299 réponses à ce sujet

[Blacklash93]

Ploppy wrote...

It's all quite subjective, but I agree with the feelings of disappointment - 7 hours in, I felt compelled to drop the game for a while because it was putting me to sleep. If a sequel by the same developer doesn't get a better rating than the original, there's something wrong with it.

What exactly is boring and disappointing to you?

[nelly21]

Ploppy wrote...

It's all quite subjective, but I agree with the feelings of disappointment - 7 hours in, I felt compelled to drop the game for a while because it was putting me to sleep. If a sequel by the same developer doesn't get a better rating than the original, there's something wrong with it.

That makes no sense. 

So by your estimation, even if ME 3 is a huge hit and scores a 94 average, it'll still be a failure because it dodn't get a 95?

[Saibh]

Blacklash93 wrote...

I'm not talking about scores. I'm talking about what I've seen and what I'm hearing.

And even if DA2 is just on par with Origins, I still would expect better. The jump in quality from ME1 to ME2 guaranteed that. I'm not seeing that jump here.

But that doesn't mean it's lazy and underwhelming. DAII goes in a very different direction from DAO. You can't say it continues the story or the characters. Major elements got major overhauls. Whether it got better is up to your subjective taste, because it's appeal has altered. ME didn't alter that much from ME2--but it did improve. ME1 was cinemetic, but ME2 was more cinematic. ME was a good-looking game, but ME2 looked even better. ME invented the dialogue wheel, but ME2 improved upon it.

But you're changing from fixed camera conversations to cinematic conversations. Slower combat to faster combat. An entirely new dialogue system.

The comparisons aren't really that easy to make on a lot of levels.

[Blacklash93]

nelly21 wrote...

Ploppy wrote...

It's all quite subjective, but I agree with the feelings of disappointment - 7 hours in, I felt compelled to drop the game for a while because it was putting me to sleep. If a sequel by the same developer doesn't get a better rating than the original, there's something wrong with it.

That makes no sense. 

So by your estimation, even if ME 3 is a huge hit and scores a 94 average, it'll still be a failure because it dodn't get a 95?

With so much to improve over Origins, I'm sure DA2 fits that model.

[wrdnshprd]

great work!

[Blacklash93]

Saibh wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

I'm not talking about scores. I'm talking about what I've seen and what I'm hearing.

And even if DA2 is just on par with Origins, I still would expect better. The jump in quality from ME1 to ME2 guaranteed that. I'm not seeing that jump here.

But that doesn't mean it's lazy and underwhelming. DAII goes in a very different direction from DAO. You can't say it continues the story or the characters. Major elements got major overhauls. Whether it got better is up to your subjective taste, because it's appeal has altered. ME didn't alter that much from ME2--but it did improve. ME1 was cinemetic, but ME2 was more cinematic. ME was a good-looking game, but ME2 looked even better. ME invented the dialogue wheel, but ME2 improved upon it.

But you're changing from fixed camera conversations to cinematic conversations. Slower combat to faster combat. An entirely new dialogue system.

The comparisons aren't really that easy to make on a lot of levels.

ME2 added completely unique sidequests. It made conversations more cinematic. ME2 was a huge leap from ME1 in terms of presentation.

DA2 makes sidequests even more generic. The conversations are a step down, if anything. And everything that was good about Origins was lagging behind Mass Effect, anyway, and DA2 doesn't change that.

[Ploppy]

Blacklash93 wrote...
With so much to improve over Origins, I'm sure DA2 fits that model.

Exactly, there are still too many things that weren't improved from Origins - companions leisurely talking to each other about the weather during a losing battle, PC camera, menu aesthetic, mages being overpowered compared to other builds, gaining a level and putting points in stuff you don't really need because the alternatives are worse (AoE range extension upgrades on nightmare = bad idea), and some things I just plain hate, like the endless, endless recyling. After 7 hours, I've seen the exact same cave layout three times in completely different map locations.

edit: It's very subjective, but so far I'm disliking the voice acting too. Companions and family are fine, most other people are horrid.

Modifié par Ploppy, 08 mars 2011 - 02:15 .

[Blacklash93]

Ploppy wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...
With so much to improve over Origins, I'm sure DA2 fits that model.

