564 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
Maybe- I sure don't know. But still, I'm wondering though if its more along the lines of EA or whoever is controlling the purse strings saw the time and money sunk into Origins and said "Hey guys, think you can do the next one a bit quicker?" Since I doubt DAO recouped all its costs given its development time, they're likely looking at profitability on a franchise wide scale and want to get the next game out as quickly as possible to make up more of the costs sunk into the initial development of the IP.

Just my 2 cents.

My browser just ate my post and I'm too demoralized to repost in full, but here's the gist.

EA net profit = DA2 profit - DA:O sunk cost.

DA:O sunk cost is fixed. The higher DA2 profit is, the higher net profit is. So long as we believe DA2 could sell better, i.e. so long as the rationale I presented above is justified, it makes no sense from an economic standpoint to keep DA2 the same.

No matter what the DA:O sunk cost is, basically, a higher DA2 profit is just intrinsically better.

[MerinTB]

Brockololly wrote...
Its my impression that since Tudge and Knowles left soon after the PC version was done in early 2009, thats likely around when Laidlaw and Darrah and the other high ups started brainstorming at least on DA2. Before Origins came out. I recall reading some interview with Zeschuk from a while back where he made mention of how right around when ME1 came out they had discussion whether they wanted to do the player VO in Origins but decided against it to keep Origins distinct. 

I don't think its out of the question that maybe BioWare got cold feet with the more traditional RPG approach to Origins after they delayed the PC version and maybe thinking it wouldn't live up to ME1 or what they were doing with ME2 at the time, they jumped the gun with trying to make DA2 more in the vein of a "cinematic" hybrid RPG like ME, thinking thats where the biggest new audience was. And then of course, Origins did pretty well after all. So they're doing what they're doing because perhaps by the time they started getting critical and commercial feedback on Origins, it was too late to turn the ship around, maybe as EA had already pegged them for delivering another DA title in early 2011.

*dons tin foil hat*
Thats just my total speculation.

That's pretty much how I interpret the chain of events.  At the very least it's a big part of it as far as I can tell.
Yes, speculation, but it really fits a lot of pieces together.

And I don't consider it a conspiracy theory, as I don't think it constitutes anything close to a conspiracy.  New people in charge of the property, concerns about the product being dated and potentially doing badly in the marketplace, a very successful model of game in another IP owned by the same company...
that's not evil nor dumb - it sound completely reasonable, logical, and really a safe bet.
Because they misread the market / were overconcerned about DA:O's appeal, whatever, inside this speculative reality (which may or may not be true) doens't make them dumb, mean, or any such thing... it only means they made a call and have to live with it.

[Wicked 702]

Just to add some helpful info, I read an article (unrelated) that gave some hard values for things like console license fees and developer/publisher profit per game sold (in reverse, it discusses what they percentage they lose to retailers). Hope this helps in your DAO/ME profit battle dealy...

http://blog.games.ya...rld-of-warcraft

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
And I don't consider it a conspiracy theory, as I don't think it constitutes anything close to a conspiracy.  New people in charge of the property, concerns about the product being dated and potentially doing badly in the marketplace, a very successful model of game in another IP owned by the same company...
that's not evil nor dumb - it sound completely reasonable, logical, and really a safe bet.
Because they misread the market / were overconcerned about DA:O's appeal, whatever, inside this speculative reality (which may or may not be true) doens't make them dumb, mean, or any such thing... it only means they made a call and have to live with it.

But again, that doesn't make sense. The development cost of DA2 would essentially have to be so insane that greater than 64 million dollars were sunk in the cost of development for Bioware to be locked in to alleged ME2 level sales versus potential DA:O sales. I just can't see how that much money could be entirely non-recoverable in DA2.

[Stoomkal]

MerinTB wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
Its my impression that since Tudge and Knowles left soon after the PC version was done in early 2009, thats likely around when Laidlaw and Darrah and the other high ups started brainstorming at least on DA2. Before Origins came out. I recall reading some interview with Zeschuk from a while back where he made mention of how right around when ME1 came out they had discussion whether they wanted to do the player VO in Origins but decided against it to keep Origins distinct. 

