276 réponses à ce sujet

[syllogi]

In Exile wrote...

But the broader question is - how can Bioware possibly know why you buy the game?

I would really hope that in 15 years of operation, Bioware has identified why people enjoy their games.  When I think of Bioware, I think of engaging stories and characters, and when Dragon Age: Origins was in development, as I said previously, they were indeed marketing that game as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2, and to me that means that they were serious about appealing to those who enjoy traditional RPGs. 

When the majority of features from DA:O that one would consider being integral to RPGs appear to be considered non-essential in DA2, and are either being removed or being significantly changed, I wonder what happened between DA:O's success as one of their best selling games ever, and now. 

I bought DA:O because I wanted another game like Baldur's Gate 2.  It was marketed to me as a traditional RPG.  Why *wouldn't* I be surprised and disappointed that the sequel is going to be an action RPG that takes away many of the elements that made DA:O what it was. 

And before I'm told that my "logic" is faulty again:  this is my opinion, based on the information that Bioware has put out there.  Before DA:O came out, I was on this forum and the old one, telling people that they would be pleasantly surprised by what Origins would be, and that marketing like the Marilyn Manson trailer (even though it was awful) was not representative of what the game would be.  I feel like I was right in trusting Bioware back then, even if DA:O had it's flaws.  I would LOVE to be proven wrong now, but I don't see how that's possible.  And no amount of "logic" is going to change that they are making an entirely different sort of game this time around, and marketing it to a different group of people.

[Addai]

stickmanhenry wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

stickmanhenry wrote...

i mean, does everyone really hate ALL of these changes?
i for one actually like the idea of having a voiced character among other things but right now it seems like the majority of people are furious with them and i am yet to see many comments actually praising some of the things bioware has done.

Oh, there are plenty of positive commenters.  I mean, I don't go into the fan threads but I'm assuming those are all positive.

As for what I've seen where I've thought "that's cool":  The Alistair and Nathaniel cameos.  I thought the camera work was good in the cutscene I saw.  The early lore releases they did were interesting.  I like the "new" Qunari- everything I've seen about the Qunari has been really interesting and creepy in a good way.  I also like femHawke's look.

Overall, the gameplay changes really worry me, though.  A lot of it seems like a step down from Origins and right now I plan to wait and get it on markdown.  If there's no toolset, I might not get it at all.  I think some of the strong reaction in the forums is that fans of DAO had expectations about the sequel which obviously BioWare did not share.

honestly, though most of the positive stuff is being heavily drowned out by the cry's of rage. I think if anything, some people at Bioware would be losing a bit of confidence.

I'm assuming they're used to it and expected some of it.  They've said as much.

I admit, the things that I don't like, I really really don't like.  And unfortunately that has been most of what I've heard about the game.  But really, if you were paying attention to the DLCs and the changes in Awakening, you could see it all coming.  I just kept expecting them to get back to the good stuff, at least with the sequel.  Well...

Modifié par Addai67, 08 novembre 2010 - 04:53 .

[Ziggeh]

Addai67 wrote...
I just kept expecting them to get back to the good stuff

Random curiosity: what is "the good stuff"?

[upsettingshorts]

TeenZombie wrote...

my "logic"

What should I have called it?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 08 novembre 2010 - 04:56 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

StingingVelvet wrote...

I'm noticing today that reaction to the 5 minute leaked video from yesterday is resoundingly negative, even on console websites. Maybe this will be Bioware's first fail?

I think someone who dislikes something are more likely to say something about it, or at least louder. 

[syllogi]

TeenZombie wrote...

And before I'm told that my "logic" is faulty again:  this is my opinion, based on the information that Bioware has put out there. 

Once again, my opinion, based on Bioware's information.  Unless someone has new information, direct from Bioware, that changes my opinion, logic isn't really a factor.

[In Exile]

TeenZombie wrote...

I would really hope that in 15 years of operation, Bioware has identified why people enjoy their games.  When I think of Bioware, I think of engaging stories and characters, and when Dragon Age: Origins was in development, as I said previously, they were indeed marketing that game as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2, and to me that means that they were serious about appealing to those who enjoy traditional RPGs.

