173 réponses à ce sujet

[StingingVelvet]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

No, you're not overreacting. You're reacting. You see combat that looks fast paced and assume that it's like other fast-paced combat. Until more information is presented, that's what you have to go on. More is coming, but it's not out yet, so reactions are totally fair.

But I will put forward a core series of thoughts that have been in my head since we started DA II: "Combat in an RPG does not have to be slow. Special moves do not have to be small. Rogues and warriors do not have to be less visually satisfying than mages."

How do I know? Because years of seeing mages in fantasy settings has made sure we're all pretty damn comfortable with thinking about the weedly little guy in the pointy hat being an absolute bad-ass. And if HE can be awesome, I don't see any reason that my plate-mail wearing warrior shouldn't make me a little giddy, visually.

You can't blame people for being confused when every preview article is painting Dragon Age 2 as more of an action game and more like Mass Effect.  Whether that is the truth, incompotent gaming media on display or your own failings at getting across the point of the game to the media I do not know.  Given how poor Origins' marketing was at getting across what kind of game it actually was, one wonders if this is intentional...

The end point is that people want to know if Dragon Age 2 is still a Baldur's Gate style of game, albeit faster paced and with some streamlining.  If that is what it is then yay, I will probably be quite happy as long as the streamlining isn't too terrible.  If it is God of War with stats and dialogue trees though, like Mass Effect 2 was Gears of War with stats and dialogue trees, then that is a whole other can of worms.  Why, after months of previews, do I still not have the faintest idea which of those categories the game falls into?

And I'm not bashing Mass Effect 2 or action RPGs, I loved Mass Effect 2 and until Fallout: New Vegas it was my game of the year, easy.  It's just that Dragon Age: Origins was a great throwback to the RPGs I loved as a teenager and a unique game compared to most today... I want to know if I am getting a sequel to that game or not.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I thought DA:O was great and still do (though now I am taking a break to play some RTSs). I wasn't expecting Baldur's Gate, despite the tagline of "spiritual successor" being over-used to describe it. It met  the few expectations I had and it is a close second to BG for me in my library of Bioware games.
If anything I wanted more side missions, more visual options for light and medium armors, more of a traditional style inventory system and a much more flexible/robust class system. Luckily the modding community has been adding a few extra missions to flesh out Ferelden more and adding more armors. I can live with the inventory system. The only thing that kind of disappointed me was how strict the class system and specialty classes were. It felt like a backwards hop in game design but it didn't kill the game, I still enjoy it very much.
I don't really like limitations, and DA 2 seems to of had alot of fun little and big things chopped off in an effort to streamline both development and to appeal to a larger consumer base. I may buy a used copy one day but, from what I have heard so far, I can't imagine DA 2 being better than Origins. Alot of people might disagree with me and that is great, it's their right and I'm not trying to persuade anyone otherwise. This is just my opinion and where I stand.
I hope DA 3 will bring back some of the small, and large interests that DA 2 has amputated. Being able to choose from multiple origins was fantastic, as was choosing my PC's races. The descriptions of how the classes are being changed worries me and also seems very illogical in how certain fighting styles are no longer allowed. The new look, although the most trivial factor, seems a bit off to me (and no, not just because it's "new" either). There are some things which have been discussed that I do like about DA 2. The spell/skill progression sounds interesting and so does what little of the plot has been leaked. But I'm really hoping DA 3 will return so some of the aspects I enjoyed in DA:O, and if not....? Meh.


Ryllen's Current Theory of the DA franchise future:
DA:O = Coca-Cola
DA 2 = New Coke
DA 3 = ...Coca-Cola classic?
 

[jbell2825]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

jbell2825 wrote...

Lets be honest when most people think of an RPG its a computer game first.  You just have more control/options on a pc than you do on the xbox which lends its self to a more traditional RPG game.

I have no idea where you and the PC elitists are getting these ideas from. There were turn-based, isometric JRPGs on the Sega Mega Drive back in the day, on a controller that had a frickin' d-pad and three face buttons. You're not making any sense.

