535 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

Each talk to their own audience, IGN or 1UP



Specifically those looking for stuff coming out of comic con. That could include some dragon age stuff. But since I follow 1UP quite a bit they really didn't talk about that for so long so I would estimate that not many hardcore DA fans follow 1UP as much.



IGN is good for Three Red Lights, and that is it. Many of their editors are tools since a lot of the Nintendo team left (stares at Miller and Hatfield)

[2papercuts]

Saibh wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Saibh wrote...



ME1 and ME2 have the same fanbase. .

I am afraid you are wrong. There is a decent bunch of people who like ME1 but dislike ME2. Including me, but not excluded to.

Have you knocked all of the doors of ME1 owners and asked them if they liked ME2? No? Well, you know what, ME2 is doing just as well as--no, far better--than ME1 did. I'm going to assume a large portion of these--considering this is a direct sequel and all--played and liked ME1.

its very possible that the rise in sales resulted from ME2 going more mainstream, as it looks like DA2 is

[KLUME777]

joriandrake wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I think they are calling them that in order to let their audiences have an idea of what they are. I mean most would know what an Orc is, but not a Hurlock. Anda Hurlock basically is an Orc.

Shouldnt they be talking to the Dragon Age audience, i mean who else reads it, at least put darkspawn in brackets so your not confusing anyone cos thats 2 out of 2 previews that have said orcs and goblins. Darkspawn has not even being mentioned, yet Flemeth was...

most of the media people who went there probably never played DA

sad but true

[d4rk fallen]

givin the 10 yr time span and with skipping from one story to another, what will the leveling system be like? Also with at least one story segment being over the top action and Hawke able to kill in one swing, will str, dex, magic.... not have an effect during that part of the story?

[Sirsmirkalot]

David Gaider wrote...

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

No cloaks? What!?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Grommash94 wrote...

To be fair, the combat in the different Origins wasn't all that tactical or difficult either. And the combat was made easy on purpose, as has already been stated.

Being easy doesn't preclude it from being a rich and fulfilling experience.

I enjoyed DAO's combat partly because you still win with suboptimal approached if those were more in-line with your roleplaying approach.

I'm mentioned here before that one of my characters was a coward who never fought anything, so that party was necessarily always fighting one man down.  And he was also lousy with people, so the party had failed to recruit Wynne (he triggered combat with her by accident).

Difficult combat might have made that character unplayable.

If DA2's combat happened to be more action-oriented with a focus on controlling the PC with the rest of the party acting primarily in support roles (I'm not suggesting this is happening, just offering a possible example), that character would probabaly become unplayable under those circumstances as well, but I'm confident some people would find that approach more fun.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rogue Unit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Bruce Venne wrote...

We are improving the combat, but not at the expense of the story.

But are you improving it at the expense of rich tactical combat?

Why can't it be that they're just improving the combat system?  You people assume that by making any changes or improvements the game will suffer in another area because of it.  Unless DA: O combat was perfect I can see where they can improve without trade-off.

Sure, they can.  But are they?  Why would I jump to such a positive conclusion when I already see then adopting things like a PC voice and dialogue wheel, two features I've disliked in every implementation I've seen so far.  BioWare might make those work, too, but it would be crazy for me to assume so.

[KLUME777]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

No cloaks? What!?

dont expect cloaks ever in a bioware game. If all bioware games have too unite around one common similarity, its that none of them have cloaks. except for Darth Malak in KotOR, but you cant wear it, and even then the jedi robes had no cloaks

[mllrthyme]

KLUME777 wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

No cloaks? What!?

dont expect cloaks ever in a bioware game. If all bioware games have too unite around one common similarity, its that none of them have cloaks. except for Darth Malak in KotOR, but you cant wear it, and even then the jedi robes had no cloaks

I beg to differ.  Hotu has cloaks with the new patch.  I can't remember if nwn does or not.

[joriandrake]

I started to play "The Last Remnant" today, the main protagonist/hero is godawful annoying but the game is interesting, and it is a turn based RPG, I wish Bioware would do things like that again

Modifié par joriandrake, 25 juillet 2010 - 04:57 .