In the past 7 years of operation, beside DA:O, bioware produced the following games: Knights of the Old Republic; Jade Empire and Mass Effect. Since Neverwinter Nights, they moved away from any kind of traditional RPG mechanism.

These games included the following features:

1) No Inventory
2) No isometric camera
3) PC VO
4) No party-based combat
5) Console beat-em-up combat

So should Bioware have expected you should love these features?

That being said, you haven't actually addressed the question I raised. Let's say you're right - they knew 100% everyon buying DA:O would want a spiritual successor to BGII.

What does that really mean? You said engaging stories and characters. Why do you think DA2 does not have engaging stories or characters?

They marketed Mass Effect as the spiritual succesor of Knights of the Old Republic, but that ME had no lightsabers, no dice rolls, and a knock-off of the force (yeah ''biotic'' field, right?). 

If Mass Effect is the spiritual successor of KoTOR to Bioware, then what does it mean for DA:O to be the spiritual successor of BGII?  What features are central? The fantasy setting?  The silent-VO?  Full party control?  

Bioware showed what they thought of some of these features with Mass Effect, including removing silent-VO and full party control for ME.

So I'm going to ask a third time - even if you're right and all they wanted was a spiritual succesor to BGII, what makes you think the features you want should be in?

When the majority of features from DA:O that one would consider being integral to RPGs appear to be considered non-essential in DA2, and are either being removed or being significantly changed, I wonder what happened between DA:O's success as one of their best selling games ever, and now. 

Who is this ''one''?  You? I certainly wouldn't consider silent VO central to an RPG; in fact, I think silent VO is antithetical to a good RPG.

Again - my issue is with the pressuposition of objectivity you seem to be working for. Why do you think these things are objective truths Bioware should know?  If you and I can't agree on these things, and we disagree whether DA2 is less or more of an RPG than DA:O, why would you fault Bioware?

I bought DA:O because I wanted another game like Baldur's Gate 2.  It was marketed to me as a traditional RPG.  Why *wouldn't* I be surprised and disappointed that the sequel is going to be an action RPG that takes away many of the elements that made DA:O what it was. 

I bought DA:O because it was produced by Bioware, knowing it would have many features different than BGII. BGII I thought was an overrated and mediocre game. Why should I expect that DA2 would be more like BGII when I bought it because of the ways it was unlike BGII?

And before I'm told that my "logic" is faulty again:  this is my opinion, based on the information that Bioware has put out there.  Before DA:O came out, I was on this forum and the old one, telling people that they would be pleasantly surprised by what Origins would be, and that marketing like the Marilyn Manson trailer (even though it was awful) was not representative of what the game would be.  I feel like I was right in trusting Bioware back then, even if DA:O had it's flaws.  I would LOVE to be proven wrong now, but I don't see how that's possible.  And no amount of "logic" is going to change that they are making an entirely different sort of game this time around, and marketing it to a different group of people.

Your logic is faulty because you're taking things for granted. Yes, if Bioware had magic powers to know exactly why you bought their games, and if you both meant the same thing about what a spiritual succesor was, then maybe what your rationale would be justified.

But these things are impossible. So you're not jusitifed in reaching the conclusion you did. You bought the game for some specific reason. Awesome. Other people bought it for other reasons. Some of the features you think are neccesary for the game I swalled because they would let me get the features I wanted. So which one of us should Bioware aggravate with DA2?

I'm not arguing they're making a game you like. You know what you like; I have no idea what you like. I'm just telling you that your reasons are confusing, becuase they're based on assuming Bioware could know things that are impossible for them to know.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:23 .

[WuWeiWu]

JohnEpler wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

BioWare won't alter aspects of Dragon Age II at this point and they're not going to listen to our opinion of the game until it actually comes out.

That runs somewhat at odds with comments from BioWare's own folks, who do point out when things get criticized for their appearance and such that "the game isn't out yet we have X months before it ships to improve things". So while it'd be foolish to expect major changes at this point (not that they can't ever happen) still corrections, additions and fixes can --and have to, and will-- be done to game in its current state anyway. It's not yet complete nor fully polished after all.

Of course, it'd also be foolish to expect these corrections, additions and fixes to be affected to large degree by rabble on the forums, but it doesn't also mean external opinions can't have impact at all -- wasn't the speed of 2h animation tweaked in part as result of feedback they've gathered when the game was shown some time earlier?

