1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

I loved DAO to bits, but it's hard to me to get excited about DA2 and not think they've dumbed things down when it not only sounds like they have, but when the same thing happened with ME2: the advertising and promotion began, fans worried about it getting dumbed-down and mainstreamed, devs assured fans it was still a strong RPG, and then the game came out and it wasn't; it really was dumbed-down for the masses and shallow as hell. ME2 was the first real disappointment for me from BioWare (if you exclude the Pinnacle Station DLC for the original game) and from the sounds of it BioWare are going down the same route with DA2. Sure... the devs can say all they want that "it isn't like that" but I hope they'll forgive me if I remain sceptical about this given what I went through with ME2.



Now, I'm not writing off the game entirely yet... I could be wrong. I had some concerns about DAO after all, especially with the horrible advertising (great game, but I still maintain that the marketing for it was abysmal). Still... I've got more negative feelings given what I've read than positive ones. I wouldn't feel so bad if this game was more of a spin-off using the Dragon Age IP as a basis, much like the upcoming Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood game which isn't part of the main series, but this game just seems far too limited and cut-back to seem like a true sequel to me. To me a proper sequel should have everything the first game has and more, and not a slimmed-down game with half as much content and choices. I dunno though... we'll see.



The title seems a bit odd too, given the first one. I was expecting another "Dragon Age: *something*" rather than just having a 2 (or II) slapped onto it.

[Jimmy Fury]

Terror_K wrote...
The title seems a bit odd too, given the first one. I was expecting another "Dragon Age: *something*" rather than just having a 2 (or II) slapped onto it.

That could still change. Origins was originally just called "Dragon Age" and the Origins part was added on later.
Heck maybe people wouldn't be freaking out so much if they just changed the name...

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 16 juillet 2010 - 02:36 .

[Roland Aseph]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Now tell me quality wont go down with this sort of mentality when trying to appeal to this kind of audience.
You might even be able to find one, two or even a few examples, but it would be the exception, rather then the rule as the examples you bring would be outnumbered by scores of others showing my point.

So... you think that marketing games to a segment of the audience that wants "new and shiny" quality will decrease? Wouldn't it logically increase since quality is what makes something shiny? Again, check out the screenshot thread, people are breathing fire over the fact that the DA2 screenshots don't look like Witcher 2. They're furious and preaching doom because of a perceived lack of quality.
So again, it comes down to your definition of "quality game" for some that's graphics, for some that's control, for some that's combat, I'm in the "quality=good story" camp myself.'
But then I know my opinion is not universal.

You're missing the point of what people are saying and concerned about.

We don't want The Witcher graphics....what we want is a game that has "as good or better" lvl of graphics and detail as what we've "already" experienced in DAO & the DLC.

The quality IS quite visibly not up to par with what we already have. Now is that a result of them releasing unfinished and unpolished screenshots? Possibly. But if it is I think it was a mistake to get people all concerned with what very well looks to many as a step back in quality.

I'm not debating the "story" issues for the simple reason that I've enjoyed and trusted Bioware over the years and they haven't let me down in that department.

The only reason I'm now questioning the "graphic style" is because of the sub-par pictures they've released.

If they look good to you then fine, I'm  glad you're happy. But they most certainly don't look good to me and apparently quite a few other here and on various other sites and forums I've been browsing.

With the little info that has been given and the answers and examples that have been shared...there is cause for fans to be questioning and trying to understand "more fully" what exactly the game has in store for us. 

A teaser is fine, as long as the teaser is an example of what's in store and not some unfinished product that looks worse than the original game.

Modifié par Roland Aseph, 16 juillet 2010 - 02:47 .

[Tamar Northenstar]

After reading snippets on gamebanshee (ie. There are no less than a dozen comparisons to Mass Effect throughout the article by the author, executive director Mark Darrah, and lead designer Mike Laidlaw) and (Our new companions will never have issue with our decisions to the point that they'll leave the party or retaliate beyond a complaint or two) I am not loving the new direction.



