123 réponses à ce sujet

[FedericoV]

AlexXIV wrote...

Nice review. It sounds like my kind of game. I just don't know why it can't be a spiritual successor of BG. I mean, it is 'spiritual successor' and not same-same. You still have a party, not solo character. You still have deep a fanatsy story, you still have deep characters. So I do actually think that DA is a game in the spirit of BG etc. Just that it is 10 years after. I mean do people really want non-voiced characters, 2D graphics, uncomfortable, slow combat systems, etc.? If so they can still play the old games imo.

Because those are just superficial similarities. And yes, I would love a game with updated graphic, fixed "isometric" view and what you call "slow and unconfortable" combat system (if done right off course and with a good rule system on its back, something I could not say about DA:O's rule system). But I can appreciate a game like DA2 that tries to be a good game on its own. I'm very open minded concerning gaming and can take the best from each game. I do not see a big deal admitting that it does not have the BG feel. 

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 décembre 2010 - 09:34 .

[FedericoV]

Piecake wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...

Though you covered this topic in great depth, I just felt I needed to touch on it once more

Thanks for the reply! What to add? Simply put it's well reasoned and I agree with everything you say. For me the only solution to the problem that would allow the coexistence of sorydriven background and different origins would be to make a game with multiple protagonist that share a different but in some way connected plot. A game with multiple point of views like George Martin's "A song of Ice and Fire" series. I seem to understand that it's the direction they have taken with TOR solo part in some way. I imagine that it's unreasonable for a single player game in term of budget (at least with voice over and everything) but a man can dream .

I totally agree with you, and I really want a future DA game to do this.  Have you played Suikoden 3?  They went the multiple protaganist/POV route, and I think they did it fairly well. 

Never played it and I do not even know its existence ! Is it a JRPG? I'm not too much in the genre . Can I play it on the PC? I would be interested to give a try (once I finished the endless list of steam sales I've bought during the last festivities !).

[AlexXIV]

Well I am also openminded but there is this funny thing that is called annoyance which is really a bad thing to happen when I am trying to enjoy the game. That's for example if you have to give every companion a command to behave in a certain way and then they stand in each other way, run off somewhere nobody told them to or just have the worst timing ever. I read from your review that you also concentrated on Hawke instead of jumping from companion to companion to look what they are doing. That's the way I prefer combat too.

I am sure some people like to pause the game every 2 seconds and skip around and plan, etc. I for one prefer action which rather relies on your reflexes than on hours of planning for one single combat situation. I mean then you don't need to be surprised that people need 200 hours for a playthrough. I don't know if story is superficial, or character depth. I guess it is point of view, but I know only Bioware and Obsidian who are making 'BG-style' games at all in the ... last 10 years. The others are sort of ego-shooter-hack-and slay than RPGs. With minimal story and character depth. So yeah I can say that's the most important thing for a RPG for me. The story and the characters. I could care less for the combat system, but faster is better imo.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 décembre 2010 - 09:47 .

[Piecake]

FedericoV wrote...

Piecake wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...

Though you covered this topic in great depth, I just felt I needed to touch on it once more

Thanks for the reply! What to add? Simply put it's well reasoned and I agree with everything you say. For me the only solution to the problem that would allow the coexistence of sorydriven background and different origins would be to make a game with multiple protagonist that share a different but in some way connected plot. A game with multiple point of views like George Martin's "A song of Ice and Fire" series. I seem to understand that it's the direction they have taken with TOR solo part in some way. I imagine that it's unreasonable for a single player game in term of budget (at least with voice over and everything) but a man can dream .

I totally agree with you, and I really want a future DA game to do this.  Have you played Suikoden 3?  They went the multiple protaganist/POV route, and I think they did it fairly well. 

Never played it and I do not even know its existence ! Is it a JRPG? I'm not too much in the genre . Can I play it on the PC? I would be interested to give a try (once I finished the endless list of steam sales I've bought during the last festivities !).

Yea, Its a PS2 JRPG, though I'm sure you can play it on the PC if you do some "creative searching"  Overall, I think it is a good game, the battle system is turn based and does feel a bit slow, so thats a negative.  But I do remember liking the characters(there are a 108 of them that you can recruit to fill out your army and staff your base of operations) and story, especially since its not infected with an excess of over-the-top melodrama llike most jrpgs are, but feels more grounded and rooted in political intrigue and what not.  Plus, I just thought having 3 PC and seeing events from different perspectives was quite interesting. 

How they did it was split the game up into chapters.  You could choose to play the 3 PCs story in any order, but I believe had to play all 3 to move on to the next chapter.  Next chapter you could also do it in any order.  I can spoil it for you further if you arent going to play the game and are interested in how they did it all the way through. 