I don't think its out of the question that maybe BioWare got cold feet with the more traditional RPG approach to Origins after they delayed the PC version and maybe thinking it wouldn't live up to ME1 or what they were doing with ME2 at the time, they jumped the gun with trying to make DA2 more in the vein of a "cinematic" hybrid RPG like ME, thinking thats where the biggest new audience was. And then of course, Origins did pretty well after all. So they're doing what they're doing because perhaps by the time they started getting critical and commercial feedback on Origins, it was too late to turn the ship around, maybe as EA had already pegged them for delivering another DA title in early 2011.

*dons tin foil hat*
Thats just my total speculation.

That's pretty much how I interpret the chain of events.  At the very least it's a big part of it as far as I can tell.
Yes, speculation, but it really fits a lot of pieces together.

And I don't consider it a conspiracy theory, as I don't think it constitutes anything close to a conspiracy.  New people in charge of the property, concerns about the product being dated and potentially doing badly in the marketplace, a very successful model of game in another IP owned by the same company...
that's not evil nor dumb - it sound completely reasonable, logical, and really a safe bet.
Because they misread the market / were overconcerned about DA:O's appeal, whatever, inside this speculative reality (which may or may not be true) doens't make them dumb, mean, or any such thing... it only means they made a call and have to live with it.

...

I completely agree with Brockololly's judgement/tinfoil in this matter...

I also agree with the reasoned argument that there is no corporate conspiracy to dissapoint Origins fans.

However... it is dissapointing. I think it is justified to feel that Origins was abandoned with the debacle of the dlc... all of it. It was just deeply unprofessional, with bug after bug, none of which seemed to follow Bioware's usual tight production system.

I also cannot understand why they backed away from 2 years of dlc. It just seemed a real let-down. Of course, profit-wise, we can all understand why they did what they did, but that doesn't make it feel any better.

"Sorry about forgetting your bday present, but next years will be twice as good!"

Doesn't really fly well...

[Wicked 702]

Now that I think about it, I retract my statement in another (far gone) thread that I haven't seen a single change that I think is good. I think the approval system needed a big overhaul and I like the direction they're going with that. I also have no problem with a voiced protagonist (hell, I quite enjoy Darksiders and Castlevania: LoS) but I was looking to Bioware for something different.

Otherwise it's not that I dislike what they're doing, it's that while they are making those changes they are simultaneously removing things that I PERSONALLY enjoyed. And in many cases it would be entirely logically and physically possible to have both options, they are simply not doing so (for whatever reason you want to assume). That's what bugs me.



Choice good.

...Also beer.

[Altima Darkspells]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Now that I think about it, I retract my statement in another (far gone) thread that I haven't seen a single change that I think is good. I think the approval system needed a big overhaul and I like the direction they're going with that. I also have no problem with a voiced protagonist (hell, I quite enjoy Darksiders and Castlevania: LoS) but I was looking to Bioware for something different.
Otherwise it's not that I dislike what they're doing, it's that while they are making those changes they are simultaneously removing things that I PERSONALLY enjoyed. And in many cases it would be entirely logically and physically possible to have both options, they are simply not doing so (for whatever reason you want to assume). That's what bugs me.

Choice good.
...Also beer.

I think most people can find something about DA2 that they like.  As you said, the approval system did need an overhaul--in addition to the absence of gift spamming, BioWare's taken an Obsidian route and created bonuses for low levels of approval as well.  Myself, I like the idea of BioWare moving past their very tired story structure that they've used since KotOR.

However, I think what most disappoints people is the fact that they expected the original to be improved by these additions.  They didn't expect to have massive amounts of the game structure from DAO to be cut out or mutated to make room for these DA2 changes.

[Uzzy]

Why are people complaining? Because people who are huge fans of Bioware games (face it, we all are, otherwise we wouldn't be spending time here) are seeing changes that they aren't fans of. That, and this is a forum. Forums are used for discussions, of which complaints are a huge part and often a greater driving force for change then praise. After all, the changes being made to DA2 are informed by the complaints of focus groups, rather then the endless praise of people here on the forums.

For myself, all my worries are tempered by the fact that this is a Bioware game, and regardless of anything else they do game wise, they've got the best story writers in the business, which is why I'm a fan of their games and own every single one (save Sonic Chronicles). Personal stories are good, but I don't see why they had to remove the option of what race you want your character to be in, or removing origins. There are workarounds for that.