I am distressed to see this awesome franchise heading towards the one size fits all approach of Mass Effect. I played both and while enjoying Mass Effect one and two, they didn't come close to the enjoyment I personally felt while playing Dragon Age. The NPC's in Dragon Age were leaps and bounds better than the ones in Mass Effect, with their own stories and interjections.



Hopefully, when the full article is released and we can buy a copy it will calm fears.

[2papercuts]

Tamar Northenstar wrote...

After reading snippets on gamebanshee (ie. There are no less than a dozen comparisons to Mass Effect throughout the article by the author, executive director Mark Darrah, and lead designer Mike Laidlaw) and (Our new companions will never have issue with our decisions to the point that they'll leave the party or retaliate beyond a complaint or two) I am not loving the new direction.

I am distressed to see this awesome franchise heading towards the one size fits all approach of Mass Effect. I played both and while enjoying Mass Effect one and two, they didn't come close to the enjoyment I personally felt while playing Dragon Age. The NPC's in Dragon Age were leaps and bounds better than the ones in Mass Effect, with their own stories and interjections.

Hopefully, when the full article is released and we can buy a copy it will calm fears.

really, they wont leave no matter what we do?
will we have to gain their loyalty also before going on a mission where were probably going to die?

[Mary Kirby]

Tamar Northenstar wrote...

After reading snippets on gamebanshee (ie. There are no less than a dozen comparisons to Mass Effect throughout the article by the author, executive director Mark Darrah, and lead designer Mike Laidlaw) and (Our new companions will never have issue with our decisions to the point that they'll leave the party or retaliate beyond a complaint or two) I am not loving the new direction.

I am distressed to see this awesome franchise heading towards the one size fits all approach of Mass Effect. I played both and while enjoying Mass Effect one and two, they didn't come close to the enjoyment I personally felt while playing Dragon Age. The NPC's in Dragon Age were leaps and bounds better than the ones in Mass Effect, with their own stories and interjections.

Hopefully, when the full article is released and we can buy a copy it will calm fears.

No.

They won't leave because of approval.

They can still turn on you or leave forever based on your actions, however.

[errant_knight]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
The title seems a bit odd too, given the first one. I was expecting another "Dragon Age: *something*" rather than just having a 2 (or II) slapped onto it.

That could still change. Origins was originally just called "Dragon Age" and the Origins part was added on later.
Heck maybe people wouldn't be freaking out so much if they just changed the name...

 No, they would. The name doesn't even register on a list of concerns. The rest of Terror_K's concerns are echoed by me.

Modifié par errant_knight, 16 juillet 2010 - 04:20 .

[errant_knight]

naumutroi wrote...

who's for working on a MOD of the PC version of DAO2 when it comes out to make the wrong things right?? anybody?? I for one will be all for that.

It's funny, when I think of making mods for Origins, I make armor, I try to learn enough to do a full quest.... That hasn't even crossed my mind as a future possibility for DA2. All I think about is how difficult it might or might not be to get rid of the dialogue wheel, replacing it with text as in the 'real' game, and How I might remove the voice acting without leaving pauses in the conversation. I really shouldn't have to learn to program a GUI, but apparently I must. Good thing I took that year of computer science....

[In Exile]

Davasar wrote...
First off, ME and DAO are not necessarily the same target audience, there are plenty of people that didnt like the way ME played, but did like the way DAO played (and vice versa).  Trying to lump those markets together as exactly the same?  I think not.

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that supposing they are two entirely separate markets, and you believe ME is something marked "to the masses that like shiny things" well, here's news for you: DA sold around as well as ME did. If ME is shallow and filled with "shiny" things, and a mass market phenomenon merely in virtue of how much it sold, then as a logical neccesity DA:O must be a mass market phenomenon too.

But you clearly said that something cannot be complex where it a mass market phenomenon. So I've caught you in a logical contradiction.

To be blunt, what I am pointing out is that what you are saying is incoherent.

It IS inherently a bad thing when the very features that attracted people to the game are the very ones being replaced.  Are you trying to say that they want to drive fans away with non-purchases?  Regardless, they are doing a good job of it.

I agree - it is obviouly a bad thing to remove features that drew people to the game, supposing the new features do not add more people to the game than lost. But who said they are removing features that drew people to the game? As of right now, all that we know is that we have VO.