To clarify this point a bit - we do read everything that people post, positive and negative. And while some points are so locked down that there's really nothing that'll change due to resources and time, some stuff -does- get adjusted because of fan reaction. We're not going to go in and start a massive overhaul of anything as a result of what we hear, but we do look to see if there's a way to please both groups without making some poor programmer work through Christmas.

The other thing is, we have a few people who spend a decent amount of time on the forums (occasionally, a little -too- much time, perhaps upsetting their significant others *cough*) and so we're pretty good at identifying what's a valid concern versus what's either a matter of opinion for a small percentage of our audience, or what's a result of not having enough information. And, of course, there are always future projects. Though opinions gain more weight when people have actually played the game, enough concern about something pre-release can have an effect on how we do things in whatever our next endeavour is.

Now, having said all this - we're a lot more likely to read someone's feedback when it's presented 'I don't like this change because of these reasons' than when it's presented 'Dragon Age 2? MORE LIKE GEARS OF AGE.. EFFECT. YEAH.'  Civility and common decency will get you everywhere in regards to us reading and possibly responding to your concerns. Throwing out vitriol and bile and talking about how much we, our game and the MLB all suck will quickly get you ignored or, if you start attacking other posters who have contrary opinions, banned.

So keep expressing your concerns! We like to read them, particularly when you back up why you're concerned. However, when you start in on the 'YOU GUYS ARE JERKS AND I HATE YOU' you're probably going to be ignored. Also, bear in mind that I am but a simple Cinematic Designer  So my decision-making power is limited to 'hey guys, nobody in the forums likes the hitchcock zoom'.

My God! A reasonable post, of which all peoples should try to exemplify. I love you, and I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not generally one, because I'm an ass and believe in refuting with the extreme, but there are very few reasonable posters on this board (excluding Moderators, as all of the ones I have encountered thus far are way reasonable) and they all reply to the same types of posts and say the same types of things because those posts contain the same irrational/misinformed arguments.

Maybe this will change.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
If Mass Effect is the spiritual successor of KoTOR to Bioware, then what does it mean for DA:O to be the spiritual successor of BGII?  What features are central? The fantasy setting?  The silent-VO?  Full party control?  

"Spiritual successor" strikes me more and more as the marketing equivalent of the Obama 2008 campaign. It lets people project their own personal wish-list onto a game without really clarifying what Bioware thinks are the central features.

Edit: of course, all marketing does that to some extent. But this sort of thing practically invites people to mislead themselves.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 novembre 2010 - 07:34 .

[Blukes]

When I hear a game is based on BG I think traditional RPG
based on D&D but without the strict D&D rule set I think isometric camera,
wide-ranging dialogue options, customisable companions (inc.
armour/inventory/stats), multiple races, gender, customisable appearance and
the potential to choose your characters destiny to some extent.

A lot of that control appears at this early stage to be taken away from me and that doesn’t inspire a great
deal of confidence.

I guess I consider myself a hardcore role-player; I like to
take on character roles, to imagine what my character is like, how he or she
acts in certain situations and develop a background narrative.

Dragon Age: Origins was terrific for that because it aided
me on that journey. I do agree with what someone posted earlier, if DA2 is
restricted to one character (Hawke) I can’t see myself going back for multiple
play throughs (I’ve played 4 characters through DA:O).  

Good reviews and an involving narrative that develops the
world of Thedas and Fereldan further will persuade me to purchase the game. If
it turns out to be a God of War clone (which I doubt it will), I’ll wait for
Dragon Age 3 or check out Neverwinter.

I think everyone needs to remember that those Gameplay
previews were of the console version, not the PC version. The PC version, I
would think (correct me if I’m wrong), would be aimed at a more involved and
potentially more mature audience and as a result the gameplay will probably
have some marked differences (I have never owned a console, nor have I played
DA:O on one so once again, correct me if I am wrong)

Personally I agree with a lot of TeenZombies sentiments, I
was attracted to DA:O because of the link made to BG by the Bioware marketing
gurus. If DA2 goes down a different path I may be more inclined to choose a
different game for my next purchase (these games aren’t cheap in Australia,
$110 for DA:O at initial release hurts the hip pocket, especially if I only get
one play through).