I played the game on my Xbox, and while the combat wasn't great, it was in need of reform, not abandoning for something resembling Bayonetta. Not that there's anything wrong with Bayonetta, it's one of my favourite games of last year, but I think people are most satisfied when all their tastes are catered for. Removing the ability to armour up your companions also annoys me, as it reminds me too much of the ludicrous situations in which Jack and Miranda would wear masks for hard vacuum. Combat without pants, let alone armour seems a recipe for a short and unproductive life. Sure, keeping characters looks unique is somewhat of a good thing, but you can do that along with the ability to armour them up, though it'd take a lot of new art assets.

The relative dearth of information and the rapidly approaching release date (88 days) also has me worried about the game, and leads me to think that some of the cuts in terms of options are due to the release date being so close, rather then something the designers really wanted to do.

[Brockololly]

Iberius wrote..
So, Brock, if I'm reading this right your saying that you think Bioware is trying  to make up for the extra time they took with DA:O in order to cover the  costs of longer development of the first game by getting DA2 out more  quickly

Basically. Not so much as make up for extra time, but that its not economically feasible to have a really long dev time like they had with Origins. With Origins they spent what? 6 years making that? And in the course of that time they started out on the NWN engine and then scrapped it half way through to make DA's eclipse engine. SO they want to make up for lost time a bit. But that maybe this time around, they're overcompensating and pushing DA2 out too soon and in the rush to get it out in a timely and economical fashion, the game may suffer. If they can get it done super quick- then fantastic, but again, going off of how quickly Awakening was developed, thats not instilling faith in me, especially given the other changes to DA2.

In Exile wrote...
EA net profit = DA2 profit - DA:O sunk cost.

DA:O sunk cost is fixed. The higher DA2 profit is, the higher net profit is. So long as we believe DA2 could sell better, i.e. so long as the rationale I presented above is justified, it makes no sense from an economic standpoint to keep DA2 the same.

No matter what the DA:O sunk cost is, basically, a higher DA2 profit is just intrinsically better.

Sure, thats true. More profit is better for EA and BioWare, no doubt. I think its a question of given the shorter development time and whatever budget has been allocated for DA2 whether they actually can pull off making DA2 of the same quality both commercially and critically as Origins. Awakening (which admittedly had a much smaller budget) was supposedly made in about a year, but felt rushed and very rough around the edges. But they got it out on time. 

DA2 is one of the first BioWare games I can recall where they announced the release date well before we knew hardly anything about the game. Its usually a Valve or Blizzard style "Its done when its done" with BioWare. Then you have the push for the preorders on the SE before any footage of the game is widely available. All that just comes across as odd for BioWare- at least the BioWare of old. It seems a bit sketchy.

My concern is that in the possible shift to push the game out on deadline and maximize profit while minimizing cost, that corners may be cut (maybe unintentionally) or that content is being cut- and in the rush to get the game out in EA's last quarter of fiscal 2011, the game comes out, pulls a Medal of Honor in that people buy it up but quality wise, its a step down from Origins. But since it sells well because its the sequel to Origins, EA could care less. And then you run the risk of franchise fatigue...but I'm getting off topic as is.

MerinTB wrote...
Because they misread the market / were overconcerned about DA:O's appeal,  whatever, inside this speculative reality (which may or may not be true) doens't make them dumb, mean, or any such thing... it only means they  made a call and have to live with it.

Yeah. I mean you go by this article and this quote from EA Games Pres Frank Gibeau:

At the same time, I look at publishing’s role as answering the question  of how to make a game better. Publishers do that through consumer  feedback, research resources, and providing data so developers can make  the right choices during a project.

And I wonder a bit if EA in their self admitted quest to have every title be a blockbuster, saw the relative success of ME1 and liked what they were seeing in ME2, all before Origins was released, and made the call to provide BioWare with that data/guidance/ research mentioned above  for DA2- to take it in a more console friendly, accessible, action-RPG direction- as thats what they presumed would be a winner in ME2. And then Origins came out and surprised them.

Maybe they thought it would do well, but not as well as it did. And then ME2 came out a couple months later and oops...it did well, but not the massive blockbuster they originally thought. I don't think its a coincidence that Origins is still priced at about $30 over a year after its release while ME2 is routinely found for $10 not even a year after launch. I'm not saying ME2 was a failure or anything, but perhaps EA gave the DA team guidance/focus group feedback/data that they should take DA in the ME direction but that was before they maybe realized they overestimated on ME2's actual retail performance.