The "old school gamers" (and loath to lump people together like that, but I have to guess) are sick and tired of quality and good features being thrown out for something new and shiny.

What the hell is an "old school gamer". I've been playing video-games since 1999. I started playing RPGs in 2003 - 7 years ago. So am I an "old school" gamer? What exactly is an old school gamer? What justifies generalizing?

Supposing they are fed up with quality and good features being thrown out for "new and shiny (supposing for a second these are actually mutually exclusive) what does any of that mean? You've just thrown out jargon. "Good feature"? What is a good feature? What is a "quality" feature? Define these terms, and maybe we'll have a conversation less empty than you saying: "people don't like it when the things that they like are taken away" and me going "well, yes, that's technically true, but also adds nothing."

But you do point something out.  If they spend a lot of money on voice acting, like with say, 5-6 responses every so often, they will spend a lot on the VO. 

But, if they want to save money and produce the exact same product to the people who will keep their blinders on to things being lacking in the game (and they may be counting on that), and buy it anyway, which choice do you think Bioware will make?  They are a gaming company, and with EA taskmasters being them, they are there to make money...now more then ever. 

And where did you conduct this phenomenal market research? How do you know which features gamers can be lied to about? How do you know what the treshold for removing products before a noticeable decline in quality occurs is?

Bioware was always about making money. As a gaming company, they have to live off their proficts. If they broke even they could literally not fund their next game.

If Bioware knew for a fact they cut cost their costs in half and double profits, obviously they would do it. They'd have to be stupid not to. But how can you possibly know this will happen? I study economics - there is no possible model or framework that you could be appealing to so that you could derive this conclusion theoretically. This is something you need empirical data for. So beyond certain parts of your anatomy, exactly where are you getting these figures from?

To think less then optimistic on this is being willfully naive.

And I am sorry if you are offended by the truth, but saying things as they are and being blunt is often lacking in discorse.  I do it because at least you get to the point faster.

It has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with your apparent inability to say something that isn't either tautologically true or unsubstantiated opinion. You want to debate the greater economic pressures of gaming? I would be esctatic to do so. We can start by talking about expect returns on investment, the average development cycle of a game and average cost of development to project what profit margin a company needs only to continue operation, and then we can extrapolate from a price of $60 per game how many units need to be sold to meet that figure. We can then start developing a consumer demand curve for quality of games and go out in the field and collect data about how varying perceived quality affects demand, so we can then try and create a market demand curve. Then we can do the fun part and assume a fixed income and rational choice, so we can determine what Bioware needs to sell at what quality to draw in enough competitors relative to the competition to pull a profit.

Oh, you mean you don't want to do all the science? You just want to speak nonsense?

The mass market DOES jump from one thing to another and when it comes to entertainment, they want it NOW and they want the next, newest, biggest thing.  They have gamer A.D.D. or something.  I am not wrong in this, and everyone knows it.  (if you arent one of these A.D.D. gamers, then you have no need to be offended).  It's happened in the market time and time and time and time again.  So many times it would be impossible to list them all.

I happen to primarily study cognitive psychology (this is my specialist; my major is economics). So you see, I am quite well versed in human behaviour. Consumer behaviour I am a little less well versed on, but we do this kind of funny thing in science: when we make broad claims about human behaviour, we don't make up nonsense theories and provide no evidence. We gather evidence. Which you have none of.

Now tell me quality wont go down with this sort of mentality when trying to appeal to this kind of audience.

Okay. The quality won't go down.

You might even be able to find one, two or even a few examples, but it would be the exception, rather then the rule as the examples you bring would be outnumbered by scores of others showing my point.

Again, to think otherwise is being willfully naive.

No, to think otherwise is to actually understand how the world works.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...

I loved DAO to bits, but it's hard to me to get excited about DA2 and not think they've dumbed things down when it not only sounds like they have, but when the same thing happened with ME2: the advertising and promotion began, fans worried about it getting dumbed-down and mainstreamed, devs assured fans it was still a strong RPG, and then the game came out and it wasn't; it really was dumbed-down for the masses and shallow as hell.