Exactly, there are still too many things that weren't improved from Origins (companions leisurely talking to each other about the weather during a losing battle, PC camera, menu aesthetic, mages being overpowered compared to other build), and some things I just plain hate, like the endless, endless recyling. After 7 hours, I've seen the exact same cave layout three times in completely different map locations.

edit: It's very subjective, but so far I'm disliking the voice acting too. Companions and family are fine, most other people are horrid.

The last one is the only one that bothers me and that's nothing new.

*sigh*... The sad thing is that everyone is going to defend it to the death.

[PsychoBlonde]

Saibh wrote...

PSM3
Buy It Award

DAII: 90
DAO: 63
[u]

Wow, THAT'S a big difference.  Think maybe they were underwhelmed by Origins' combat?

[Saibh]

Blacklash93 wrote...

ME2 added completely unique sidequests. It made conversations more cinematic. ME2 was a huge leap from ME1 in terms of presentation.

DA2 makes sidequests even more generic. The conversations are a step down, if anything. And everything that was good about Origins was lagging behind Mass Effect, anyway, and DA2 doesn't change that.

And? One is a trivial comparison, and the other is subjective. DAII is a game far more changed from DAO than ME2 was. ME2 didn't change a whole lot, simply improved. They are harder to compare with each other, since a lot of it comes down to which style you prefer. Do you prefer cinemetic? DAII is better. Do you prefer slower combat? DAO is better.

Regardless, all of this is moot. You will think what you want of the game, and no reviewer will tell you if it's better.

[lightwarrior179]

Blacklash93 wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

Ploppy wrote...

It's all quite subjective, but I agree with the feelings of disappointment - 7 hours in, I felt compelled to drop the game for a while because it was putting me to sleep. If a sequel by the same developer doesn't get a better rating than the original, there's something wrong with it.

That makes no sense. 

So by your estimation, even if ME 3 is a huge hit and scores a 94 average, it'll still be a failure because it dodn't get a 95?

With so much to improve over Origins, I'm sure DA2 fits that model.

I don't know about you guys but I personally didn't feel ME2 deserved the 96 average that it got. 
We all know that critics in general have been VERY lenient to say the least to some hyped games and seeing a 90+ game is hardly any news nowadays.
Since much of the reason why Origins was rated a 91 average(PC) might be due to it's aged graphics,one should hope that DA2 scores better.
But then we already have an idea that DA2 is going to be quite a different game so maybe reviewers will not see it in the same light as they saw Origins.
From what I've seen and heard of DA2 it seems much less a "proper" sequel as ME2 than a distinctly individual game.
Guess that is a good thing in a way. 

[PsychoBlonde]

Blacklash93 wrote...

The last one is the only one that bothers me and that's nothing new.

*sigh*... The sad thing is that everyone is going to defend it to the death.

Well, not defend it, exactly, but I don't think I've played a game in years without tons of recycled areas, and those were absolutely-linear-one-path-puzzle-platform games.  Granted, many of those games recycled *bits* instead of whole dungeons, but I'd actually rather have entire-layout repeats than set-piece repeats.  But I play an MMO and grind the same quests over and over and over and over, so meh.

Maybe it'd help if you thought of them as dungeon *instances* or alternate realities instead of separate areas that miraculously look EXACTLY THE SAME.

[Ploppy]

Blacklash93 wrote...
The last one is the only one that bothers me and that's nothing new.

It's nothing new, but this was the game that should've fixed it. Shorter play time, smaller play area, more focus on storytelling - why not just design quests that take place in the unique areas they've crafted? I'd rather do 3 more quests in Hightown than a quest in the sewers(brown rock walls, five rooms, rotting ladder in second room), one near the Dalish camp (brown rock walls, five rooms, rotting ladder in second room), and one near the coast (brown rock walls, five rooms, rotting ladder in second room).

[Blacklash93]

Saibh wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

ME2 added completely unique sidequests. It made conversations more cinematic. ME2 was a huge leap from ME1 in terms of presentation.

DA2 makes sidequests even more generic. The conversations are a step down, if anything. And everything that was good about Origins was lagging behind Mass Effect, anyway, and DA2 doesn't change that.