In Exile wrote..
But again, that doesn't make sense. The development cost of DA2 would essentially have to be so insane that greater than 64 million dollars were sunk in the cost of development for Bioware to be locked in to  alleged ME2 level sales versus potential DA:O sales. I just can't see  how that much money could be entirely non-recoverable in DA2.

I think I see what you're saying, but I think that EA/BioWare maybe still thinks that they can make a blockbuster out of DA2 if you simply add the audience of Origins plus any new crowd brought in by the console friendly/ME style changes. That, perhaps just as they maybe overestimated ME2's performance, they may be doing the same thing once again?  This is all economic of course, maybe they do just want to do it this way for the hell of it- but surely EA has guided them in some way shape or form to get to this point.  Not necessarily all EVIL EA like but possibly by misreading the market.

Modifié par Brockololly, 10 décembre 2010 - 03:45 .

[wolf3957]

Personally, I despise anything with an EA logo on it. Their only fame is mediocre sports games, and I say mediocre because no one else was competing with them, so they had no reason to strive to be the best. Dragon Age was a massive disappointment. When I heard that it was the 'spiritual predecessor' of Baldur's Gate, I was giddy with anticipation. When I got the game, I was infuriated. This was due to:

1. Wretched, linear magic mechanics. If you get hit with that health prevention spell in Dragon Age, you die. There is no counter magic like in Baldur's Gate, where pretty much for every negative spell there was a positive counter spell. This was the major reason I sold the stupid game.

2. Combat. I was a warrior in Dragon Age. I wanted to have fun, so I decked myself out in the best plate, expecting to wade into battle and hack stuff apart like all good tanking warriors do. I never died, but everyone else in my party did. Less than half way through the game and I was bait-switching every conflict. This is proof of a lack of progression in understanding what good AI functionality is. I should not have to be a part time warrior and part time babysitter because my party can't follow my commands to heal or back out of the fight. Speaking of not following commands, EA, if you're going to inform me in a loading screen that enemy AI targets the most heavily armored characters, please have them do so! I spent more than half of each battle defending my healer because no one would target me!

3. I would like a voice please! This should be self explanitory.

4.Some sort of evasive combat. I don't think it's balanced when I stand behind a wall and enemy spells follow me. I also don't believe it is balanced when I cast an area of effect spell and damage or kill my party and the enemy ai does not. I would like to be able to dodge, roll, or raise my shield.

It was especially shocking to play this game after playing Mass Effect, not Mass Effect 2, but the original. The second is flawed, in that it is not possible to supply endless hordes of droid enemies, and I'm sorry, but thermal clips? That's regression. All you did is replace ammunition clips. Mass Effect was perfect. I'm done.

[Busomjack]

Someone with no games registered whining about EA.



Obvious pirate is obvious.

[upsettingshorts]

wolf3957 wrote...
1. Wretched, linear magic mechanics. If you get hit with that health prevention spell in Dragon Age, you die. There is no counter magic like in Baldur's Gate, where pretty much for every negative spell there was a positive counter spell. This was the major reason I sold the stupid game.

Aside from you know, Dispel Magic.

wolf3957 wrote...

I never died, but everyone else in my party did. Less than half way through the game and I was bait-switching every conflict. This is proof of a lack of progression in understanding what good AI functionality is. I should not have to be a part time warrior and part time babysitter because my party can't follow my commands to heal or back out of the fight.

Learn to use Tactics if you're not going to pause and manage your team.

wolf3957 wrote...

3. I would like a voice please! This should be self explanitory.

EA-published Mass Effect 2 had a voice.  Whether or not the benefits are self explanatory would be controversial on this forum to say the least.

wolf3957 wrote...

4.Some sort of evasive combat. I don't think it's balanced when I stand behind a wall and enemy spells follow me. I also don't believe it is balanced when I cast an area of effect spell and damage or kill my party and the enemy ai does not. I would like to be able to dodge, roll, or raise my shield.

Almost all of the things you mention fall under twitch mechanics which would downright infuriate even the most mildly disappointed people on these boards.  I wouldn't care personally, but so far you aren't really getting anywhere with that whole "Baldur's Gate successor" thing - and doing even worse with attempting to explain how any of this is EA's fault.

wolf3957 wrote...