[joriandrake]

mllrthyme wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

No cloaks? What!?

dont expect cloaks ever in a bioware game. If all bioware games have too unite around one common similarity, its that none of them have cloaks. except for Darth Malak in KotOR, but you cant wear it, and even then the jedi robes had no cloaks

I beg to differ.  Hotu has cloaks with the new patch.  I can't remember if nwn does or not.

it had none originally, it gained those later, same with horsies

[Hulk Hsieh]

DA:O is a hack and slash game, especially with Awakening.



Play a two-handed warrior in 3rd person view and let AI take control of compainions.

When there are multiple enemies, spam Macress, Two-Hand Sweep, Sweeping Strike, and Onslaught. You'll feel it.

[Chairon de Celeste]

David Gaider wrote...

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

But what about all the hungry kobolds near Hilltop?
Now they're afraid they'll never get their warm cloaks and horse meat

(Neverwinter Nights: Shadows of Undrentide reference)

Seriously and back to topic:

It would help a great deal if the threads
'Five Facts About Hawke'
and 'What Do We Know So Far'
were set 'sticky'  again or always on top.

Some People would fall less easiliy for ominous reviews like
the 1up article we used to discuss in this thread.

[Firky]

Slightly OT, sorry. But check this out. It's a 1up preview of DA:O from 2006. I remember reading it! Wow, screenshot.

http://www.1up.com/d...ory?cId=3154863

EDIT: PS There has to be some kind of lesson in there about previews.

Modifié par Firky, 25 juillet 2010 - 12:29 .

[Peranor]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Mass Effect like "make your own story" game. Not feel like RPG at all, More like Heavy Rain or Fahrenheit, suck big balls compared to Dragon Age.

Agree. I've never seen Mass effect as a RPG. I don't think it sucks though. I love the game for what it is. But it's not a RPG. (I've never seen the Final Fantasy series as RPG's either. They are great adventure games with a story to tell. But they are not RPG's, even less than Mass Effect in fact).

With that said I still think that Dragon Age 2 has the potential to be a great game just as Mass Effect was. But im afraid it will no longer be Dragon Age as we know it. It will be more of a adventure game set in the same world as DA:O. And that's what worries me. I want my old school RPG's
But i guess we just have to wait and see. There is not enough information out on DA2 yet.

[JrayM16]

Here's my take. Let's see the game when you have afull party, maybe the main character is a few different classes, then we'll see how the combat really breaks down. And let's see how big the game world is, what quests are like , etc.

[Passivehate]

Passivehate wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Passivehate wrote...
Though I have a query that needs answering. Are these changes, such as the VO and dialog wheel things that will be present in all future games? Or is the answer based on how well DA2 is received?

We're not locked into anything. If people-- and by that I mean all people, not just the ones who hang out on these forums-- really dislike our changes then the game will do poorly and we will have to go back to the drawing board. Even if it does well, however (as DAO did), doesn't preclude the possibility that we will want to experiment and iterate on what we thought worked and what didn't.

In addition, Mr. Gaider, have you ever had the pleasure of playing Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne? I found it to be the closest thing to poetry that I've found in the world of gaming. As such, I'd be curious as to your opinion.

I played Persona 3, but I don't think that's the one you're referring to. There are certain aspects of storytelling in JRPG's that I have difficulty getting past (primarily the uniquitous juvenile hero, but there are other things as well) that make it hard for me to enjoy such a game. That said, I thought it did some things quite well. That's probably not Nocturne, but unless it's radically different from Persona 3 I don't think I'd try it again.

I understand completely. Persona 3 was a branch off of the main series that was made more as a test than anything else. I enjoyed it a bit, but it is immensely different than Nocturne. In Nocturne, the world ends with the conception. After this, you are one of the few surviving humans in a world filled with demons. The world that is created is quite bleak. Though if you don't have any desire to play it, I wouldn't fault you. Each individual has their own preferences.
More importantly, I must express that I am grateful for your reply.

As it is the early morning in Arizona and I'm a bit sleep-deprived, I've thought of another question! It is somewhat of a follow up question, so I'm quoting the first question.

Anywho, if you were to be starting the Dragon Age IP with DA2, what would you say would be your selling point; what would set your game apart from the other games on the market? DA:O had two major selling points. The first is that it was hailed as the successor to the BG series. The second would be the origin system itself. These traits made it unique. Did I phrase that right? Hmm...well, what would you tell a friend of yours if they asked you, "Why should I buy DA2"?

