303 réponses à ce sujet

[Quintyss]

My fears: No toolset. Be forced to play a male character. Be forced to play a male character with a set personality that isn't mine. If I can play a woman, the character creation will have bad hair and horrid presets. Um... what else. Oh, I know! The story will have so many end game options, it will leave just as many loose ends and no closure... like in DA:O. 

[2late2die]

Well, one of my fears have been realized already - the removal of "origins". I was hoping they would expend on the idea in the sequel. I.e. the origins will not just be the "first level" but rather will affect and shape the plot throughout the entire game (more than a few dialogue choice and mission or two - this is not a slight against DA:O; for a new type of game mechanic that wasn't proven I think they did a great job).

I also really would've liked to see the ability to have a bigger party - I want to get back to the days of BG when you could be running around with a party of 6, or maybe even more. (the fellowship wasn't just the hobbits and Aragorn after all.) Unfortunately I'm afraid they're gonna go the ME route and have you pick only 2 more companions and might even take away direct control of them.

[joriandrake]

My fears quoted nicely together:

Kirika69 wrote...

That it becomes like ME2 in an attempt to mimic ME2's success.

Console style RPG.

Warheadz wrote...

My fear? That the new archdemon named EA will come and spread the blight of bad and hurried design on Dragon Age 2 because it wants to hoard more treasure and fast.

Marionetten wrote...

That it will be lead developed for consoles.

Consoles have ruined enough beauty as is.

Khayness wrote...

That it will be rushed and completely disregard it's prequel.

Noobius_Maximo wrote...

That it will be dumbed down. "Consolized" if you wanna call it that.

And that the PC version is not superior.

element eater wrote...

my worst fear is that the pc is isnt free to be as u choose but more a pre written character that simply makes a few choices as he plays the game. i suppose i just dont want a DA shepard although of all possibibilties i think this will certainly be the case

2late2die wrote...

Well, one of my fears have been
realized already - the removal of "origins". I was hoping they would
expend on the idea in the sequel. I.e. the origins will not just be the
"first level" but rather will affect and shape the plot throughout the
entire game (more than a few dialogue choice and mission or two - this
is not a slight against DA:O; for a new type of game mechanic that
wasn't proven I think they did a great job).
I also really would've
liked to see the ability to have a bigger party - I want to get back to
the days of BG when you could be running around with a party of 6, or
maybe even more. (the fellowship wasn't just the hobbits and Aragorn
after all.) Unfortunately I'm afraid they're gonna go the ME route and
have you pick only 2 more companions and might even take away direct
control of them.

Modifié par joriandrake, 09 juillet 2010 - 03:53 .

[2late2die]

tmacairjordan87 wrote...

There's virtually no chance of Bioware NOT disappointing most of their fanbase as long as the fans continue to hold an archaic 1990s view of what makes an rpg.

Bioware, ignore them and continue to push the rpg genre forward. If you listened to the fans all the time, the western rpg genre would be in as bad a shape as the japanese one is.

There's holding on to archaic concepts and then there's holding on to classic concepts.

Certain things, like rich character customization, deep skill/spell trees and epic stories, should always be a part of RPGs - past, present and future.

How are they pushing the genre forward by simplifying it and stripping away the things that make it what it is? ME2, while a great game, as an RPG is weak at best, and in no way moved the RPG genre forward. If anything, by "streamlining" certain elements, and dumbing it down they just brought it closer to the "modern warfare"s of the world - how is that good again?

I mean no seriously, how can anyone defend the decision to remove origins? Did you not enjoy the variety they offered? Did you not enjoy playing various races... I mean... and this has just occured to me... I think DA2 might be the first sequel in history to remove from the game the elements that played a major role in making it a success in the first place. It'd be like if MW3 removed the "epic" cinematic moments and over the top action, and replaced them with more realistic gun physics and gameply more akin to American Army (or whatever that game's called). Those elements themselves aren't bad as such, but they have no place in a MW game.

[Lucy Glitter]

Protagonist voice acting.

[Zebron is reaL]

Making anything canon



Stylized look(like SWTOR)

[tmacairjordan87]

2late2die wrote...

tmacairjordan87 wrote...

There's virtually no chance of Bioware NOT disappointing most of their fanbase as long as the fans continue to hold an archaic 1990s view of what makes an rpg.

Bioware, ignore them and continue to push the rpg genre forward. If you listened to the fans all the time, the western rpg genre would be in as bad a shape as the japanese one is.

There's holding on to archaic concepts and then there's holding on to classic concepts.

Certain things, like rich character customization, deep skill/spell trees and epic stories, should always be a part of RPGs - past, present and future.

How are they pushing the genre forward by simplifying it and stripping away the things that make it what it is? ME2, while a great game, as an RPG is weak at best, and in no way moved the RPG genre forward. If anything, by "streamlining" certain elements, and dumbing it down they just brought it closer to the "modern warfare"s of the world - how is that good again?