It was especially shocking to play this game after playing Mass Effect, not Mass Effect 2, but the original. The second is flawed, in that it is not possible to supply endless hordes of droid enemies, and I'm sorry, but thermal clips? That's regression. All you did is replace ammunition clips. 

The place to debate the pros and cons of the changes in Mass Effect 2 is another subforum.  And debate is ongoing.

wolf3957 wrote...

Mass Effect was perfect.

Ignoring the fact I vehemently disagree, you're implying Microsoft is better than EA?

wolf3957 wrote...

I'm done.

That's all you've got?

[Ziggeh]

wolf3957 wrote...
and I'm sorry, but thermal clips? That's regression. All you did is replace ammunition clips. Mass Effect was perfect. I'm done.

The solution to every combat problem in ME was to grab a pistol and go balls out Rambo at the dudes who aren't you until you're the only one still vertical. It had all the tactical nuance of a drunken brawl in a car park.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Aside from you know, Dispel Magic.

And Glyph of Neutralisation! I preferred it to Dispel Magic because it has more than one use; you can use it to cripple an enemy spellcaster as well as to get rid of those nasty Curse of Mortalities.



Not having to learn eight million different counterspells was something I appreciated about DAO. That was one of my least favourite things about BG2.

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
Sure, thats true. More profit is better for EA and BioWare, no doubt. I think its a question of given the shorter development time and whatever budget has been allocated for DA2 whether they actually can pull off making DA2 of the same quality both commercially and critically as Origins. Awakening (which admittedly had a much smaller budget) was supposedly made in about a year, but felt rushed and very rough around the edges. But they got it out on time. 

I think that's a separate question. That is, releasing a game on the fastest possible schedule is a different question, from an economic standpoint, compared to releasing the sort of game that is closest to what the market demands.

To put it another way, Bioware could have scrapped some DA2 work to create a game closer to Origins yet nevertheless rush the game to release. Put another way, the decision of whether or not DA2 had to be closer to origins even with an initial sunk investment is independent of any other concern.

DA2 is one of the first BioWare games I can recall where they announced the release date well before we knew hardly anything about the game. Its usually a Valve or Blizzard style "Its done when its done" with BioWare. Then you have the push for the preorders on the SE before any footage of the game is widely available. All that just comes across as odd for BioWare- at least the BioWare of old. It seems a bit sketchy.

I can't comment on the preorder issue. My gaming habits are very different than the majority. I will only preorder a game out of brand loyalty essentially blind. Otherwise, I will wait unti release.

The only games I have preorded are Warcraft III, ME1, DA:O and ME2.

I do agree, though, that the set release date for a Bioware game when the game was announced is very uncharacteristic for Bioware. To what extent that will impact the final release, with Awakening in mind...

Stability is by far my biggest concern with DA2, but at the same time, it's just not something we will know anything about until release. I've chosen to trust Bioware on this despite Awakening.

My concern is that in the possible shift to push the game out on deadline and maximize profit while minimizing cost, that corners may be cut (maybe unintentionally) or that content is being cut- and in the rush to get the game out in EA's last quarter of fiscal 2011, the game comes out, pulls a Medal of Honor in that people buy it up but quality wise, its a step down from Origins.

I agree, but we this isn't something we can judge. I feel at this point, a personal relationship with Bioware. That carries weight, at least insofar as I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding unknowable issues like stability.

I think I see what you're saying, but I think that EA/BioWare maybe still thinks that they can make a blockbuster out of DA2 if you simply add the audience of Origins plus any new crowd brought in by the console friendly/ME style changes.

Right, but what that means is EA/Bioware has some reason to believe that the changes from DA:O to DA2, i.e. PC VO, aesthetic changes, etc. etc. will not alienate their old audience. Not to mention they have to suppose they have to suppose that their ME2 audience doesn't overlap with DA:O to begin with.

That's quite a lot of ifs.

It's not that I disagree with you on this. But this goes back to the original point I made. It can't be the case (at least from the EA/Bioware PoV) that the features that made DA:O a success were the features it had that were different from ME2. Otherwise what they are doing is economically irrational.

That, perhaps just as they maybe overestimated ME2's performance, they may be doing the same thing once again? 

Sure, but that goes into the third option: EA/Bioware are incompetent. Which of course could be true, but then again, the issues with this cut-throat bottom line approach can't really hold water.