Time to throw on the flame retardant suit.

Modifié par Blukes, 08 novembre 2010 - 07:33 .

[syllogi]

In Exile wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

I would really hope that in 15 years of operation, Bioware has identified why people enjoy their games.  When I think of Bioware, I think of engaging stories and characters, and when Dragon Age: Origins was in development, as I said previously, they were indeed marketing that game as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2, and to me that means that they were serious about appealing to those who enjoy traditional RPGs.

In the past 7 years of operation, beside DA:O, bioware produced the following games: Knights of the Old Republic; Jade Empire and Mass Effect. Since Neverwinter Nights, they moved away from any kind of traditional RPG mechanism.

These games included the following features:

1) No Inventory
2) No isometric camera
3) PC VO
4) No party-based combat
5) Console beat-em-up combat

So should Bioware have expected you should love these features?

That being said, you haven't actually addressed the question I raised. Let's say you're right - they knew 100% everyon buying DA:O would want a spiritual successor to BGII.

What does that really mean? You said engaging stories and characters. Why do you think DA2 does not have engaging stories or characters?

They marketed Mass Effect as the spiritual succesor of Knights of the Old Republic, but that ME had no lightsabers, no dice rolls, and a knock-off of the force (yeah ''biotic'' field, right?). 

If Mass Effect is the spiritual successor of KoTOR to Bioware, then what does it mean for DA:O to be the spiritual successor of BGII?  What features are central? The fantasy setting?  The silent-VO?  Full party control?  

Bioware showed what they thought of some of these features with Mass Effect, including removing silent-VO and full party control for ME.

So I'm going to ask a third time - even if you're right and all they wanted was a spiritual succesor to BGII, what makes you think the features you want should be in?

 I answered your question the first time you asked, in my first paragraph quoted above.  It's probably not the answer you want, but that's my answer.  Also, you just asked again twice in one post, which is totally unfair. 

Also, during that seven years, I was waiting for, and was thrilled by the arrival of, Dragon Age: Origins, which, as I have repeatedly said, was supposed to be a traditional RPG, and delivered on it's promises.

In Exile wrote...
Who is this ''one''?  You? I certainly wouldn't consider silent VO central to an RPG; in fact, I think silent VO is antithetical to a good RPG.

Again - my issue is with the pressuposition of objectivity you seem to be working for. Why do you think these things are objective truths Bioware should know?  If you and I can't agree on these things, and we disagree whether DA2 is less or more of an RPG than DA:O, why would you fault Bioware?

A voiced PC really isn't a concern for me, and I actually feel like I was more attached to my voiced character in ME and ME2 than I was to my Grey Warden, but I understand why it is for other people.  My point was that this is one element, amongst many, that didn't need to be "hot rodded".  I may indeed prefer it, but many RPG fans won't.  I am concerned about the bigger picture, of Bioware moving away from making RPGs.

In Exile wrote...
I bought DA:O because it was produced by Bioware, knowing it would have many features different than BGII. BGII I thought was an overrated and mediocre game. Why should I expect that DA2 would be more like BGII when I bought it because of the ways it was unlike BGII?

Oh hay, you have a different opinion than me.  Good for you!  You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with you.  You can type till your fingers fall off, but I won't agree.  Isn't life grand, that we can all get along despite that?

In Exile wrote...
Your logic is faulty because you're taking things for granted. Yes, if Bioware had magic powers to know exactly why you bought their games, and if you both meant the same thing about what a spiritual succesor was, then maybe what your rationale would be justified.

But these things are impossible. So you're not jusitifed in reaching the conclusion you did. You bought the game for some specific reason. Awesome. Other people bought it for other reasons. Some of the features you think are neccesary for the game I swalled because they would let me get the features I wanted. So which one of us should Bioware aggravate with DA2?

I'm not arguing they're making a game you like. You know what you like; I have no idea what you like. I'm just telling you that your reasons are confusing, becuase they're based on assuming Bioware could know things that are impossible for them to know.