I mean no seriously, how can anyone defend the decision to remove origins? Did you not enjoy the variety they offered? Did you not enjoy playing various races... I mean... and this has just occured to me... I think DA2 might be the first sequel in history to remove from the game the elements that played a major role in making it a success in the first place. It'd be like if MW3 removed the "epic" cinematic moments and over the top action, and replaced them with more realistic gun physics and gameply more akin to American Army (or whatever that game's called). Those elements themselves aren't bad as such, but they have no place in a MW game.

as far as the origins part of 1, no it didn't really have any effect on me.  To me, they were just kind of shallow obstacles thrown in my way, and the game didn't "start" until you became a Grey Warden and after the battle.  Hell, the only reason I went and experienced all of them and not 1 or 2 was because they were achievements.

and yes I also agree that rpgs should have deep customization and ability trees and whatnot, but you can have all of that without having a garbage combat system.  There's no reason why you can't have a fully controlled action-rpg combat system without the customization of standard rpgs.  To me, it's an easy solution but developers seem to have the hardest time figuring it out.

[Pugnate]

According to this, our worst fears may be true:



http://www.giantbomb...ew-combat/2282/

[UndercoverDoctor]

Pugnate wrote...

All of this crap about action, and the fact that you can't choose a race is making me really nervous. That's just not Dragon Age...

How do you know what Dragon Age is or isn't? There has only been one game so far. You can't say what a entire franchise is based on one game.

[icykitty]

Just wish they keep the best of DAO: all those relationship drama and spicy parts of cos, those battles are epic too. Just worry DA2 will be like the Awakening that i cannot talk to the npcs, or fall in love with any of the companions

[Pugnate]

UndercoverDoctor wrote...

Pugnate wrote...

All of this crap about action, and the fact that you can't choose a race is making me really nervous. That's just not Dragon Age...

How do you know what Dragon Age is or isn't? There has only been one game so far. You can't say what a entire franchise is based on one game.

... don't be that guy dude.

Nearly 200 hours in two playthroughs is enough to define what a game is. Your argument is senseless.

[UndercoverDoctor]

Pugnate wrote...

UndercoverDoctor wrote...

Pugnate wrote...

All of this crap about action, and the fact that you can't choose a race is making me really nervous. That's just not Dragon Age...

How do you know what Dragon Age is or isn't? There has only been one game so far. You can't say what a entire franchise is based on one game.

... don't be that guy dude.

Nearly 200 hours in two playthroughs is enough to define what a game is. Your argument is senseless.

Senseless? My arugment makes perfect sense. BioWare can do whatever they want with the Dragon Age franchise. I never exspected origins to be a center piece in the Dragon Age franchise. Dragon Age: Orgins had origins in the title because that was a key gameplay element in that game.

[Northern Sun]

My greatest fear is that IF the Old God Baby appears, it will be this inherently evil villian that we have to put down. Having the OGB would canonize the DR(which I don't have a problem with, since I always do it) but more importantly it would mean that the legacy of every warden from DA is "Well, he/she stopped the Blight, but created a monster that did more damage than the Archdemon did."

Of course, we'll be able to speculate more about things like this once we know who/what we're actually fighting.

[filetemo]

my fear is they make it an action rpg so you have to click the mouse to slash with the sword.

[Pugnate]

UndercoverDoctor wrote...

Pugnate wrote...

UndercoverDoctor wrote...

Pugnate wrote...

All of this crap about action, and the fact that you can't choose a race is making me really nervous. That's just not Dragon Age...

How do you know what Dragon Age is or isn't? There has only been one game so far. You can't say what a entire franchise is based on one game.

... don't be that guy dude.

Nearly 200 hours in two playthroughs is enough to define what a game is. Your argument is senseless.

Senseless? My arugment makes perfect sense. BioWare can do whatever they want with the Dragon Age franchise. I never exspected origins to be a center piece in the Dragon Age franchise. Dragon Age: Orgins had origins in the title because that was a key gameplay element in that game.

No, no it doesn't make sense.

[Rhjh20]

It being realy liniar cos of this 10 year time span.

[Atranox]

Two fears, actually.  I have a strong fear that they will be taking Dragon Age 2 in an entirely new route, disregarding DAO in the process.  While there is no doubt that a time will come with the DA series that a new cast of characters will be needed in order to prevent the game from becoming stagnant and stale, I don't feel that our Warden's role in the world should be ended quite yet.

In regards the my first point, one of the major selling points of the game is the story, the dialogue, and the characters.  I believe that a previous Bioware poll showed that roughly 65% of 12K votes agreed that the dialogue and characters was the best part of DAO.  However, the Awakening, Leliana's Song, and other various sources seem to be indicating that DA2 is taking a new path towards characters development and dialogue.  While this form may work well, it may not work well in a game that is intended to be the second installment in a series.  It works in Mass Effect 2.  Why?  Because that's how Mass Effect 1 was.  That's how the series was build.  Dragon Age was not built this way to begin with; and people grew to know and love the current system, which flat out works well.  Why change something that doesn't need changed?  I'm fairly certain that an exceptionally large majority of DAO players would be quite content with using the same or a very similar system.  Dragon Age 2 doesn't need to and shouldn't get away from the core fundamentals of DAO.  We don't need a new dialogue system, a new combat system, a hero voiceover, etc.  DAO work flawlessly as-is.  Sure, update, modify, or even renovate things...but don't CHANGE them.

