The Darkspawn were zombies in ornate plate armour. Rotting flesh, corpse like apperance? Zombies. That's incredibly generic as a look.
ptibog wrote...
Utoryo wrote...
Here's an interesting anecdote: a friend of mine who doesn't follow DA2 very recently told me he didn't finish DA:O (played 20+ hours so he felt he had his money's worth though), and his main reason was melee combat on his warrior Warden (the shuffling around and lack of responsiveness).
Needless to say, when I explained to him the DA2 combat changes, the probability he'd buy the game increased significantly.
Here's an interesting anecdote: a friend of mine who doesn't follow DA2 very recently told me he loved DA:O.
Needless to say, when i explained to him the DA2 changes he answered "i won't buy this sh*t"
)
In Exile wrote...
Lord of the Rings. All three movies, particularly the orcs and uruk-hai for the genlocks and the spanning shots of the battle at Ostagar which channels Helm's Deep quite heavily. If I knew how to link images, I would.
I mean, let's name our locales - Haven channels the overland pass at Moria. The Deep Roads are Moria. The Brecillian forest is Mirkwood.
They used the same armour design, largely, as a game like Medieval Total War II would,because the focus was on realistic armour, which some may like but is largely indistinguishable from any other game that tries for the same.
The Darkspawn were zombies in ornate plate armour. Rotting flesh, corpse like apperance? Zombies. That's incredibly generic as a look.
Given that I followed it since the original Aurora engine screen shots... yeah, I knew the engine was old. And how does this even matter? The engine could be brand new and still terrible.
[*]It's a reasonable question. Should Bioware care if people don't finish a game? I certainly wouldn't buy a sequel to a game I didn't like enough to finish, but I've got no idea if I'm typical.ziggehunderslash wrote...
that's an issue? really?Sir JK wrote...
[*]A lot of people didn't finish the game, due to length or uniformity
Damn you Bioware, providing too much of a good thing. Maybe they could just sum it up in a paragraph next time, save me the hassle of actually buying and playing a game.
-Semper- wrote...
and because the majority of the players who bought da:o thought that it actually is an ACTION RPG were disappointed with the "traditional" rpg gameplay ea has to revamp the sequel to attract those buyers again to reach their goal of 10 million sold copies (and to earn money - right now their revenues are deeply red
AlanC9 wrote...
It's important to remember that Bioware also considers DAO to have been an action-RPG. Their marketing said so, explicitly. Unless you think Bio marketing was deliberately lying about the game, which I guess is possible.
AlanC9 wrote...
-Semper- wrote...
and because the majority of the players who bought da:o thought that it actually is an ACTION RPG were disappointed with the "traditional" rpg gameplay ea has to revamp the sequel to attract those buyers again to reach their goal of 10 million sold copies (and to earn money - right now their revenues are deeply red
It's important to remember that Bioware also considers DAO to have been an action-RPG. Their marketing said so, explicitly. Unless you think Bio marketing was deliberately lying about the game, which I guess is possible.
Kilshrek wrote...
Uruk-hai in the movies were larger than a regular human. With lots of hair, and a broad, slightly flattened face. Genlocks were short, squat and round headed creatures.
Helms Deep comparisons to Ostagar, fair enough. Haven is like overland Moria? I can't say I see the same thing you see there.
Deep roads = Moria? I don't know, the Deep Roads were slightly claustrophobic, Moria had a grand hall(Orzammar), but even the mine shafts were huge. Moria had all sorts of space the Deep Roads didn't.
Zombies in plate armour, okay. So now a skeleton with mail coif really looks so different?
My argument for the engine was in response to the complaint that the game itself didn't look too good. It would have looked pretty good for a game 5 years ago, but not now. What was your point there then?
But really, this doesn't really get at the generic issue. With just LOTR being named, this is more of a 'heavily inspired by LOTR' argument rather than saying the game itself looks like a cookie cutter fantasy game.
In Exile wrote...
LoTR is the staple of generic fantasy. To cash in on the visual legacy of that game, everyone and their mother churned out games that caught the visual feel of the game. It set an industry standard.
Gothic IV, Drakesang, Oblivion - they all have a feel that is quite like the look of LoTOR (though LoTR is the pop-culture meme) because they all try to produce this medieval European sword & sorcery look. So long as Dragon Age tries to look like standard fare European sword & sorcery it will look generic.
Modifié par slimgrin, 06 novembre 2010 - 06:21 .
Aermas wrote...
I thought the darkspawn were supposed to be dark. Not skinny, they're not called Skinnyspawn
-Semper- wrote...
to begin with that's why they were disappointed with the gameplay. the marketing of da:o with all this "new ****" trailers and the action rpg within the naming built up wrong assumptions. now they really have to ship an action rpg to please the masses - that's where the big money is.
AlanC9 wrote...
-Semper- wrote...
to begin with that's why they were disappointed with the gameplay. the marketing of da:o with all this "new ****" trailers and the action rpg within the naming built up wrong assumptions. now they really have to ship an action rpg to please the masses - that's where the big money is.
Accepting this argument would mean that DAO's big sales are essentially meaningless, since a large proportion of players have bought it by mistake.
Are you sure you want to go there?
slimgrin wrote...
Good post PsychoBlonde, and I agree. There's much beneath the surface in DA and I shouldn't get too caught up in style and presentation.
PsychoBlonde wrote...
Aermas wrote...
I thought the darkspawn were supposed to be dark. Not skinny, they're not called Skinnyspawn
They're called "darkspawn" because they originate and breed (spawn) in the "deep places of the world". Not because they have dark skin.
AlanC9 wrote...
Accepting this argument would mean that DAO's big sales are essentially meaningless, since a large proportion of players have bought it by mistake.
Sir JK wrote...
Okay... fair enough. I should have clarified that those were assumptions as well and not necessarily true. My mistake.
Regardless. The intent was not to discuss them but rather put up a hypothetical "this is what I would like to have seen and I dealt with the issues thusly:". There is no denying that DAO was a great game, but sequels should always aim at being better than the originals, no? Anything else is rather pointless.
Wulfram wrote...
PsychoBlonde wrote...
Aermas wrote...
I thought the darkspawn were supposed to be dark. Not skinny, they're not called Skinnyspawn
They're called "darkspawn" because they originate and breed (spawn) in the "deep places of the world". Not because they have dark skin.
I'd have thought they were called darkspawn because they were evil
-Semper- wrote...
i do believe that there are two groups of da:o buyers divided by platform. the majority of pc players expected a traditional rpg while the players at consoles thought that da:o would be more an action hack'n slash* they were disappointed by the clunky and slow gameplay and now hope for a better sequel - and there were lots of voices within console magazines which mock about the fights in da:o. we all know that you can't beat sold copies at consoles so ea simply revamps the ip to satisfy those.
*= i am beware of that there are also console players who liked the classic rpg and would not wish for a hack fest...
Retour en haut