I want a game like DA:O, but refined.  That's really not hard to guess from my previous posts.  If they were telling us that they heard our issues with DA:O, and they were changing the things that didn't work, but also keeping the things that did make the game great, I would be perfectly happy.  Instead, they appear to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Quite honestly, after hearing your opinion of BG2, there really isn't much for us to say to each other.  You are getting the game you will want in DA2.  I'll be on the sidelines, waiting for another BG2 or DA:O.  The world won't end because we disagree.

[errant_knight]

WuWeiWu wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

BioWare won't alter aspects of Dragon Age II at this point and they're not going to listen to our opinion of the game until it actually comes out.

That runs somewhat at odds with comments from BioWare's own folks, who do point out when things get criticized for their appearance and such that "the game isn't out yet we have X months before it ships to improve things". So while it'd be foolish to expect major changes at this point (not that they can't ever happen) still corrections, additions and fixes can --and have to, and will-- be done to game in its current state anyway. It's not yet complete nor fully polished after all.

Of course, it'd also be foolish to expect these corrections, additions and fixes to be affected to large degree by rabble on the forums, but it doesn't also mean external opinions can't have impact at all -- wasn't the speed of 2h animation tweaked in part as result of feedback they've gathered when the game was shown some time earlier?

To clarify this point a bit - we do read everything that people post, positive and negative. And while some points are so locked down that there's really nothing that'll change due to resources and time, some stuff -does- get adjusted because of fan reaction. We're not going to go in and start a massive overhaul of anything as a result of what we hear, but we do look to see if there's a way to please both groups without making some poor programmer work through Christmas.

The other thing is, we have a few people who spend a decent amount of time on the forums (occasionally, a little -too- much time, perhaps upsetting their significant others *cough*) and so we're pretty good at identifying what's a valid concern versus what's either a matter of opinion for a small percentage of our audience, or what's a result of not having enough information. And, of course, there are always future projects. Though opinions gain more weight when people have actually played the game, enough concern about something pre-release can have an effect on how we do things in whatever our next endeavour is.

Now, having said all this - we're a lot more likely to read someone's feedback when it's presented 'I don't like this change because of these reasons' than when it's presented 'Dragon Age 2? MORE LIKE GEARS OF AGE.. EFFECT. YEAH.'  Civility and common decency will get you everywhere in regards to us reading and possibly responding to your concerns. Throwing out vitriol and bile and talking about how much we, our game and the MLB all suck will quickly get you ignored or, if you start attacking other posters who have contrary opinions, banned.

So keep expressing your concerns! We like to read them, particularly when you back up why you're concerned. However, when you start in on the 'YOU GUYS ARE JERKS AND I HATE YOU' you're probably going to be ignored. Also, bear in mind that I am but a simple Cinematic Designer  So my decision-making power is limited to 'hey guys, nobody in the forums likes the hitchcock zoom'.

My God! A reasonable post, of which all peoples should try to exemplify. I love you, and I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not generally one, because I'm an ass and believe in refuting with the extreme, but there are very few reasonable posters on this board (excluding Moderators, as all of the ones I have encountered thus far are way reasonable) and they all reply to the same types of posts and say the same types of things because those posts contain the same irrational/misinformed arguments.

Maybe this will change.

I always enjoy Mr. Epler's posts. They're always informative and a breath of fresh air. Even when I disagree, they're rather calming, somehow. Maybe because he's so darn civil and well-spoken, it makes you want to live up to that standard.

[AlanC9]

TeenZombie wrote...

 I answered your question the first time you asked, in my first paragraph quoted above.  It's probably not the answer you want, but that's my answer.  Also, you just asked again twice in one post, which is totally unfair. 

You answered, yep, but that paragraph goes like this

1. Bio knows by now what people liked about their games
2: when you think of Bioware, you think of engaging stories and characters
3: But when you think of BG2, you think of a "traditional RPG"

Am I following right?  The problem with DA2 is that it won't be a "traditional RPG," not that it won't be a good game, or even a good Bioware-style game.

There are two obvious problems with this. One is that "traditional RPG" is almost content-free; there's no accepted definition. The other is that I'm not at all certain that Bioware advertised DAO as a "traditional RPG." SStBG2 doesn't necessarily mean that. A "traditional RPG" fan might want it to mean that, but that isn't at all the same thing.

