find other games worth my limited gaming time (DAO for instance).

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

I really do wonder about some people in this community sometimes.



"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!! I can't carry on my Wardens story"



Why do Bioware have to carry on YOUR wardens story? Why can't you? Are you seriously lacking in creativity?



Get over it already, Dragon Age franchise is looking more to be about the realm rather than the same person in every story.



Also with regards the 'sequels should add not take away' and saying beforehand that you aren't fussed about the Origins. Erm... what?



So you aren't bothered about having different backgrounds, but you are bothered about them removing the option for different races/sex?



So you basically want them to create a story in which people of different races/sex have the same background as one another? right? Yeah because, that makes perfect sense....



Anyone who whines about DA2 because of them basing it on 1 character with pre-defined race/sex should basically admit that they will stop playing RPGs because anyone that plays any other RPG other than DAO and a couple of others from this day forth that is whining about DA2 being based on 1 character that goes on to play future RPGs with similar scenario is proving just how much a hypocrite they really are.

[Mr-Ludluck]

Successful troll is successful; moving on...

[JoshieoPandar]

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

Sounds like we barely know anything yet, and all this complaining is ridiculous.

[Jadens]

I bet there will be no inventory and stats.

[FRZN]

It will probably cause cancer, sterility, and asthma too.  Epilepsy and ulcers are pretty much obvious.
Maybe it'll spawn a rash of infanticide.  That'd be pretty horrible too (you know, for a game).

Modifié par FRZN, 09 juillet 2010 - 12:11 .

[-Semper-]

Cypher0020 wrote...

remember all the drama Mass Effect 2 took? I think it turned out pretty well

...as a shooter. it was a shame for bioware to call that a rpg.

now we will see the same tragic repeated. they need more console players so they casualized the game. just look how they limited the letters within a sentence in da1 so that the consoleros don't have to read this much. they also lightened the core game rules so you won't die often at consoles.

now the leading platform will be the 360 - and to get buyers they have to focus on fights and a cinematic presentation.
oh, and btw to me in majority only at consoles they want to hear a voice for the main player character

[Lord_Saulot]

Where do people get all these ideas about "Dumbing down" or "Casualizing" the game?



Why do people think Bioware needs to sell out something to get mass appeal for Dragon Age?



Deal with it: Dragon Age already has mass appeal on computer and console alike. The "masses" you are so afraid of Bioware catering to are already there. It is you and your friends.

[joriandrake]

Kalcalan wrote...

Krytheos wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

Krytheos wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

I loved playing Elves and Dwarves so I'm a bit disappointed, variety is good (but that's not something a mod won't be able to fix as there will be non human NPCs).

Now regarding the "Hawke" thing that seems to me to be a major step in the direction of Mass Effect and I can't say that it is a move that I find appealling.

Last but not least, I know it's all about the hype but this is just bad:

"Think like a general and fight like a Spartan."

That is just ridiculous...

It isn't as ridiculous as it may sound. Fighting like a Spartan tends to be a *good* idea. You know why? They were some of the fiercest warriors this side of the planet; possibly even the best warriors known. The ferocity is known, and it can make for some very exciting battles. As well, thinking like a General; ever heard of Hannibal, or Scipio Africanus? Two of the smartest generals in history. 

I don't know about you, but that sounds fairly appealing to me, from the get-go. Kind of like that 5th Avenue Candy bar. Dangit, now I'm hungry. > <

You're completely idealizing 300... Don't believe that everything in 300 is true.

That whole Spartan line is just corny as hell:

This is madness? Madness? No, this is Ferelden! [loud cheering as Duncan kicks darspawn down the pit]

It doesn't make the hype any good nor does it make 300 a documentary on Ancient Greece.

What does it tell you? It states the fact that the audience Bioware have in mind for DA2 is the same audience that raved about 300.

Uh, no, I'm not. Where did I ever reference 300? Not even once did I reference that movie. SPARTANS were, and -are- historically, the fiercest warriors that were ever gotten out of that time period. Period. They bathed their children in red wine to harden their bodies, and yes, they -really- did throw newborn babies off of a cliff if they cried. I am not idealising 300, I am telling what is known to be a true fact.

During the Battle of Thermopaylae, 300 Spartans and 1000 Greeks stood to defend the Gates, unto the very last man. Everyone of those soldiers were hardened warriors, especially the Spartans. They may have lost, but it does not change the fact; SPARTANS are one of the fiercest warriors there ever was. Weakness was, more-or-less not allowed. When someone says 'SPARTAN' it says and means power, ferocity, strength. Most of all, it invokes emotion.

There is no 'idealistic views' in 300, nor will I cite it as a fact, or true. What I am speaking of is historical documents over the centuries of the Spartans. There is no 'idealism' in these documentaries, and not full truth, because you would have to have been there FOR the full truth, but there is no doubt left by many, that the Spartans are, realistically speaking, still some of the fiercest warriors. Perhaps they did not kick someone down a pit of death, or anything, but that doesn't matter. Whatm atters is truth, and the truth is just that; that the Spartans WERE  and still ARE regarded highly. 

If it tells you anything, they considered themselves to be the descendants of Heracles, and they based themselves around -his- image, whether real or not, and grew to become what they are. Do NOT think someone is idealising 300 just because they say spartans are fierce warriors. It is because they ARE. Not because of some 2007 movie.

Oh, and by the way; where is it that they mentioned they were going for the 300 vibe? By just saying Spartans? If that's your reasoning, then it's QUITE faulty.

And where does the Spartan thing come from if not from 300? From Halo? From Demolition Man? 

I seriously doubt that before that movie someone would have used a cheesy line like this to promote a game.