And? One is a trivial comparison, and the other is subjective. DAII is a game far more changed from DAO than ME2 was. ME2 didn't change a whole lot, simply improved. They are harder to compare with each other, since a lot of it comes down to which style you prefer. Do you prefer cinemetic? DAII is better. Do you prefer slower combat? DAO is better.

Regardless, all of this is moot. You will think what you want of the game, and no reviewer will tell you if it's better.

I don't care how changed DA2 is from its predecessor, if it's going to take cheap design shortcuts and cut quality I don't care what kind of work went into it. If something is not up to par, there is no excuse.

And combat really doesn't affect develoment of maps and cinematics. Just sayin'.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 08 mars 2011 - 02:29 .

[lightwarrior179]

Another thing I would like to add is that some old-school RPG fans should stop judging "how RPG this game is" by looking at the traditional aspects of it. Like ME2 got bashed by some because it lacked a traditional inventory when it's "new-gen" inventory was quite likeable.
I hope there won't be such illogical bashing from us fans when DA2 comes out. Ally armour can't be changed and can only be upgraded?WHAT? DA2 is dumbed down!!! ZOMG RIOTS!!!

Role-playing goes far beyond elements beyond inventory or ally's armour. I think that's something BioWare's games have taught us recently.

[The Minority]

Saibh wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

ME2 added completely unique sidequests. It made conversations more cinematic. ME2 was a huge leap from ME1 in terms of presentation.

DA2 makes sidequests even more generic. The conversations are a step down, if anything. And everything that was good about Origins was lagging behind Mass Effect, anyway, and DA2 doesn't change that.

And? One is a trivial comparison, and the other is subjective. DAII is a game far more changed from DAO than ME2 was. ME2 didn't change a whole lot, simply improved. They are harder to compare with each other, since a lot of it comes down to which style you prefer. Do you prefer cinemetic? DAII is better. Do you prefer slower combat? DAO is better.

Regardless, all of this is moot. You will think what you want of the game, and no reviewer will tell you if it's better.

Hehe.... Moot.

Also this is as true as it gets right here.

[Blacklash93]

Ploppy wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...
The last one is the only one that bothers me and that's nothing new.

It's nothing new, but this was the game that should've fixed it. Shorter play time, smaller play area, more focus on storytelling - why not just design quests that take place in the unique areas they've crafted? I'd rather do 3 more quests in Hightown than a quest in the sewers(brown rock walls, five rooms, rotting ladder in second room), one near the Dalish camp (brown rock walls, five rooms, rotting ladder in second room), and one near the coast (brown rock walls, five rooms, rotting ladder in second room).

I meant nothing new as in we've known about it in a while. I wasn't clear on that.

And yes, very true. It's nothing but lazy design quality.

[Saibh]

Blacklash93 wrote...

I don't care how changed DA2 is from its predecessor, if it's going to take cheap design shortcuts and cut quality I don't care what kind of work went into it. If something is not up to par, there is no excuse.

In your opinion. Which, to you, is the only one that really matters.

But don't dictate how I should feel about it.

[lightwarrior179]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

ME2 added completely unique sidequests. It made conversations more cinematic. ME2 was a huge leap from ME1 in terms of presentation.

DA2 makes sidequests even more generic. The conversations are a step down, if anything. And everything that was good about Origins was lagging behind Mass Effect, anyway, and DA2 doesn't change that.

And? One is a trivial comparison, and the other is subjective. DAII is a game far more changed from DAO than ME2 was. ME2 didn't change a whole lot, simply improved. They are harder to compare with each other, since a lot of it comes down to which style you prefer. Do you prefer cinemetic? DAII is better. Do you prefer slower combat? DAO is better.

Regardless, all of this is moot. You will think what you want of the game, and no reviewer will tell you if it's better.

I don't care how changed DA2 is from its predecessor, if it's going to take cheap design shortcuts and cut quality I don't care what kind of work went into it. If something is not up to par, there is no excuse.

Was ME1 or ME2's level design any better? ME1 had copy-pasted hideouts all over it's uncharted worlds. ME2 had little to zero room for exploration and as a shooter its level design failed because it offered little variety. Ditto for the side-quest hideouts (front compound,main room,small side rooms,quest completion room). Funny how many reviewers chose to "mysteriously" ignore that and still rate it incredibly high.
On the other hand,Origins' open-ended levels like Brecilian Forest or even Deep Roads that rewarded players for exploration went almost unnoticed in most of the reviews I read.