And to address your other glaring misconception, Demon's Souls has combat that handles entirely like an action game and merges that seamlessly with a complex leveling and weapon upgrade system. The two absolutely do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Dont you find it ironic that you are blasting me for what you see as my preconcived notions about rpgs and computer games, but yet you have no problems makeing assumptions about me based off of 2 posts?  At least I am brining in a few decades of computer gaming experience before I make my claims.  If you read all of my post you would see that I have both Morrow wind and Oblivion for the xbox.  Most of my games are for the xbox.  I understand there have been rpg's for consoles for years, but if you ask most gamers what they think of when they think of RPG, is a computer game that comes to mind.

I know I am old, my first game MULE, followed up by Ultima 3 and autoduel.  I loved Bards tale and any of the Ultima series.  Hell I remember when pong fist came out and how cool that was

I understand that several of you are hyper sensitive to anything that comes close to critizism about DA2, just dont lump me in that catagory yet.  I am simply asking Bioware why they made some of the changes they did, if they felt that DA:O was a success?  So far most of the changes involve reduced choice and a larger focus on action which strongly implies that the focus has changed from a computer RPG to something more palpable to the console crowd.

Thats not bad, or a step down.  I dont have an elitist view on it.  Its a simple question.  Why make the change if the first one was a success?  Improvements I love, change is great too, but so far, based on what we know (this could chang) Bioware has ditched the RPG aspects to something more akin to God of War (great game I hear).

Once again, this is not a bad thing.  I dont think this makes DA2 a horrible game.  Its not what I was hoping for, but life goes on.  I just want to know why they did it, money, fame, fortune?  Is that so wrong to ask?

[Maria Caliban]

jbell2825 wrote...
I just want to know why they did it, money, fame, fortune?  Is that so wrong to ask?

It's not wrong to ask. It's wrong to ignore the answer you've been given.

From Mike, in this thread: "...we believe there were things that would make the game better, so we made some changes."

Answer: Because they thought the game would be better.

[techno-chicken]

never played such a buggy game. How they can say its the spiritual sucessor to BG. Not even the same league as BG

[ptibog]

Maria Caliban wrote...

jbell2825 wrote...
I just want to know why they did it, money, fame, fortune?  Is that so wrong to ask?

It's not wrong to ask. It's wrong to ignore the answer you've been given.

From Mike, in this thread: "...we believe there were things that would make the game better, so we made some changes."

Answer: Because they thought the game would be better.

George Lucas believed adding Jar Jar would make Star Wars better. Was he right?

[Lumikki]

Can't much say, but DAO was fine game, but not really for me. DA2 seem to go even direction what I don't like so much. But that's just me, for others both could be excelent game. I like more realistic impression than superhero fantasy impression.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:43 .

[Maria Caliban]

ptibog wrote...

George Lucas believed adding Jar Jar would make Star Wars better. Was he right?

No.

George Lucas believed making Darth Vader Luke's father would make Star Wars better. Was he right?

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

ptibog wrote...


George Lucas believed adding Jar Jar would make Star Wars better. Was he right?

But someone at Bioware thought Cespenar would make BG:ToB better...ugh.

[jbell2825]

Maria Caliban wrote...

jbell2825 wrote...
I just want to know why they did it, money, fame, fortune?  Is that so wrong to ask?

It's not wrong to ask. It's wrong to ignore the answer you've been given.

From Mike, in this thread: "...we believe there were things that would make the game better, so we made some changes."

Answer: Because they thought the game would be better.

I didnt ignore it, I read it several times.  The post you qouted was more in response to the follow up question I asked, which was along the lines about being tight lipped about the action elements vs the RPG elements.  Which in turn started this new line of talk.  Mainly that I am now a pc elitist that doesnt think RPG belongs on the console.

I realize that I show have said "wanted to know", I can see the confusion now.  Although to be honest, I was hoping for more detail in his answere.  I didnt doubt that they thought the changes were for the better, but was it for sales?  Artistic merit?  EA said it would be better?  How is it better?