This is all economic of course, maybe they do just want to do it this way for the hell of it- but surely EA has guided them in some way shape or form to get to this point.  Not necessarily all EVIL EA like but possibly by misreading the market.

Here is my issue with this: either EA executives are well-versed in gaming, or they are not. If they are not, they're looking at Bioware as a business and likely don't care what they make as long as what they make sells well. They've gotten Bioware to make an MMO RPG because they think Bioware produces quality and want to push into WoW territory. 

If EA isn't well-versed in gaming, I doubt hey care about the content difference between ME2 and DA:O. What they probably care about is which one sells more.

Let's say I was an executive, and believed that FPS was the way, and RPGs were unsellable. Out comes DA:O (which I grugingly release because of the cash pushed into this project) smashes ME2 sales.

The mentality at that point is to find out how to produce DA:O at low cost. Basically, put out a DA:2 that's identical to DA:O except the main plot lacks Circle Tower/Ozammar and maybe even the Alienage. That's 20-30 hours of content less, but largely the same game in terms of mechanics.

[TanithAeyrs]

Hmm, as a long time fan of Bioware games (since BG1) I have to give them the benefit of the doubt on DA2. I think they achieved their goal of having DA:O as the spiritual successor to BG2 and I hope that DA2 will be worthy of the franchise. I admit to having trepidations about the dialog wheel (which I hated in the ME games) but with the "intent" icons to go with it and after reading a dev post about how it was supposed to clarify the tone of the statement, I am prepared to accept it and I hope to be suprised by how well it works. More responsive combat sounds great as long as I can pause and plan my strategy and a 10 year (in game) timespan to develop my character is intriguing.



Things that concern me:

The 3rd person narrative: not sure that I will connect with my character the same way I did with any of my origins characters.



Fully voiced: I know that a lot of people want this but, for me, it takes away from how I think my character should sound. I would rather have more lines of dialog than more VO. But, I guess, that's just me. I liked the ME games, just not to the degree that I love DA:O or BG2.



NPC armor: kind of divided on this. Like the idea of a unique look, but equiping my NPC's is part of the RPG experience for me. (not just to their best advantage even - Zev wore the Antivan boots and Dalish gloves all the way through several of my playthroughs for sentimental reasons). My wardens also gift superior armor to favored companions (not a game mechanic but an added level to RPG for me).



Romances over 10 years: Okay, so I love the romances in DA:O. I have faith in the writers so I will hope for romances that develop over time and mature the longer the PC and NPC are involved. I understand how difficult this is to do, however, and I have some concerns about romances that stay at the infatuated, or I love you and the world revolves around you stage, without progressing to the more mature, I love you even though we have our differences but we can work things out stage. Not sure if that was really clear, but certainly a 20ish PC leaving Lothering will have a different viewpoint on love and romance than the 30ish Hero of Kirkwall. Just sayin'.



Of course the dev's can throw out all my comments since I've had DA2 pre-ordered since early November, but have to throw in my 2 cents. And my thanks to the devs who stop by and at least skim through our comments.

[wolf3957]

Normally, I am a calm, collected person, but when attacked and my words are twisted and manipulated I will defend myself.

First off, yes, microsoft is better than ea. Why? At least they are striving for corporate progression. They are not satisfied with remaining in a stagnant pool of their own filth by merely creating a world dominating operating system; they also want to take a piece of the gaming world, which is the largest and most lucrative industry for entertainment. To not be so ambitious would be sinking to ea standards; in microsofts case, this would be releasing windows xp for the past ten years, and only releasing a new service pack every year and claiming it's new. This is what ea did with their sports games because they had no competition. I bring this up because it shows in DA and ME2, games that, if Bioware had full say in development, would have been perfect.

1. Magic Mechanics. Why Baldur's Gate was good was not because you merely had an endless supply of spells and counter spells, but you could learn as many as you chose to learn. You were not limited to saving comprehension points to earn one rank in one school. Instead, you gained a level, and you had access to all spells of that level. Now, if you faced an opponent that was beyond your level, that's your fault. Yes, I knew about dispel magic and the glyphs, but in order to reach those I had to sacrifice the buffing spells and healing spells mages should have, seeing as how, you know, they can't fight or hold their own in combat. Linen doesn't hold well against a double edged sword.