[dragon_83]

Passivehate wrote...

..well, what would you tell a friend of yours if they asked you, "Why should I buy DA2"?

It is the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate. The successor of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance to be precise. This game was an action-rpg for the consoles. (More of an action game, less of an RPG). But I must admit, Dark Alliance was a good game.

KLUME777 wrote..

dont expect cloaks ever in a bioware game. If all bioware games have too
unite around one common similarity, its that none of them have cloaks.
except for Darth Malak in KotOR, but you cant wear it, and even then the
jedi robes had no cloaks

There were cloaks in BG.

Modifié par dragon_83, 25 juillet 2010 - 02:16 .

[Zanderat]

2papercuts wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Saibh wrote...



ME1 and ME2 have the same fanbase. .

I am afraid you are wrong. There is a decent bunch of people who like ME1 but dislike ME2. Including me, but not excluded to.

Have you knocked all of the doors of ME1 owners and asked them if they liked ME2? No? Well, you know what, ME2 is doing just as well as--no, far better--than ME1 did. I'm going to assume a large portion of these--considering this is a direct sequel and all--played and liked ME1.

its very possible that the rise in sales resulted from ME2 going more mainstream, as it looks like DA2 is

You do kow that DAO outsold ME2?  Right?

[Kenrae]

Zanderat wrote...
]You do kow that DAO outsold ME2?  Right?

Being sold also on PS3 does that .

Anyway, last time I checked Vgchartz (a couple of months ago), ME had sold more units than ME2. In more time, of course, and Vgchartz figures aren't official (and only take consoles into account, not PCs). But still, I don't think there's much difference between the three games.

Modifié par Kenrae, 25 juillet 2010 - 02:51 .

[Suron]

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
Certainly many people believe by now that choosing elf or dwarf and person of non-Hawk surname would benefit their gameplay experience.

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

that's not even a fair comparison. Gaider.

removing other races as options to play through SEVERELY HAMPERS replayability....I put in over 520 HOURS in DA:O because of replaying using the other races/origins.  In DA2 we ONLY have Hawke...sure I can replay him as the different classes...but that was also in DA:O...DA:O added different races/origins to the table..which you've STRIPPED from DA2.

replayability be damned.

honestly, does EA give you some kind of kickback for your defending this game? it's obvious these 'reasons for the changes' has a large part in a shorter dev time allowed by EA..forcing you to simplify things to cut down on dev time and costs....they're already MILKING DA:O just like they do all their franchises.....I honestly refuse to believe you don't see that.

despite that however your "arguments" (points of defense) are usually at least well thought out and written as such....however this one, for lack of a better term, is stupid.  I'm not in ANY WAY saying you are stupid.  But this equating wanting horses/cloaks to different races -IS- a stupid analogy, and hence a stupid argument.  It's not even close to the same thing.

[filetemo]

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
Certainly many people believe by now that choosing elf or dwarf and person of non-Hawk surname would benefit their gameplay experience.

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

ugh...that was just...mean:crying:

[Lyna357]

Kordaris wrote...

Suron wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
Certainly many people believe by now that choosing elf or dwarf and person of non-Hawk surname would benefit their gameplay experience.

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

that's not even a fair comparison. Gaider.

removing other races as options to play through SEVERELY HAMPERS replayability....I put in over 520 HOURS in DA:O because of replaying using the other races/origins.  In DA2 we ONLY have Hawke...sure I can replay him as the different classes...but that was also in DA:O...DA:O added different races/origins to the table..which you've STRIPPED from DA2.

replayability be damned.

honestly, does EA give you some kind of kickback for your defending this game? it's obvious these 'reasons for the changes' has a large part in a shorter dev time allowed by EA..forcing you to simplify things to cut down on dev time and costs....they're already MILKING DA:O just like they do all their franchises.....I honestly refuse to believe you don't see that.

despite that however your "arguments" (points of defense) are usually at least well thought out and written as such....however this one, for lack of a better term, is stupid.  I'm not in ANY WAY saying you are stupid.  But this equating wanting horses/cloaks to different races -IS- a stupid analogy, and hence a stupid argument.  It's not even close to the same thing.

QFT.
Be honest with us regarding the limitations in Dragon Age 2.

Seriously this.