[In Exile]

TeenZombie wrote...
 I answered your question the first time you asked, in my first paragraph quoted above.  It's probably not the answer you want, but that's my answer.  Also, you just asked again twice in one post, which is totally unfair. 

Also, during that seven years, I was waiting for, and was thrilled by the arrival of, Dragon Age: Origins, which, as I have repeatedly said, was supposed to be a traditional RPG, and delivered on it's promises.

Well, how can Bioware know that? They released 4 distinct games between BG and DA:O. How would they know if you are a repeat customer or not? How could they know what you did buy if you bought any previous games? Even if they knew your puchasing history (which is an impossible breach of privacy), how could they know your particular evaluation of each product?

A voiced PC really isn't a concern for me, and I actually feel like I was more attached to my voiced character in ME and ME2 than I was to my Grey Warden, but I understand why it is for other people.  My point was that this is one element, amongst many, that didn't need to be "hot rodded".  I may indeed prefer it, but many RPG fans won't.  I am concerned about the bigger picture, of Bioware moving away from making RPGs.

But can't you see how this is an impossible standard? For you or I, if we had a game identical to DA:O but with PC VO, we would apparently think the game is better. Others would think the game is less of an RPG.

Let me be explicit: the definition of an RPG is a cluster-****. Everyone has their own idea of what the genre is. There's absolutely no agreement on what the central features are. I can certainly appreciate that you feel that Bioware is moving away from an RPG.

The thing is, why? And even if you feel you're justified, can you see that there might be people who disagree? If there are people who disagree, it can't be self-evident what an RPG is. And if it isn't self-evident what an RPG is, Bioware could believe they are not moving away from an RPG just by having some idiosyncratic standard of what an RPG is.

In other words, the only way you're justified in feeling let down by Bioware is if Bioware started with the same beliefs you did. But if they didn't, you aren't justified in your criticism. And it's impossible for us to know wha Bioware believed .

Oh hay, you have a different opinion than me.  Good for you!  You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with you.  You can type till your fingers fall off, but I won't agree.  Isn't life grand, that we can all get along despite that?

Oh, I think we should get along. I hate conflict, even the internet kind. I just feel like you're criticizing Bioware in an unfair way.

You're absolutely justified to feel the game won't be good, won't be worth your money, etc. The only objection I have is a broad sense of being let down by Bioware, because that implies a kind of knowledge over their motives and design philosophy that is impossible to have.

I want a game like DA:O, but refined.  That's really not hard to guess from my previous posts.  If they were telling us that they heard our issues with DA:O, and they were changing the things that didn't work, but also keeping the things that did make the game great, I would be perfectly happy.  Instead, they appear to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

See, here is the thing: I agree with you complete re: the bold. I want a refined DA:O. But what does it mean to refine DA:O? That's where we disagree, and this is where you and Bioware disagree, and the fact that you disagree is not a sign Bioware backed out on their relationship with their consumers.

Quite honestly, after hearing your opinion of BG2, there really isn't much for us to say to each other.  You are getting the game you will want in DA2.  I'll be on the sidelines, waiting for another BG2 or DA:O.  The world won't end because we disagree.

Oh, certainly not. But you don't know what I disliked about BG2. This is always my point. Saying "I did not like BGII but I liked DA:O" tells you absolutely nothing about my taste in games.

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...
See, here is the thing: I agree with you complete re: the bold. I want a refined DA:O. But what does it mean to refine DA:O?

Tighten up the skills system, rework combat somewhat so it's less "clunky", strip down the bloated inventory system.....wait a minute....

[LTD]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

In Exile wrote...
See, here is the thing: I agree with you complete re: the bold. I want a refined DA:O. But what does it mean to refine DA:O?

Tighten up the skills system, rework combat somewhat so it's less "clunky", strip down the bloated inventory system.....wait a minute....

Essentially remove game from the game, leave F+F relationships and a storyline. Good dialogue and hot elfs byrds doing one another! WOOOHOOOOO. .....wait a minute.... why play video games when street corner shops are full of erotic/romantic soft cover literature to satisfy our hunger.

[Ziggeh]

LTD wrote...

Essentially remove game from the game

Which elements of the game would any of that be removing? I read an awful lot of people making vague "sky is falling" references without actually qualifying what is missing, and those that have so far have all been misinformed or innacurate.

