1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Mashiki]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
This is EA. They been selling bad games for decades. Bad games sell all of the time. Enter the Matrix was horrible and it doubled DA:O in sells.  I do agree that Bioware isnt making what sells. They are making what they think sells. I dont expect DA 2 to outsell DA:O.  I think they are heading in the direction of Fable 3. 

Well EA used to sell good games.  I swear EA is just a company full of VC's who dump out money to buy up dev houses, until they get the touch of death then kill them.  We've lost Origin, Westwood to EA's touch of death.  From the 10mins my GF played in the game it was screams of WTF is this ****, and where's my RPG.  Last I looked she was storming back off to the store to try and get a refund.  She's not happy and she's easier to please than I am when it comes to RPG conent.

Really, the problem is EA itself.  A good company gets bought up, or sells out.  They get the touch of death and it's all over, and people wonder why good companies die hard, fast, painful deaths.

[Tourach77]

Warlock Angel22 wrote...

I guess it all depends on what people find most important in their rpgs. For me it's all about the story and the journey throught that story. I want to see my character and my party evolve as I play through the game. I want to interesting environments. I want a character that I feel like I've uniquely created. The combat style is near the bottom of my list. I love the Elder Scroll games but much of the combat ends up being hack n slash. I think when people think of classic rpg, they are thinking of the old KOTOR style of play. While I still play that game to this day and love it, I do at times wish I could fight using ME or DA type of combat. I bet in 10 years people are going to be lamenting the old ME & DA style of rpg combat when something new is introduced.

When people think of classic RPG they are most certainly not thinking about KOTOR.  They are thinking about Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, maybe Fallout.

I really miss the good games of old.  If you want party evolution and for your character's decisions to matter then you will be disappointed I think.  Just the simple fact that you can't change companion armor should tell you a lot.  Beyond that, what the review says is correct about dialogue...you might as well get to choose "good", "evil", or "quirky" at the outset and call it a day.  Even the "investigate" options in DA2 are lackluster and I have yet to find out anything that I could even in some small way give a crap about.  Not to mention that having a voice for the main character feels especially terrible.  It forces me into very limited dialogue options, the voice is annoying (and makes all of my characters feel the same), and overall contributes to this feeling like an action game.

It's depressing, but I cared about Alyx Vance more than I care about anyone in DA2 and while I think Alyx is a great character, that's a pretty sad commentary about an RPG.

[tanerb123]

i think the issue is bioware did not have enough time. ea did not let them. and this is what they could do in that time frame

[Tourach77]

tanerb123 wrote...

i think the issue is bioware did not have enough time. ea did not let them. and this is what they could do in that time frame

I really doubt that.  Not the EA being a horrible company part, but the conclusion that this was just a time thing.  EA made this game, no doubt, but if it was literally nothing but time they could have just made new abilities and a world on the old DA:O engine.  I would have, personally, liked that a lot more.  This newfangled thing was definitely intentional...I'm pretty sure enemies dying by turning into giblets wasn't a lack of time...it was the idea that story and RPG consistency don't matter...only selling games to the mass market does.

I can't wait to see the TV commercial that says nothing about DA2, only suggesting that there is romance in the game that your mother would hate.  So...you know...teenage boys should buy it.

[moilami]

I am wondering what those "i play it for story" peeps would say about stories in BGs.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Warlock Angel22 wrote...

I guess it all depends on what people find most important in their rpgs. For me it's all about the story and the journey throught that story. I want to see my character and my party evolve as I play through the game. I want to interesting environments. I want a character that I feel like I've uniquely created. The combat style is near the bottom of my list. I love the Elder Scroll games but much of the combat ends up being hack n slash. I think when people think of classic rpg, they are thinking of the old KOTOR style of play. While I still play that game to this day and love it, I do at times wish I could fight using ME or DA type of combat. I bet in 10 years people are going to be lamenting the old ME & DA style of rpg combat when something new is introduced.

KOTOR's play style is just like DA 2 minus the auto attack. 

Its not just the combat with DA:O its the overall depth. I kinda agree with you. I could play DA 2 just for the story if they removed the level scaling and the filler combat (mods). DA:O was flat out boring and I didnt think the story which I found to be just decent made up for it. DA 2 is at least fast paced so waves of filler wont last long and I love how they are planning to tell the story. It was a no buy but I might catch it used one day just for the narriation. 

SamimaS wrote...

The review scores support this decline!

Gamespot - DAO - 9.5
Gamespot - DA2 - 8
IGN - DAO - 9.2
IGN - DA2 - 8.5

And remember EA have been going mad on marketing for this game, unlike the first, which includes advertising on both of these sites!

DAO should have never recieved a 9.5. Thats just crazy, 

[TEWR]

for some reason it won't keep me signed in so what I want to post never gets posted.... *sigh*


To whoever said there was no party banter in the game, well that was wrong. The game DOES, I repeat, DOES have party banter. Aveline and Bethany just conversed on the subject of the Lothering Templars.