What exactly was dumbed down about it? They removed the forced aiming modifer, which was stupid, because they tried to create a skill-related tactic in an action game. That's just poor implementation. I agree that if you were creating a rule-system for a game, you ought to have an accuracy rating determine the likelihood to hit. But if you are telling the player, here is your targeting reticule and if it is over the target you are aiming at them, and then randomly vary the effectiveness of a gun (or trained soldiers incapable of firing pistols) then you're just implementing badly.

Bioware cut the aiming and implement weapon restrictions per class to maintain the balance. This removed the weapon skills (which is good gameplay). They compressed the tech and biotic abilities into smaller units and compressed the level scale from 60 to 30. They tied persuade and intimidate to aligment (which was stupid and poor implementation). And that was it.

Oh, and they made XP quest related only, so that killing enemies did not give XP (which ironically many RPG fans argue in favour of, and it is something that is common in PnP).

So how was Mass Effect 2 dumbed down?

I agree that it was shallow as an RPG; but it was no less shallow than Mass Effect 1, which didn't have any RPG gameplay features beyond the forced skill aiming.  I can't see how you could accuse the one game without the other.

I thought there were huge problems with ME2 - but those problems were story related. The gameplay I felt improved dramatically. So what was dumbed down about it?

[Kalfear]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Tamar Northenstar wrote...

After reading snippets on gamebanshee (ie. There are no less than a dozen comparisons to Mass Effect throughout the article by the author, executive director Mark Darrah, and lead designer Mike Laidlaw) and (Our new companions will never have issue with our decisions to the point that they'll leave the party or retaliate beyond a complaint or two) I am not loving the new direction.

I am distressed to see this awesome franchise heading towards the one size fits all approach of Mass Effect. I played both and while enjoying Mass Effect one and two, they didn't come close to the enjoyment I personally felt while playing Dragon Age. The NPC's in Dragon Age were leaps and bounds better than the ones in Mass Effect, with their own stories and interjections.

Hopefully, when the full article is released and we can buy a copy it will calm fears.

No.

They won't leave because of approval.

They can still turn on you or leave forever based on your actions, however.

OMG thank you for clarifying that Mary!'
I damn near had a heart attack with what I read the way it was stated.

One of my biggest complaints about ME2 was I could treat Miranda like dirt, kill her sister, call her every name in the book and as long as I choose the right conversation spots 3 times, She was madly in love with me and we were going to a fade to black screen before the big battle!

That pissed me off to no end, how you act and how you treat people should effect how they respond to you! Gaining someones trust should be a all game concept, not a just acouple key conversations here and there.

[Davasar]

Well thats humorous, aside from your appeals to false authority and moving the goal posts. Much of my "suppositions" as you've put them have been voiced by many of the people on these very forums. Check it out. These things are not unfounded.



"But you clearly said that something cannot be complex where it a mass market phenomenon. So I've caught you in a logical contradiction."



Nice job misquoting me. I never said that. Find it and quote it if I did.



You asked a few times: "How do you know they will"?



I pose the opposite: "How do you know they wont"?



I at least have proof from Bioware saying they are making changes that displease many of the fans of their original game.



And that's my point. It flies in the face of basic marketing: improve what you have that made fans happy, and add new things as well. You dont change the basic fundamentals that have cause the huge outcry here.



You wanted your proof of disatisfaction based off what Bioware told us factually?



Read the forums.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

They removed the forced aiming modifer,
which was stupid, because they tried to create a skill-related tactic
in an action game. That's just poor implementation. I agree that if you
were creating a rule-system for a game, you ought to have an accuracy
rating determine the likelihood to hit. But if you are telling the
player, here is your targeting reticule and if it is over the target
you are aiming at them, and then randomly vary the effectiveness of a
gun (or trained soldiers incapable of firing pistols) then you're just
implementing badly.

I didn't like the loss of skill-based aiming, because the ability to aim while paused (which ME2 still has) allowed the player to reduce the "action" aspect of combat to nothing more than target selection, which is exactly how I'd like RPG combat to work.