So, it defintiely isnt as good as Suikoden 2, but still a good game. 

I also remember it being a pretty long game.  like 50 hours or so

Modifié par Piecake, 10 décembre 2010 - 09:50 .

[FedericoV]

@Alex: I respect your view. As I said, I judge games while playing them and not becuase of some sort of ideological belief system. I try to play each of them as they are suppose to be played and not trying to impose my preferred style on them. I do agree with the responsiveness problem, especially if we talk of DA:O. BG has such problems too but they were less important since the game focused a lot less on mobility and more on cooperation and tactics.

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 décembre 2010 - 09:57 .

[FedericoV]

Piecake wrote...
 I can spoil it for you further if you arent going to play the game and are interested in how they did it all the way through. 

Yep, go further: I'm curios. I do not think that I will "buy" a PS2 for that game and generally I'm against "creative searching" .

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 décembre 2010 - 10:00 .

[Piecake]

FedericoV wrote...

Piecake wrote...
 I can spoil it for you further if you arent going to play the game and are interested in how they did it all the way through. 

Yep, go further: I'm curios. I do not think that I will "buy" a PS2 for that game and generally I'm against "creative searching" .

Well, like I said, the game is split up into 5 or 6 chapters.  You do that whole play the 3 characters in any order  and move onto the next chapter until the end of chapter 3 or 4 (forget which).  At that time, Your 3 PC characters finally meet at the place where the True Rune is located.

(True Rune - powerful magic item that is tied to local history and legend because it was once formally used to beat back a much stronger, technologically superior organized force.  The area the game is set in is nomadic pasturelands with people that are looked on as barbarians/nomands/mongals, etc.)

There is only one, so you are presented with a choice of which of your three characters get that item, and whoever you decide becomes your main character for the rest of the game.  The other two characters become members of your party so cease to be PCs, but still remain very important story characters.  for example, I believe the end boss dungeon you have to split your forces into 3 groups and the 3 original PC characters are the ones who lead the three groups.  So, the 2 non-chosen characters become PC once again for that dungeon.   

[FedericoV]

Piecake wrote...

Well, like I said, the game is split up into 5 or 6 chapters.  You do that whole play the 3 characters in any order  and move onto the next chapter until the end of chapter 3 or 4 (forget which).  At that time, Your 3 PC characters finally meet at the place where the True Rune is located.

(True Rune - powerful magic item that is tied to local history and legend because it was once formally used to beat back a much stronger, technologically superior organized force.  The area the game is set in is nomadic pasturelands with people that are looked on as barbarians/nomands/mongals, etc.)

There is only one, so you are presented with a choice of which of your three characters get that item, and whoever you decide becomes your main character for the rest of the game.  The other two characters become members of your party so cease to be PCs, but still remain very important story characters.  for example, I believe the end boss dungeon you have to split your forces into 3 groups and the 3 original PC characters are the ones who lead the three groups.  So, the 2 non-chosen characters become PC once again for that dungeon.   

Brilliant! I would love a DA game with that kind of narrative.

[Piecake]

FedericoV wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Well, like I said, the game is split up into 5 or 6 chapters.  You do that whole play the 3 characters in any order  and move onto the next chapter until the end of chapter 3 or 4 (forget which).  At that time, Your 3 PC characters finally meet at the place where the True Rune is located.

(True Rune - powerful magic item that is tied to local history and legend because it was once formally used to beat back a much stronger, technologically superior organized force.  The area the game is set in is nomadic pasturelands with people that are looked on as barbarians/nomands/mongals, etc.)

There is only one, so you are presented with a choice of which of your three characters get that item, and whoever you decide becomes your main character for the rest of the game.  The other two characters become members of your party so cease to be PCs, but still remain very important story characters.  for example, I believe the end boss dungeon you have to split your forces into 3 groups and the 3 original PC characters are the ones who lead the three groups.  So, the 2 non-chosen characters become PC once again for that dungeon.   

Brilliant! I would love a DA game with that kind of narrative.

I was just thinking about this some more and I think the choice/consequence dynamic of bioware games would be really quite interesting if a future DA title used this narrative structure.  I am mostly talking about the first three chapters where you got to play 3 characters in any order. 

In Suikoden 3 there was no choice/consequence system besides the major True Rune choice after chapter 3, so the order you played your characters in did not change the game at all, it just changed what persepctive you saw first.

With choice/consequence though, the order that you choose to play your characters could radically alter your game.  The first character you choose would have to be the baseline, but what if a choice you made early in that character's 'act' -- say you had a choice between helping a local tyrant get rid of some bandits or depose him and try to do it on your own (which might lead to more town damage) -- greatly altered the story and the options available for the second character you choose, like if he visits that town near the middle or end of his character's 'act'(will the tyrant be there or not).  And then that character's choices(as well as the first's) could greatly alter the third characters story 'act'.  And the whole process would repeat itself in the next chapter when you are again free to play the 3 characters in any order.