So why not give it a go.

[Revan312]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

LTD wrote...

Essentially remove game from the game

Which elements of the game would any of that be removing? I read an awful lot of people making vague "sky is falling" references without actually qualifying what is missing, and those that have so far have all been misinformed or innacurate.

So why not give it a go.

Hmm, well one is no companion appearence customization to speak of, stat swapping, but no armor swapping.. Another is game length, With a voiced protag, the game will be 1/3rd the length at best of DA:O. Also only being able to play as a human that has but one backstory..

Finally the fact that you fight a giant darkspawn fetus terminator mutant at the end.. oh wait, that's just what I'm guessing will happen

[Ziggeh]

See, now those are really reasonable, and I think we'd all agree, a shame, but I also think they're understandable and unavoidable effects of things I feel will be improvements over DA:O

Revan312 wrote...
Hmm, well one is no companion appearence customization to speak of, stat swapping, but no armor swapping..

I suppose the ideal would be a plethora of outfits (which loops back to inventory bloat, but also is added development), but realistically, was anyone super keen on the leather or cloth looks in origins? "customisable" though they were? Medium and heavy were a bit better but it was still all a bit poor, limited looks and awkward frames. Personally I think the party members not looking like well armed refugees throughout is a good thing, some measure of control would be good, but they've said there'll be at least more than one outfit per, so theres that.

Revan312 wrote...Another is game length, With a voiced protag, the game will be 1/3rd the length at best of DA:O.

Is that confirmed? That would make it very short indeed. ME2 was about as long as DA:O no? Or did I spend an awful lot of time mining? It wouldn't suprise me if it were shorter, but again, understandable with the added constraint. I suppose whether you prefer a text based protagonist or not is a personal matter. For myself I think Femshep was one of the better game characters I've ever seen were as I barely recall what my Warden looked like. The lack of voice in a world full of them was quite a detachment.

Revan312 wrote...Also only being able to play as a human that has but one backstory..

That is a bummer, to be sure, but again, unavoidable due to the voice (I think 6-7 fully voiced leads would be a bit much to ask)

[tmp7704]

Revan312 wrote...

Finally the fact that you fight a giant darkspawn fetus terminator mutant at the end.. oh wait, that's just what I'm guessing will happen

I was going to offer a "giant archdemon broodmother" here to one-up the sarcasm, but then considering it would very much turn it into a fight with queen from Aliens, now kinda want.

"get away from Carver .... you ****"

(edited because my memory isn't what it used to be)

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 novembre 2010 - 09:20 .

[Nerevar-as]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Revan312 wrote...Another is game length, With a voiced protag, the game will be 1/3rd the length at best of DA:O.

Is that confirmed? That would make it very short indeed. ME2 was about as long as DA:O no? Or did I spend an awful lot of time mining? It wouldn't suprise me if it were shorter, but again, understandable with the added constraint. I suppose whether you prefer a text based protagonist or not is a personal matter. For myself I think Femshep was one of the better game characters I've ever seen were as I barely recall what my Warden looked like. The lack of voice in a world full of them was quite a detachment.

Usually reading is faster than listening, so even if DA2 were as long as DA:O (60h for me), gameplay would be several hours shorter. While extending a story unnecesarily hurts it, something I´m afraid is they´ll make it shorter to appeal to more casual players. I really hope that 11m players wasn´t serious, as they seem to think simpler = >sales for some reason.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 08 novembre 2010 - 09:41 .

[Revan312]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Is that confirmed? That would make it very short indeed. ME2 was about as long as DA:O no? Or did I spend an awful lot of time mining? It wouldn't suprise me if it were shorter, but again, understandable with the added constraint. I suppose whether you prefer a text based protagonist or not is a personal matter. For myself I think Femshep was one of the better game characters I've ever seen were as I barely recall what my Warden looked like. The lack of voice in a world full of them was quite a detachment.

My first run of DA:O was 80 hours after doing everything, my first ME2 run was 28 or something along those lines, so for me, if DA2 is ME2's length they'll be cutting a ton of gametime for me, but everyone plays differently.