I'll agree that the stat-driven aiming in ME was poorly implemented (at low levels Shepard was a terrible shot), but by eliminating it entirely they've produced the opposite problem in ME2, where even at high levels Shepard might be a terrible shot if his player is (assuming his player plays as intended and doesn't take advantage of the ability to aim while paused).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 16 juillet 2010 - 06:51 .

[Kalfear]

In Exile wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I loved DAO to bits, but it's hard to me to get excited about DA2 and not think they've dumbed things down when it not only sounds like they have, but when the same thing happened with ME2: the advertising and promotion began, fans worried about it getting dumbed-down and mainstreamed, devs assured fans it was still a strong RPG, and then the game came out and it wasn't; it really was dumbed-down for the masses and shallow as hell.

What exactly was dumbed down about it? They removed the forced aiming modifer, which was stupid, because they tried to create a skill-related tactic in an action game. That's just poor implementation. I agree that if you were creating a rule-system for a game, you ought to have an accuracy rating determine the likelihood to hit. But if you are telling the player, here is your targeting reticule and if it is over the target you are aiming at them, and then randomly vary the effectiveness of a gun (or trained soldiers incapable of firing pistols) then you're just implementing badly.

Bioware cut the aiming and implement weapon restrictions per class to maintain the balance. This removed the weapon skills (which is good gameplay). They compressed the tech and biotic abilities into smaller units and compressed the level scale from 60 to 30. They tied persuade and intimidate to aligment (which was stupid and poor implementation). And that was it.

Oh, and they made XP quest related only, so that killing enemies did not give XP (which ironically many RPG fans argue in favour of, and it is something that is common in PnP).

So how was Mass Effect 2 dumbed down?

I agree that it was shallow as an RPG; but it was no less shallow than Mass Effect 1, which didn't have any RPG gameplay features beyond the forced skill aiming.  I can't see how you could accuse the one game without the other.

I thought there were huge problems with ME2 - but those problems were story related. The gameplay I felt improved dramatically. So what was dumbed down about it?

It was dumbed down cause half the RPG Elements for customization to story to interaction to emotional connection were removed from game (they were there in ME1).

But I suspect you know this full well and just trying to start a arguement with someone that dares to not like what you like!

[Vaeliorin]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Tamar Northenstar wrote...
After reading snippets on gamebanshee (ie. There are no less than a dozen comparisons to Mass Effect throughout the article by the author, executive director Mark Darrah, and lead designer Mike Laidlaw) and (Our new companions will never have issue with our decisions to the point that they'll leave the party or retaliate beyond a complaint or two) I am not loving the new direction.

I am distressed to see this awesome franchise heading towards the one size fits all approach of Mass Effect. I played both and while enjoying Mass Effect one and two, they didn't come close to the enjoyment I personally felt while playing Dragon Age. The NPC's in Dragon Age were leaps and bounds better than the ones in Mass Effect, with their own stories and interjections.

Hopefully, when the full article is released and we can buy a copy it will calm fears.

No.

They won't leave because of approval.

They can still turn on you or leave forever based on your actions, however.

I'll reiterate someone's thank you for this answer.  That's a serious relief, as from reading the Game Informer article, I was concerned that there was no way companions would leave you, and that seemed to be a fairly serious step in the wrong direction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The degree to which you think VO defines a character, I would think, is the degree to which you think you ought to think Hawke is a fixed character. I think that in essence is the view being espoused.

Since I expect we'll be able to replace Hawke's voice files with blanks without too much difficulty (and I have asked for the ability to disable the PC VO as a built-in feature, so hopefully we won't have to), I'm not too concerned about the voice on its own.

The wheel, on the other hand, has the potential to be a real problem, but David amd Mary have so far been adamant that DA2 wheel is not ME's wheel, so I'm happy to reserve judgment.

As a total aside, I think the reason why we disagree fairly often is that we're on opposite sides of the part-whole debate. But I'm going to take that to PM once I have the free time since I think there's a good side conversation to be had. Just as a heads up.

I look forward to that.

BSN's PM system is considerably more robust than that of the old BioBoards.