Current response is little more than "because I said so."  Hopefully as the game approaches release date Bioware can elaborate more on this.

[LTD]

Ryllen's Current Theory of the DA franchise future:[/u]
DA:O = Coca-Cola
DA 2 = New Coke
DA 3 = ...Coca-Cola classic?
 

Haha, you'd deserve a can of Dr Pepper for that. I hope you are right.

[Ziggeh]

You know, while I know bioware appreciates feedback, I think it'd be pretty helpful if people placed themselves in the developers shoes for a few moments. Forget about what you personally like or dislike and forget what you've heard from the limited information we have about DA2.

Try thinking about what you felt worked and didn't work from the position of someone who actually made the game. Imagine what you'd be dissapointed with.

Personally I'm an old school gamer who's keen on turn based strategy. I would have liked a mod that removed you from the action all together and let scripts handle all four characters, but I can see from a development perspective that the combat system, while complex and interesting (if a little unbalanced) on the PC, was rather clumsy and awkward for the majority of players, ie those with consoles.

Origins was an excellent game, but with hindsight I think it's pretty obvious that they wouldn't make the same decisions in the next, that would lead to the same dissapointments.

As someone who doesn't own a console, I really get that it's often unpalatable that games are often "watered down" for the expansive console market, leaving me with less and less of the tactical games I crave, and this is definitely a point that needs raising on this forum, but really we need to find a more constructive way to put it than "from the limited information I have, I've concluded that you're ruining something I feel entilted to". I would say however, that Bioware is among the few companies that have an actual track record in actually improving their IPs through streamlining them to meet the demands of multiple platforms, so while many of us might like it if they just made Baldur's Gate but with better graphics, I think we need to stop hopping up and down about our fear of change.

[Gabey5]

they are making a different game.

[Ziggeh]

Gabey5 wrote...

they are making a different game.

They've gone to the trouble of appending a 2 to the title to avoid confusion on that point.

[crimzontearz]

Maria Caliban wrote...

ptibog wrote...

George Lucas believed adding Jar Jar would make Star Wars better. Was he right?

No.

George Lucas believed making Darth Vader Luke's father would make Star Wars better. Was he right?

uh....Maria, in some instances what Bioware is doing is akin to a waiter giving you a completely different take on say a wellington because he thought you would have liked it better that way and you should not be allowed to have something (by his standards) to be less than satisfactory (for him)

that is mighty close to hubris

[soteria]

uh....Maria, in some instances what Bioware is doing is akin to a waiter giving you a completely different take on say a wellington because he thought you would have liked it better that way and you should not be allowed to have something (by his standards) to be less than satisfactory (for him)



that is mighty close to hubris

It certainly is mighty close to hubris for the player to see Bioware as a sort of waiter that is supposed to just bring you what you ordered, dagnabbit. They aren't waiters and this isn't a restaurant. A better analogy might be, "its akin to a band producing an album that takes their sound in a different direction than what some fans wanted."

[crimzontearz]

soteria wrote...

uh....Maria, in some instances what Bioware is doing is akin to a waiter giving you a completely different take on say a wellington because he thought you would have liked it better that way and you should not be allowed to have something (by his standards) to be less than satisfactory (for him)

that is mighty close to hubris

It certainly is mighty close to hubris for the player to see Bioware as a sort of waiter that is supposed to just bring you what you ordered, dagnabbit. They aren't waiters and this isn't a restaurant. A better analogy might be, "its akin to a band producing an album that takes their sound in a different direction than what some fans wanted."

yes the waiter thing might be wrong but think about it

when people asked "why no toolkits?"

one of the answers was "because we do not want you to give yourself a subpar experience by working around things with the toolkits"

[AlanC9]

techno-chicken wrote...

never played such a buggy game. How they can say its the spiritual sucessor to BG. Not even the same league as BG

Huh? Since when wasn't BG buggy? 