2. Combat. Duh, I know about the tactics. Kinda hard not to. My point with the ai is that, despite my efforts to utilize the tactics, the party died more times that I cared for. I was a tank, meaning, for those of you who have never played an mmo, that is, massive multiplayer online game, a tank is the most armored and has the most health. Why do that you ask? So I can have two dps, or damage per second characters, and a healer. Why do that? That's how successful parties are set up. It doesn't help when I base my strategy upon a game that says the strongest armored characters will be attacked the most and then it is the weakest that are attacked. Eventually I had to take full control of the healer to stay alive because I could not aggrovate enough of the enemies to keep them off the healer.

3. Considering this is a forum about 'why people are complaining about DA2', the request for a voice was targeted toward DA2 because it was not incorporated into DA. Where you got ME out of that, I don't want to know.

4. Evasive combat. Again, directed toward DA2. I did not imply that I myself, the human player, would press a button to roll, to dodge, or to raise my shield, but if I put points in agility/dexterity, I should see my character dodging, rolling, or otherwise avoiding incoming attacks much more frequently. I should also see counter attacks rather than be required to set the character in a special mode so counters are enabled.

Lastly, in regards to my ME2 comments, yes, you could just use the pistol and butcher everyone, but unlike most gamers, I like a challenge. I don't do the obvious rookie moves and take every cheap and easy way out of a situation I can. If I'm not given a challenge, I make one and fix it. Also, apparently none of you were as shocked about the fact that DA came out AFTER ME. Apparently, it also hasn't occured to any of you that EA merged with Bioware AFTER ME, and suddenly Bioware games are regressing. Okay, you can fire your next rounds of flak, I'm ready.

[upsettingshorts]

wolf3957 wrote...

 Okay, you can fire your next rounds of flak, I'm ready.

I'm not trying to shoot your opinions down, only your conclusion - that EA is to blame.  

[Leonia]

I still fail to see how EA is responsible for any of the points in Wolf's post. I also recommend easy difficulty mode if he finds the game so difficult (there is no shame in this, that's why the different difficulty levels exist and can be changed any time the player wishes to change them). Sorry I don't have a wall of text to contribute like everyone else, mostly lurking.

[wolf3957]

leonia42 wrote...

I still fail to see how EA is responsible for any of the points in Wolf's post. I also recommend easy difficulty mode if he finds the game so difficult (there is no shame in this, that's why the different difficulty levels exist and can be changed any time the player wishes to change them). Sorry I don't have a wall of text to contribute like everyone else, mostly lurking.

It's not that the game was hard; I have the achievements for perfectionist, recruiter, and traveler. All done on normal and reloading if a party member fell in combat. I am frustrated because, in my opinion, the mechanics for combat are worse than Baldur's Gate, not better.

[Leonia]

If we're going to get into a debate over what "spiritual successor" actually means, then I am going to need a case of beer.

[upsettingshorts]

leonia42 wrote...

If we're going to get into a debate over what "spiritual successor" actually means, then I am going to need a case of beer.

I thought that was part of the Aussie uniform?

[Revan312]

Just curious, at what point would you guys consider EA to be at blame, as they are the parent company. I'm not siding on one side or the other as such executive decisions are under wraps, so none of us will likely ever know to what extent they have influence over design decisions with Bioware or any other studio. But your making it out as if it's impossible that EA could be contributing and forcing changes and decisions down onto their subsidiary companies, which seems like very flawed logic, the same could be said of those that blame them for everything..

also, awesome avatar shorts, Ron ftw!

Modifié par Revan312, 10 décembre 2010 - 04:51 .

[slimgrin]

leonia42 wrote...

If we're going to get into a debate over what "spiritual successor" actually means, then I am going to need a case of beer.

[smilie]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzkX_QgwSKm-LddBVXDktLtlnt3l4SPz-rZIbaFuDRJSaC8bsx-w[/smilie] 

Modifié par slimgrin, 10 décembre 2010 - 04:51 .

[wolf3957]

Revan312 wrote...

Just curious, at what point would you guys consider EA to be at blame, as they are the parent company. I'm not siding on one side or the other as such executive decisions are under wraps, so none of us will likely ever know to what extent they have influence over design decisions with Bioware or any other studio. But your making it out as if it's impossible that EA could be contributing and forcing changes and decisions down onto their subsidiary companies, which seems like very flawed logic, the same could be said of those that blame them for everything..

Thank you! I know you're not siding with me, but at least someone finally gets what I'm saying.