[Jock Boo]

Anyone wants a biscuit?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mary Kirby wrote...

No.

They won't leave because of approval.

They can still turn on you or leave forever based on your actions, however.

Yes, Mary, this is wonderful.  Having not read the Game Informer article (you guys are far too free with spoilers for me to risk reading an article about the game), I had to specific fears about this, but what you describe is my preferred means of dealing with intra-party dissent.

[In Exile]

Davasar wrote...

Well thats humorous, aside from your appeals to false authority and moving the goal posts. Much of my "suppositions" as you've put them have been voiced by many of the people on these very forums. Check it out. These things are not unfounded.

Wait - you accuse me of appealing to authority... and then you appeal to authority?

"But you clearly said that something cannot be complex where it a mass market phenomenon. So I've caught you in a logical contradiction."

Nice job misquoting me. I never said that. Find it and quote it if I did.

Awesome. Let's go:

First quote:

"But, by appealing to the lowest common denominator, they are going
to suffer for quality and bask in the light that is mediocre games that
abound in the industry.  By leaving their loyal fanbase behind, they
will certainly enjoy the fickle mass market when the next new shiny
comes along."

So this establishes the mass market is fickle. The loyal fanbase is presented as the niche, and with the "mass market" as the large contrast. This is in response to the initial post that contrasted DA:O to ME, with ME (in virtue of VO and the dialogue wheel) representing the mass market which is being favoured over the niche market.

So we've established how the mass market is fickle and does not favour quality, and how ME is the mass m

Then:

"The lowest common denominator in this case is "make money no
matter what and who cares what happens".  Thats the kind of attitude
that caused the financial crisis and the gulf oil spill."

This establishes that point-at-issue as money. Specifically, trying to maximize $$ is a devious strategy, and leads to the mass market.

Now, we have facts. The first is that the sale price for DA:O and ME is equivalent. Then, we have the fact that they sold an equal number of units. Putting aside the issue of profit for the second, we can conclude that the revenue from the two games was approximate. More to the point, the same rough number of people bought both games.

Now, your initial inference is that quality is anathema to the mass market. We have ME as a game of the mass market. Yet DA:O sold as ME did. So clearly if the size of the market it sold to made ME a mass market game, DA:O must be as well. Yet DA:O had quality. Which is ostensibly something the fickle mass market cannot handle.

You asked a few times: "How do you know they will"?

I pose the opposite: "How do you know they wont"?

And I called you on this rhetorical garbage. If you have an opinion, justify it.

I at least have proof from Bioware saying they are making changes that displease many of the fans of their original game.

You have proof that some people on a forum are angry. There was a pool conduct a few days ago. Last I checked it, over 70% of those who voted fell in the very likely to buy or preorder category. So as of right now, the majority of those on this board will buy the game. Ah, but you will retort - 70% is not 100%! They are losing business. Except that is nonsensical because this board is not the entire market.

And that's my point. It flies in the face of basic marketing: improve what you have that made fans happy, and add new things as well. You dont change the basic fundamentals that have cause the huge outcry here.

This is the internet! There's an outcry if anything happens. 

[Jimmy Fury]

Roland Aseph wrote...
You're missing the point of what people are saying and concerned about.
We don't want The Witcher graphics....what we want is a game that has "as good or better" lvl of graphics and detail as what we've "already" experienced in DAO & the DLC.

1: I never said that was the only concern on that thread just that there were people breathing fire about it. I can immediately recall plenty of posts on that thread comparing those screenshots to Witcher 2, Fallout New Vegas, Fallout 3, and a dozen other games. Those people don't want "as good or better" they want a focus on graphics.
2: Mary has pseudo-confirmed that those are testing-phase shots by pointing out that the sword was a placeholder while weapons were being designed.

We will have "as good or better" graphics, the people wanting that were not the ones I was talking about (although I have said many many things to them because they boggle my mind) I was specifically talking about the people who keep talking about Witcher 2 and how it's graphics are what BioWare should be aiming for.