Now, I can imagine that this would get rather complicated, especially since the 3 characters are doing these things roughly simultaenously, but just think of the possibilities.  I mean, if you selected all of the goody-two shoes choices for all of your characters on the first play through, you could still select all of the goody-two shoes choices on your next playthrough and still get a different experience so long as you play the characters in a different order. 

Besides the framed narrative, I think this would would be another narrative structure that will really let the players feel that the choices they make have meaningful consequences.  I dont care if you all get a colossal collective headache trying to work it out, make it happen bioware!

Modifié par Piecake, 13 décembre 2010 - 10:18 .

[Piecake]

Expanding on it a bit further, to alleviate the story branching complications all of the characters stories dont have to be intertwined so closely. For example, In Suikoden 3, one of the characters was off doing his own thing in a different setting for 2 chapters (or maybe it was just one), and I felt that that worked well and didnt have a problem with him being seemingly unconnected to the other two characters for a while, since he eventually did.

The point is, one character can be off doing his own thing for 1-2 chapters, but when he goes to to areas already visited by your other PC in chapters 2-3 he will have to deal with the consequences of the choices that those PC made. Just like those characters will have to deal with the choices that the isolated character made if they visit his starting area in a later chapter.

I'm really starting to think that if they do multiple PCs in a future DA game, a narrative structure like this would be absolutely essential since it just sounds so awesome. Ironically, that might be a reason why they don't do it since it might be too complicated to be feasible (I really have no idea, but it just sounds like a lot of work and be very bug prone).

As for your PCs meeting up eventually where you then choose one to be your main PC (and everything that followed), I think could work in a DA game, but definitely not essential since I am sure there are other interesting narrative structures that can be used, and this one doesnt have awesome choice/consequence potential like the play 3 characters in any order structure does.

EDIT:  No reaction to my idea?  I thought it was good

Modifié par Piecake, 14 décembre 2010 - 07:16 .

[Wishpig]

ejoslin wrote...

This review is not unexpected, but makes me a little sad. DA2 will probably be a good game. But hopefully someone else will go back to the roots; there really are no games like that any more, and they are the ones I enjoy most.

Drakensang River of Time is coming out early 2011, supposidly it considerbly better then the already good but flawed Drakengsang. A solid 84 meta critic average (and a seperate 9.1 user average).

SO you got that at least...

Here's youtube trailer link...

www.youtube.com/watch

But for the most part, games like these are, not dying, but rare breed. And they will continue to be so because the real $$$ is in console games. And if DA:O proves anything it's that those kind of RPGs are tough to bring to a aconsole setting.

Sad but true.

I'm one of you who grew up loving Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Arcanum, ect, but honestly, I played those for the story, and there are still many great stories be told in gaming. THATS what matters to me.

Modifié par Wishpig, 14 décembre 2010 - 10:36 .

[FedericoV]

simfamSP wrote...

I loved Drakensang. I hated it's combat. I think DA:O presented a good mix of both quick and slow combat and what just that medium we all needed.

Interesting. While I completely agree on the general judgement (DAO was exactly between BG 2 and an action RPG like Torchlight) I think that it was DA:O main weakness and that all its shortcomings come from this lack of clear direction wich DA2 at least is fixing on its own terms (even if taking a route that I like less than the classical/cooperative one of BG2).

I've replayed a bunch of classical RPG in the last months thanks to Good Old Games (Fallout, BG series, IWD series, Arcanum, etc.). I think that those games are still superior to actual games in terms of depth. They only miss some accessibility. I don't know, compared to modern games maybe they feel too aseptic and that's a problem of dated graphics and dated "storytelling" in many ways. But the value in gameplay it's still there. But you need a very good and properly tested rule system to make those kind of games in the right way (like GURPS or D&D). So, I suppose that we will have to wait the next D&D game... and it won't be a Bioware game unfortunately.

Modifié par FedericoV, 14 décembre 2010 - 05:34 .

[Tellervo]

Sound like I'll be waiting for it to hit the bargain bin as with most action-oriented games. While they're entertaining, their replay is usually zilch for me, and I'm not paying $60 for a game I'll play once.  Thank you for the review, though.

Modifié par Tellervo, 14 décembre 2010 - 06:08 .

[FedericoV]

Tellervo wrote...

Sound like I'll be waiting for it to hit the bargain bin as with most action-oriented games. While they're entertaining, their replay is usually zilch for me, and I'm not paying $60 for a game I'll play once.  Thank you for the review, though.