[Ploppy]

ME1's recycling was horrible, which is why they toned it down a bit for ME2.

[lightwarrior179]

Ploppy wrote...

ME1's recycling was horrible, which is why they toned it down a bit for ME2.

ME2 may not have had recycled levels but that doesn't mean they were any better. They were more like different surroundings with crates/barriers/boxes mysteriously put in between signifying you're going to get ambushed as soon as you enter the area.

I kinda expected DA2 to have a limited/repetitive level design. I mean HOW innovative and varied can you get when you fixate your setting to primarily one city. BG2 had Athkatla but that was largely for only half of the game. There's bound to be levels being repeated if you limit non-Kirkwall environments to few. 
Plus there might be some who might point it was a rather convenient solution for BioWare's rather limited development time of DA2.

[Blacklash93]

lightwarrior179 wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

ME2 added completely unique sidequests. It made conversations more cinematic. ME2 was a huge leap from ME1 in terms of presentation.

DA2 makes sidequests even more generic. The conversations are a step down, if anything. And everything that was good about Origins was lagging behind Mass Effect, anyway, and DA2 doesn't change that.

And? One is a trivial comparison, and the other is subjective. DAII is a game far more changed from DAO than ME2 was. ME2 didn't change a whole lot, simply improved. They are harder to compare with each other, since a lot of it comes down to which style you prefer. Do you prefer cinemetic? DAII is better. Do you prefer slower combat? DAO is better.

Regardless, all of this is moot. You will think what you want of the game, and no reviewer will tell you if it's better.

I don't care how changed DA2 is from its predecessor, if it's going to take cheap design shortcuts and cut quality I don't care what kind of work went into it. If something is not up to par, there is no excuse.

Was ME1 or ME2's level design any better? ME1 had copy-pasted hideouts all over it's uncharted worlds. ME2 had little to zero room for exploration and as a shooter its level design failed because it offered little variety. Ditto for the side-quest hideouts (front compound,main room,small side rooms,quest completion room). Funny how many reviewers chose to "mysteriously" ignore that and still rate it incredibly high.
On the other hand,Origins' open-ended levels like Brecilian Forest or even Deep Roads that rewarded players for exploration went almost unnoticed in most of the reviews I read.

ME2 didn't recycle everything. Those level designs are how pretty much every shooter plays, anyway. If you're going to argue that DA2's recycling of maps is somehow better... good luck with that.

I'd rather have  a few unique quests and settings than a ton of copy-paste ones.

[BelgusTradis]

Saibh wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

I don't care how changed DA2 is from its predecessor, if it's going to take cheap design shortcuts and cut quality I don't care what kind of work went into it. If something is not up to par, there is no excuse.

In your opinion. Which, to you, is the only one that really matters.

But don't dictate how I should feel about it.

Blacklash93  fail! 

[Blacklash93]

Ploppy wrote...

ME1's recycling was horrible, which is why they toned it down a bit for ME2.

Apparently the Dragon Age team must have missed out on that valuable lesson.

[slimgrin]

lightwarrior179 wrote...

Another thing I would like to add is that some old-school RPG fans should stop judging "how RPG this game is" by looking at the traditional aspects of it. Like ME2 got bashed by some because it lacked a traditional inventory when it's "new-gen" inventory was quite likeable.
I hope there won't be such illogical bashing from us fans when DA2 comes out. Ally armour can't be changed and can only be upgraded?WHAT? DA2 is dumbed down!!! ZOMG RIOTS!!!

Role-playing goes far beyond elements beyond inventory or ally's armour. I think that's something BioWare's games have taught us recently.

Inventory and customization aren't 'old school'. Other genre's like shooters and action games have been increasingly implementing these things, as a matter of fact. Other RPG devs still consider these elements important; it's Bioware that loves to streamline.

I see the term traditional flung about a lot, by reviewers as well, and it's an awfully general term. Frequently it's used to disparage anything in a game that isn't immediatley intuitive, or has a steep learning curve.   

Modifié par slimgrin, 08 mars 2011 - 02:43 .