I won't convince you and that is not related to the game itself, it's just my opinion that it is a very corny way to promote a game. Even if what they had in mind wasn't 300 per se, the analogy is still there and anyone will be likely to think about that movie no matter what.

To me a Grey Warden is a much more interesting warrior and if I were to look at Ancient Greece I would rather think of Greek mythology and heroes like Achilles and his Myrmidons who in my opinion are better models than a bunch of Spartans who got butchered at the battle of Thermopylae. It was a defeat and the Persians won on all levels. The last stand of the Spartan warriors didn't prevent the conquest of Greece.

Alexander the Great's conquest is a better example of Greek tactical and strategic supremacy on the battlefield and his armies actually did defeat the Persians. Alexander's conquests also shaped the world, extending the reach of Hellenistic culture throughout the ancient world. Sparta's achievements pale in comparison.

As far as "great warriors" are concerned there are many elite warriors in different cultures and at different times who could be said to match such a reputation. The Persian Immortals were even more fearsome than the Spartans. So no, I don't buy the whole glorification that surrounds Sparta in popular culture (and 300) and I don't think that the phrase would have been used if the movie hadn't been made.

I myself didn't like 300, but was since being a kid a spartan fan, and that because I love history and strategy games, other than that I also doubt people with different interests would have even heard about spartans before 300 came out

[Carmen_Willow]

-Semper- wrote...

Cypher0020 wrote...

remember all the drama Mass Effect 2 took? I think it turned out pretty well

...as a shooter. it was a shame for bioware to call that a rpg.

now we will see the same tragic repeated. they need more console players so they casualized the game. just look how they limited the letters within a sentence in da1 so that the consoleros don't have to read this much. they also lightened the core game rules so you won't die often at consoles.

now the leading platform will be the 360 - and to get buyers they have to focus on fights and a cinematic presentation.
oh, and btw to me in majority only at consoles they want to hear a voice for the main player character

Excuse me, but I play on a console andI am just as upset as everyone else about the loss of the ability to play other races, other people with a unique back story.  And I have played DA:O on pc as well and prefer it on console because its physically more comfortable to play using the handset.  I get that we console players lose the ability to use mods, etc. but please don't assume that all console players are brainless airheads....it really irks me.  Of course, I'll get over it....but you made two rather large assumptions about console players, neither of which, in my case, were true.  (I don't give a darn about a voice for my main player, and I really wanted to be my own unique character and not be a Shepard clone.)

[Demx]

I demand a new Hitler meme.

[BlackyBlack]

There'll always be a vocal minority of RPG elitists that have nothing better to do than complain. Just look at ME2. However, the majority preferred ME2 over ME1 and BioWare does what the majority wants

[Ziggy]

BlackyBlack wrote...
There'll always be a vocal minority of RPG elitists that have nothing better to do than complain. Just look at ME2. However, the majority preferred ME2 over ME1 and BioWare does what the majority wants

And that makes me sad. There's already so much shooter type stuff out there. Who's going to satisfy my elitist rpg appetite if bioware doesn't? 

[-Semper-]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

Excuse me, but I play on a console andI am just as upset as everyone else about the loss of the ability to play other races, other people with a unique back story.

that aint the problem. you don't need customizable races or genders at all to create a decent crpg. look at planescape torment. a set character is definitely a plus if the story writing is strong

Carmen_Willow wrote...

And I have played DA:O on pc as well and prefer it on console because
its physically more comfortable to play using the handset.

then you will notice that the console version of da:o is already dumbed down to a casual style - that's a fact.

Carmen_Willow wrote...
that all console players are brainless airheads...

no, but the majority is very young and wants to get quickly satisfied. they want nonstop fun and gore and achievments and only a few sentences to read at best. nope, only a few words but barrels of blood.

Carmen_Willow wrote...
you made two rather large assumptions about console players, neither of
which, in my case, were true.

there are exceptions. the majority is exactly a i said

Lord_Saulot wrote...

Deal with it: Dragon Age already has mass appeal on computer
and console alike. The "masses" you are so afraid of Bioware catering
to are already there. It is you and your friends.

it was a complete success at pc. in comparison to other game's sale numbers at consoles it was not over the top. now they want to reach a far greater audience - this won't work if they make da2 more complex as it was "complex" to begin with. now if you read through the published facts you will notice similarities

Modifié par -Semper-, 09 juillet 2010 - 01:58 .

[BallaZs]

Its funny to see that many, many ppl were complaining about 'My PC doesnt have voice'

Now that every1 is whining about '*** I dont want voice to my character, he/she would lose his/her unqiue style'.

()

[Livemmo]

I think the problem here is that they introduced something really cool and now theyre taking it away. In my oppinion, Id gladly swap all those useless intro stories for a full voice over thats actually good.



Yeah I'd like to play as a Dwarf and or Elf but really it's not that big of a deal. As long as the game keeps it's combat system and doesnt turn into an FPS to make the halo kids happy Im good. 40+ hours mixed with good voice acting is cool.

[Carmen_Willow]

-Semper- wrote...

Carmen_Willow wrote...

And I have played DA:O on pc as well and prefer it on console because
its physically more comfortable to play using the handset.

then you will notice that the console version of da:o is already dumbed down to a casual style - that's a fact.

Because you lose the ability to fully control your party members (and sometimes even your own pc) on console.  That's a drawback that pc players don't deal with.  You have to get really good at setting tactics because you cannot micromanage the characters as well. It's a different playstyle, but I don't play the game for combat mechanics.  I play for the story and the characters, and I am not the only console player who does this.

I only ask that you cut us some slack here.  Not everyone can afford the quality pc it take to run a game llike DA:O.  Not everyone has the young wrists and hands to mouse and keyboard for hours at a time (especially when you have to do it at work first).