But dialogue wise, when every conversation has quadruple the amount of voice over ie. whatever NPC's lines and Hawke's 3 - 5 choices then things either need to be made faaaar shorter or you need to add about 5 game disks. So with a voiced protag I'm assuming either Bioware simply shortened the game length considerably or there's just a ton more combat as opposed to dialogue, either choice doesn't thrill me.

And with the removal of origin stories and no more multi race choices the replayability falls yet again. Now as I've said, whether or not this all means a worse game is yet to be seen, I'll have to play it first, but, I know for a fact I'll have less, most likely much less, than a quarter of the game time into this sequel in total than I did DA:O, if there's no toolset update released then even less time...

Modifié par Revan312, 08 novembre 2010 - 09:58 .

[WuWeiWu]

Revan312 wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Is that confirmed? That would make it very short indeed. ME2 was about as long as DA:O no? Or did I spend an awful lot of time mining? It wouldn't suprise me if it were shorter, but again, understandable with the added constraint. I suppose whether you prefer a text based protagonist or not is a personal matter. For myself I think Femshep was one of the better game characters I've ever seen were as I barely recall what my Warden looked like. The lack of voice in a world full of them was quite a detachment.

My first run of DA:O was 80 hours after doing everything, my first ME2 run was 28 or something along those lines, so for me, if DA2 is ME2's length they'll be cutting a ton of gametime for me, but everyone plays differently.

But dialogue wise, when every conversation has quadruple the amount of voice over ie. whatever NPC's lines and Hawke's 3 - 5 choices then things either need to be made faaaar shorter or you need to add about 5 game disks. So with a voiced protag I'm assuming either Bioware simply shortened the game length considerably or there's just a ton more combat as opposed to dialogue, either choice doesn't thrill me.

And with the removal of origin stories and no more multi race choices the replayability falls yet again. Now as I've said, whether or not this all means a worse game is yet to be seen, I'll have to play it first, but, I know for a fact I'll have less, most likely much less, than a quarter of the game time into this sequel in total than I did DA:O, if there's no toolset update released then even less time...

This is probably the most legitimate concern I've heard on this forum, and one I'd like some illumination on from the Devs or Mods.

I've spent over 300 hours on DA:O - while different games are different, and I will probably like DA2 regardless, I would hope that the same sort of length is involved with the sequel.

[Sharn01]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

See, now those are really reasonable, and I think we'd all agree, a shame, but I also think they're understandable and unavoidable effects of things I feel will be improvements over DA:O

Revan312 wrote...
Hmm, well one is no companion appearence customization to speak of, stat swapping, but no armor swapping..

I suppose the ideal would be a plethora of outfits (which loops back to inventory bloat, but also is added development), but realistically, was anyone super keen on the leather or cloth looks in origins? "customisable" though they were? Medium and heavy were a bit better but it was still all a bit poor, limited looks and awkward frames. Personally I think the party members not looking like well armed refugees throughout is a good thing, some measure of control would be good, but they've said there'll be at least more than one outfit per, so theres that.

Revan312 wrote...Another is game length, With a voiced protag, the game will be 1/3rd the length at best of DA:O.

Is that confirmed? That would make it very short indeed. ME2 was about as long as DA:O no? Or did I spend an awful lot of time mining? It wouldn't suprise me if it were shorter, but again, understandable with the added constraint. I suppose whether you prefer a text based protagonist or not is a personal matter. For myself I think Femshep was one of the better game characters I've ever seen were as I barely recall what my Warden looked like. The lack of voice in a world full of them was quite a detachment.

Revan312 wrote...Also only being able to play as a human that has but one backstory..

That is a bummer, to be sure, but again, unavoidable due to the voice (I think 6-7 fully voiced leads would be a bit much to ask)

It would still only require two voice actors for Hawke, just a few small changes to the dialog here and there, less if they are named Hawke regardless of race.

[Lyssistr]

 The thing is, some of us got an infinite amount of **** for saying DA2 is going to be h&s. I'm sure even after the gameplay video, some people will still be willing to stick to their guns.

 However, at the end of the day, what people ask for is a clear-cut description, don't try to make a h&s and at the same time try to imply that old-school is still there.

 It's honestly fine making an h&s out of DA2, it's just that I don't plan to pay anything to buy this.