Honestly the game is the same as Origins. The demo was made months back. It was a rough version of the game, not meant to be taken as what the final product would be. The amount of damage you do to the Darkspawn in the opening is only 9 DPS on enemies with a lot of health. I turned on the show damage indicator and that's what it showed me. You're not overpowered at all at any point.

EDIT: Hey! It actually kept me signed in long enough to post! How about that! We'll see how long this lasts.....

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 mars 2011 - 07:56 .

[Top Gun volleyball]

Some time after Origins was released the good folks at BioWare OD'd on stupid pills. That is the only explanation for this pile of fecal matter called 'Dragon Age 2'.

[FearMonkey]

Top Gun volleyball wrote...

Some time after Origins was released the good folks at BioWare OD'd on stupid pills. That is the only explanation for this pile of fecal matter called 'Dragon Age 2'.

I'm assuming EA had a bit of influence on the direction of Dragon Age 2. Not sure how else to explain it because the folks at Bioware are not stupid.

[Yrkoon]

<duplicate post>

Modifié par Yrkoon, 08 mars 2011 - 11:28 .

[Yrkoon]

Rawgrim wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

moilami wrote...

I could surprise people here and explain how DA][ actually have more complex combat than BG. But I don't do it lol.

I could too.  And it's not difficult to do.  For all its 'cool' D&D mechanics, its  huge spell list, it's different classes, and infinetely wider variety of weapons, Bg's combat was deceptively straight forward and simple-ly one-dimensional. 

-Could you stagger, knock back and knock down  people  with special melee attacks?  No.  
-Could your warrior and your mage work together on a cross class combo?  No. 
-Did  stuff like positioning, and aggro  really matter in melee?  No.
-Did you have to worry about stuff like cool-down timers on talents?  No
-Did your Warriors have a dozen different special attacks?  No.
-Was there a really big difference in combat styles between a sword and shield  fighter, and a 2-hander?  No.
-Were things like increased critical chance percentages, and increased critical damage percentages in the game?  No.
-Were  stamina and  fatigue factors implemented?  No.

Note:  I'm merely pointing all this out to  illustrate  how  grotesquely idiotic  the  "dumbed down"  claim about DA2 really is.

You could knock back opponents when you got the epic level abilities. And some weapons had "stun" effects.

Sure your warrior and mage could work together. Hold Person spell + send in the warrior. Helpless opponents were automatically hit by attacks in BG2.

positioning mattered alot. Keeping your mages nicely tucked into the middle of your party was a smart move. Tanks up front.

No cool-down for talents. But spells did have casting time, however.

Warriors did have a few special abilities, depending on what type of warriors, of course. Some had spells as well. Spell-like abilities too.

The were differences between sword and shield + two handers, sure. Two handers had slower attack rates, and alot lower armour class. Even lower vs ranged attacks.

Increased chance of scoring a critical hit was also in the game.

Stamina was also a factor. Using Haste spells, or the rage ability made your character fatigued. Traveling around for days without rest also made them fatigued. If i remember correctly, they could get fatigued during very long fights as well, depending on their CON stat.

What kind of a version of BG2 did you play exactly?

 Were we talking about Baldurs gate 2?

[moilami]

I think we need a new topic to argue 50 - 100 pages.

[Faust1979]

how come the guy in the article isn't complaining that you can't change the race in star wars kotor? I bet if developers had access to the same types of tools they do now their RPGs would be a lot more cinematic in approach. Also as much as I love video game RPGs they are really terrible for roleplaying. I have always seen them more as interactive storybooks. You don't roleplay your character you can't say what you want to say, you're really choosing from a list of things the developers want you to say so they can tell the story.

[Haexpane]

I don't think there is any argument to be had. classic cRPGs are now dead.

Game Over.

[WJC3688]

The only thing I can agree with in the OP's summary (didn't bother to read actual article due to disagreeing with majority of content in the summary) is what was said about publisher demands reducing game quality.  I don't know whether or not it's the case that EA forces Bioware to release earlier than they would if left to their own devices, or influences their game design decisions, but if it is, that's a clear-cut case of additional profits being made at the consumer's expense and obviously is wrong/should be protested.  The sad fact is, though, that only a small minority of people who play these games look into them enough to know or care whether or not a game was rushed out by its publisher in this manner, so if this is the case, it's unlikely that the situation will change.

As for complaints about the decline of the classic RPG, what that point of view doesn't see is the benefit to the vast and supposedly "more casual" audience who appreciate the gameplay shift that's being condemned in the article.  If adopting a certain style of gameplay is what sells more copies, then it's undeniable that it's what more people want to see and what more people enjoy.  It sucks that a minority is left out to dry, but that's life; often you can't make everyone happy.