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...

uh....Maria, in some instances what Bioware is doing is akin to a waiter giving you a completely different take on say a wellington because he thought you would have liked it better that way and you should not be allowed to have something (by his standards) to be less than satisfactory (for him)

that is mighty close to hubris

It certainly is mighty close to hubris for the player to see Bioware as a sort of waiter that is supposed to just bring you what you ordered, dagnabbit. They aren't waiters and this isn't a restaurant. A better analogy might be, "its akin to a band producing an album that takes their sound in a different direction than what some fans wanted."

Let's stick with the restaurant analogy. It's like a chef offering his own version of Beef Wellington. The menu says exactly what it is, and if you don't like how he makes it you are free to order something else or go to a different restaurant.

[PsychoBlonde]

AlanC9 wrote...

techno-chicken wrote...

never played such a buggy game. How they can say its the spiritual sucessor to BG. Not even the same league as BG

Huh? Since when wasn't BG buggy? 

Yeah, I remember having to load BG numerous times because of weird errors, some of which involved characters getting "stuck" dead or conversations not playing out correctly, things like that.  I distinctly remember a couple of crash bugs on entering/leaving some areas, too, or completing a couple of quests.  It wasn't such a big deal because I was constantly saving the game because if you got unlucky you could get gacked by almost anything.

The only "bug" I encountered in DA:O was in Lothering--if I talked to Sten and got the "free the qunari" quest before I went into the chantry, the game would always, ALWAYS crash to desktop when I tried to go into the chantry the first time.  It was WEIRD.  Well, that and the ancient elven boots not appearing.

IMO DA:O was a lot less buggy than pretty much any other game I've ever played.  I didn't have to make up any workarounds or remember "don't complete X Y and Z quests out of order" or anything like that.

Awakening, now, Awakening was buggy as hell.  I went online about 1/3 of the way through the game to figure out if I'd done something wrong and read the list of known issues.  I was like, you have got to be KIDDING me.  Then I actually ENCOUNTERED some of the issues.  Holy Cow.  99% of times, when I play games I have no problem with most of the bugs people talk about, but I hit the JACKPOT with Awakening.

[Nerevar-as]

Goddess Of Boobs wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Can't much say, but DAO was fine game, but not really for me. DA2 seem to go even direction what I don't like so much. But that's just me, for others both could be excelent game. I like more realistic impression than superhero fantasy impression.

That's what I don't like. And all I'm really seeing so far are these almost comic like actions and graphics. If they could have chosen one more thing to take from ME2 WHY NOT THE GRAPHICS!

I hope that is because DA2 won´t be a near as much as a corridor game as ME.

[crimzontearz]

AlanC9 wrote...

soteria wrote...

uh....Maria, in some instances what Bioware is doing is akin to a waiter giving you a completely different take on say a wellington because he thought you would have liked it better that way and you should not be allowed to have something (by his standards) to be less than satisfactory (for him)

that is mighty close to hubris

It certainly is mighty close to hubris for the player to see Bioware as a sort of waiter that is supposed to just bring you what you ordered, dagnabbit. They aren't waiters and this isn't a restaurant. A better analogy might be, "its akin to a band producing an album that takes their sound in a different direction than what some fans wanted."

Let's stick with the restaurant analogy. It's like a chef offering his own version of Beef Wellington. The menu says exactly what it is, and if you don't like how he makes it you are free to order something else or go to a different restaurant.

or the chef telling you no you cannot put salt on that steak because well I am not allowing you to season it to YOUR likings

yeah...uhm..not smart

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Let's stick with the restaurant analogy. It's like a chef offering his own version of Beef Wellington. The menu says exactly what it is, and if you don't like how he makes it you are free to order something else or go to a different restaurant.

or the chef telling you no you cannot put salt on that steak because well I am not allowing you to season it to YOUR likings

yeah...uhm..not smart

crimzontearz, usually your posts make more sense than that. Those two metaphors aren't equivalent. Either you believe the situation is like my metaphor, or like yours.

Are you saying that my metaphor is wrong, and that this really is like a chef refusing to give out salt shakers? (IIRC Paul Prudhomme used to do that). That'd be a rational post -- you'd still be wrong, but it wouldn't be irrational.