[Terror_K]

Kalfear wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I loved DAO to bits, but it's hard to me to get excited about DA2 and not think they've dumbed things down when it not only sounds like they have, but when the same thing happened with ME2: the advertising and promotion began, fans worried about it getting dumbed-down and mainstreamed, devs assured fans it was still a strong RPG, and then the game came out and it wasn't; it really was dumbed-down for the masses and shallow as hell.

What exactly was dumbed down about it? They removed the forced aiming modifer, which was stupid, because they tried to create a skill-related tactic in an action game. That's just poor implementation. I agree that if you were creating a rule-system for a game, you ought to have an accuracy rating determine the likelihood to hit. But if you are telling the player, here is your targeting reticule and if it is over the target you are aiming at them, and then randomly vary the effectiveness of a gun (or trained soldiers incapable of firing pistols) then you're just implementing badly.

Bioware cut the aiming and implement weapon restrictions per class to maintain the balance. This removed the weapon skills (which is good gameplay). They compressed the tech and biotic abilities into smaller units and compressed the level scale from 60 to 30. They tied persuade and intimidate to aligment (which was stupid and poor implementation). And that was it.

Oh, and they made XP quest related only, so that killing enemies did not give XP (which ironically many RPG fans argue in favour of, and it is something that is common in PnP).

So how was Mass Effect 2 dumbed down?

I agree that it was shallow as an RPG; but it was no less shallow than Mass Effect 1, which didn't have any RPG gameplay features beyond the forced skill aiming.  I can't see how you could accuse the one game without the other.

I thought there were huge problems with ME2 - but those problems were story related. The gameplay I felt improved dramatically. So what was dumbed down about it?

It was dumbed down cause half the RPG Elements for customization to story to interaction to emotional connection were removed from game (they were there in ME1).

But I suspect you know this full well and just trying to start a arguement with someone that dares to not like what you like!

Yeah, pretty much this. On top of that ME2 was so overly-simplified as an RPG it was insulting... like going to a university math lecture to find the Professor condescendingly teaching you that "1 + 1 = 2" repeatedly. I often describe ME2 as being "Fisher Price: My First RPG" in this regard. Beyond that, I'm not going into specifics in a Dragon Age topic on the Dragon Age 2 forums. If you want to know my feelings beyond this about ME2 just find the "Disappointment in Mass Effect 2" thread that hovers on the first two pages of the main ME2 sub-forum. It's all in there... multiple times.

[Massadonious1]

I look forward to the equally circular "Dissapointment with DA2, an Open Discussion" when this game is released as well.

[Nerevar-as]

Massadonious1 wrote...

I look forward to the equally circular "Dissapointment with DA2, an Open Discussion" when this game is released as well.

I´ll skip it, the nitpicking with every little detail over ME2 has been enogh for me.

[Mycrus Ironfist]

when i heard about hawke i actually thought that they were building a separate game within the dragon age franchise and that somehow the "origins" story would continue at some future point.



after reading all the DA books and playing all the DLCs (except Leliana, i'll get to that eventually) i still think that the calling and the awakening painted the plot into a corner --> i was perfectly fine with the thought of battling another blight in DA2 / DA3 /DA4, etc.



so devs need something like hawke to introduce new story arcs..

[CarlSpackler]

Terror_K wrote...

Now, I'm not writing off the game entirely yet... I could be wrong. I had some concerns about DAO after all, especially with the horrible advertising (great game, but I still maintain that the marketing for it was abysmal). .

Yeah I'm with you here,  In fact I was mostly a wallflower on the forums until that marketing campaign kicked in, I was pretty vocal about my distaste for the direction they went.  Still I had a strong feeling the game would still be excellent, and that the marketing was rather mis-representative  of the game itself.  While marketing/Bioware employees may defend that campaign and claim it did represent the game in some fashion, they've never convinced me of it.  After playing the game I thought it bordered on false advertising.  

So there is some precedence to Bioware describing one thing and delivering another, but it is hard to shake the feeling that these feature changes are going to differ greatly from the way we imagine they will be.  I guess we will be waiting and seeing.  Still, some of the other added features sound incredibly promising and I hope whatever dissatisfaction I may have with changes to the model will be overcome by fun added features.