Secondly, is reagrding the story in DAO.  Yes, the Warden's time needs to come to an end.  Yes, the likes of Alistair, Leliana, Morrigan, Sten, etc will all need to fade away sometime soon.  Yes, DA will need to move to new lands, with a new evolving storyline, etc.  That time should not be now.  We should work our way into it gradually.  If it was intended for our Warden to fade into nothingness, then there should not be plot holes, open-ended epilogue, and dialogue that leads us to believe that there is more to come from these characters.  Yes, a minority of the ending wrap things up nicely.  For the majority of us, our epilogue left much to be desired.  What happened to Morrigan and the child?  What happens to our Warden and his or her potential romance?  Where does Alistair go?  Does Sten fulfil his promise to return to the Warden?  Is Denerim rebuilt?  And so on and so forth.  Such questions should be answered and would fit a new storyline quite nicely.  Hopefully they aren't left to a simple 2-3 hour DLC.  Hopefully we have much to see still from our Warden & old companions in future installements.  Yes, we know about their pasts already - but there's no reason as to why their futures can't be just as interesting.  Surely these 9 people that saved the world don't just fade away, never to be seen again.

/walloftext (bored at work)

Modifié par Atranox, 09 juillet 2010 - 04:06 .

[GodWood]

~ Having a canonized story.

~ PC Voice over.

~ Simplified combat.

~ Becomes an Action RPG.

[Melra]

GodWood wrote...

~ Having a canonized story.
~ PC Voice over.
~ Simplified combat.
~ Becomes an Action RPG.

Have all except the one at top and the game will be fantastic. 

[Rubbish Hero]

Mass Effect.

[Ulathar]

(didn't read the entire thread)



I don't know if I have a "worst" fear, but I'm afraid that Dragon Age gets MassEffected.

I loved that the PC didn't have a voice in the dialogues in DA, so a Shepard-like VO, I wouldn't like. No VO just gives me a better way to feel like being the character which is the point of an RPG, unless I'm mistaken.....

I also hope they don't dumb DA down, especially in combat.



I want it to be an RPG, not some action game with a few lines of dialog. I know we don't know much about the game yet, but still, that's what I'm afraid of and since ME2 and DA:A, I think it's not that farfetched.

[Gatt9]

tmacairjordan87 wrote...

There's virtually no chance of Bioware NOT disappointing most of their fanbase as long as the fans continue to hold an archaic 1990s view of what makes an rpg.

Bioware, ignore them and continue to push the rpg genre forward. If you listened to the fans all the time, the western rpg genre would be in as bad a shape as the japanese one is.

Here's your major problem.

An RPG is a simulation of a P&P RPG,  because that's what an RPG is.  Just like video monopoly is a simulation of the board game,  and plays by the same rules.

So you can't have an "Archaic" view of what makes an RPG,  what makes an RPG is what makes a P&P RPG. 

Making every game a shooter,  with the illusion of levels and experience,  doesn't make it an RPG.  It makes it a shooter. 

Because the entire foundation of RPG is based on one key concept.  Player Skill vs Character Skill.  Player skill is irrelevant,  my personal ability to aim is not a factor in an RPG,  it is a factor in a shooter.  I am taking on a Role,  and as such,  my Role's ability to hit is what matters,  not mine. 

The concept is best illustrated by the movie Avatar.  The hero did not take on the skills of the blue man he piloted,  it retained his skills,  modified only by the body's attributes.  His blue man could not shoot a bow,  because the hero could not shoot a bow.  His blue man could shoot a gun,  because he could.  His blue man knew where to hit the camera on the tree-cutter,  because he did.

If he had assumed the role,  then he would not have been able to shoot a gun,  because his blue man could not.  He would've been able to shoot a bow,  because the Blue Men could.  Etc.

An RPG is a Role,  not an Avatar.  A shooter is an Avatar,  not a Role.

So claiming that making every game a shooter is not "advancing the genre!",  it's not even participating in the genre.  It's just slapping the acronym on the box so you can pretend you're a Roleplayer even though you're not.

[snfonseka]

Atranox wrote...

My fear is that they'll try to change it too much. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it. The formula in DAO worked very, very well. All that DA2 needs is a new storyline, some new/refreshing elements, and a strong cast of characters.

Thumbs up!!!

[Curunar]

So they just announced the game with very few details and people are going off the walls with fears. We know next to nothing about the game...chill. Bioware has always been reliable in the past. I'll admit I would be disappointed if DA went the way of ME. Don't get me wrong: I loved both ME and ME2 and have put hours and hours into each. I do however, enjoy some old school RPG action in the vein of a tradition D&D game. I'm willing though, to put some trust into Bioware though until I HEAR MORE ABOUT IT.

[snfonseka]

Melrache wrote...

GodWood wrote...

~ Having a canonized story.
~ PC Voice over.
~ Simplified combat.
~ Becomes an Action RPG.

Have all except the one at top and the game will be fantastic. 

Right !!!! Then another ME like game, Great !!!