Well, I respect your position but consider that I played it on the consolle and we have still to see some PC gameplay footage.

[Dave of Canada]

Honestly, I mean no offense to anybody by this, but I suspect most people are just freaking out at the changes because they've never seen or played Origins on the console. What is described is essentially the console version of Origins and it should be surprise it sounds the same for Dragon Age 2, no?

[matt654321]

Thanks for the synopsis! Did you happen to see anything that could indicate a mage specializing in melee combat? Or, did you get the sense that the mage is competent in melee?

[Addai]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Honestly, I mean no offense to anybody by this, but I suspect most people are just freaking out at the changes because they've never seen or played Origins on the console. What is described is essentially the console version of Origins and it should be surprise it sounds the same for Dragon Age 2, no?

Well that depends.  If our game is going to play more like a console-oriented game, rather a PC-optimized game as Origins was, then that still is punk.

[shumworld]

How come this demo isn't available for Xbox Live?

[jhawke]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Honestly, I mean no offense to anybody by this, but I suspect most people are just freaking out at the changes because they've never seen or played Origins on the console. What is described is essentially the console version of Origins and it should be surprise it sounds the same for Dragon Age 2, no?

I get this sense, too.

As a console player, I really don't see much difference between how DA2 looks to play and how DAO played.  It's just faster and flashier, but the core mechanics look to be pretty much the same.

Now, I can understand how a PC player who is used to, and prefers, the way DAO played on the PC ( a more tactical approach, I guess? ), would be concerned about what he/she is hearing about DA2.

But, the fact is, we haven't even really seen ANY PC footage ( other than a brief glimpse in that new Developer's Diary ).

For all we know, DA2 could still play very much like DAO on the PC ( just faster and flashier.......lol ).

In fact, one of the leaked gameplay vids had one guy, playing on the console, doing an awful lot ( for my taste ) of pausing and using the radial menu to issue commands.  To me, that seems more tactical than just rushing in their and mashing buttons to hack-n-slash............which is what I prefer to do.........

[Graunt]

The changes in gameplay are making it really hard for me to decide which platform to get it on.  I have a very nice 42 inch plasma for gaming with a decent sound setup, but then the PC almost always has better graphics in the end.  

Control I think is the largest factor for me now.  Typically I've enjoyed every single Bioware game more on the PC (especially the Mass Effect games), but DA2 seems to be more similar to a console specific action/adventure game.  Arkham Asylum is the perfect example of a game I would much rather play on my television than the PC, even if the PC has slightly better visuals, the gameplay just wouldn't feel the same to me without a control pad.

Is anyone else having this same problem, and what are you going to do about it?  I think I'm just going to go ahead and buy the "Signature" edition for the PC and rent the console version from Gamefly.  If the game revolves around a lot more "button mashing", I doubt it will be particularly fun on the PC, yet the PC will certainly offer better graphics as well as the all important modability.

Also, I still don't understand why so many people claim that DA on the PC is "more tactical".  It's not really tactical at all after you setup your tactic slots properly (and really, the only thing the tactics slots are, is a shortcut past horrible AI that should have already been properly configured but never was).  Most of the "tactics" revolve around pausing the screen because your companions are running off doing something entirely stupid that you don't want them to do.  Other than that, the only "tactics" revolve around focus firing down easy to kill trash.  That's about as tactical as the game gets no matter the difficulty...

Modifié par Graunt, 15 décembre 2010 - 06:29 .

[Cybrosys]

I myself prefer games such as Baldur's Gate, DA:O, Final Fantasy, etc., basically games where you have to consider the situation you're in, your characters' surroundings and your foes in order to estimate the appropriate actions needed in order to win, or rather to just stay alive. 
After stating that and saying that I realy love DA:O, I feel let down by BioWare for dumbing down DA and making it more accessible to the casual player just because it would sell better. DA:O was loved because it was the kind of game that it was, a modern reinvent of the classical games stated above such as Baldur's Gate.

I honestly don't feel that DA2 is a sequal to DA:O in any other way than that it plays off of the story that happened in the original game. The game mechanics in DA2 are completely new (I'm comparing it against the DA:O version that was released on the PC, ie. the original game and not the cheezy port to console) and differ from the original in many ways. DA:O had a feel of realism regarding combat physics in that a character could only run at a certain speed, could only swing a sword at certain intervalls. DA2 is a joke if you look at it as a sequal to DA:O. One of many reasons is that in DA2 you can do X number of backflips in the air and land behind an enemy and then do some other super ninja move as a rogue that would rip a human body apart... sure, that's cool but that's not Dragon Age.

I have to say that DA2 has been scratched off of my games to buy list. I'm instead going to wait for The Witcher 2 and the next Elder Scrolls game.