212 réponses à ce sujet

[Morning808]

thrashmental wrote...

The things it said about the story... that scares me, the story is really important

Story is just a opinon, Some people think Twilight has the one of the best storys and some people down right hate the series. Don't judge on other people's opinons judge for yourself

[Dimwitt]

lol i can't believe someone said that G4tv's review will effect sales of this game... most likely it won't sorry..

[rob_k]

thrashmental wrote...

The things it said about the story... that scares me, the story is really important

Based on what I quoted from the Gamespot review and this:

http://links.visibli.com/links/5f4d73 (I think it's the joystiq review, 4/5, but linked to elsewhere)

By the time the last sword was swung in Dragon Age 2, I had
enjoyed some great conversations, participated in some thrilling battles
and even been at the center of an interesting story. I just never could
shake the feeling that it was a story I was telling myself.


(End of quote)

I'd say it pretty much seems like we shape the story through our actions. It's all I could want really, as I expect to find the gameplay at least decent. The whole choice and consequence (branching paths) thing is something I hoped would live up to my expectations. It also means quite a bit of replay value.

Let's be honest as well that while Origins was a good game, you never really felt the effects of your decisions until the game's ending. (The mage circle and redcliffe is perhaps an exception)

[RPGamer13]

Not going to say anything about the game itself until I play it for myself.

But I honestly don't think I will be disappointed. I have almost never agreed with a review from professional review sites anr magazines on an RPG.

They always complain about what a game isn't, instead of looking at a game for what it is. Especially this Gamespot review, can't go one sentence without mentioning something else Bioware has done and how Dragon Age II is inferior to it.

[JamesX]

Ecaiki wrote...

Edli wrote...

No isometric view = less tactical. The ismetric view is not just for fun in DA:O, it served a purpose.

With logic like that I hope you never play an MMO.  I mean I wouldn't want you to get confused as to why you keep losing when there's obviously so little tactics involved.  

... considering MMO tactical is pretty bad.  It is more team work based than "tactics"  a chimp with recorded macros can "tactic" an MMO.    You just require a set solution for almost all the fights and spam it to high heaven.  RPG requires next to no tactics - they are designed for average (or maybe a little below, since some are for children) intelligence.

Tactics are really only applicable to instant death shooters like Rainbow 6.

[Iwasdrunkbro]

I dont agree with Gamespot reviews very often, but this was almost spot on. Maybe now Bioware will stop treating its customers as a bunch of idiots just because EA tells them to and go back to creating solid RPGs.

I personally wont be buying another Bioware game until they have earned my loyalty back and I urge all other long term SUPPORTERS of this company to the same.

[Rann]

I think the reviews are simply indications of the obvious -- there are games that are just "good" -- not stunningly great, and not fatally flawed, but worthwhile to play and replay nevertheless, and hopefully the devs take what they've learned from the feedback and build something better next time. I'm at least glad that they are experimenting -- there's been a nice progression from BG all they way through DA:O, but not every one of those steps was a superlative difference.

While I personally dislike the non-tactical nature of combat in DA2 (at least as far as the demo showed me -- my game doesn't arrive until tomorrow), I have no problems playing a game that's just "good." I really can't wrap my head around the bipolar postings on this board (or, truth to be told, any feedback area on the 'Net for any subject). "Importing my DA:O game doesn't work, so the game is A TOTAL FAILURE and I won't play it because 0.0005% of the game won't reflect my personal reality." "This game is AWESOME and all of you people concerned about tactics are just whiners." The most enjoyable postings have, as usual, taken the more thoughtful road which leads through the middle -- just like all of the reviews I've read thus far at (for example) IGN, G4, and GS.

But of course, I've just made myself part of the problem, haven't I? Intolerant about intolerance -- too zen for me...

[Ecaiki]

JamesX wrote...

... considering MMO tactical is pretty bad.  It is more team work based than "tactics"  a chimp with recorded macros can "tactic" an MMO.    You just require a set solution for almost all the fights and spam it to high heaven.  RPG requires next to no tactics - they are designed for average (or maybe a little below, since some are for children) intelligence.

Tactics are really only applicable to instant death shooters like Rainbow 6.

I didn't think it was possible to pack that much ignorance into so little text, but you sir have done it, I award you one internet.

[Jamos77]

I used to believe that, usually, games in a series try to outshine the previous efforts. Not all succeed but they all try. It's what I thought was called evolution i guess.

But when I see so many things 'streamlined' and less actual improvements in a sequel, I worry.

Less exploring, less tactical options, less dialogue, less customization, etc I worry that improving the quality of the franchise wasn't BW's main concern but MAYBE just lowering the age range of their target audience was. Ratings on weapons? Seriously?

I understand that many franchises these days are being purposely dumned down to encourage younger people with increased disposable incomes, and possibly a lower attention span, to be hooked.

I get it, businesses are in the habit of wanting to maximise their earnings. I do get it, I just find it a pity that that often involves pandering to the lowest denominator but I do see why they do so.

Fictitious example incoming...2% of under 15yr olds played DA:O all the way through?...mmm let's do something about it asap.

I'm sure DA II is a lot of fun. I will enjoy it immensely, I have no worries there. An improvement on the original? Highly doubtful as nearly everything they've taken out appealed to me and nearly everything they've added appeals to my little brother, lol.

I guess i'm just scared...i'm getting older and it seems to me that the games are getting younger ('target audience' wise at least).

Related note: I've sometimes loved games that got a low review score and hated others that scored perfectly so i rarely look at the numbers but a line in the review did make me shiver...'unnecessary simplifications'...unnecessary being the keyword imo.

Can't wait to play and hope that this trend of dumbing down...oops, sorry, I meant 'making more accessible' doesn't continue onto DA III as much as it has with this installment.

2hrs til unlock, yay.

[yhishtchie]

I guess I'm in the minority in that I prefer political intrigue and enemies who can actually think, versus taking on swarms of mindless orc-like beasts.

[Iwasdrunkbro]

Rann wrote...

I think the reviews are simply indications of the obvious -- there are games that are just "good" -- not stunningly great, and not fatally flawed, but worthwhile to play and replay nevertheless, and hopefully the devs take what they've learned from the feedback and build something better next time. I'm at least glad that they are experimenting -- there's been a nice progression from BG all they way through DA:O, but not every one of those steps was a superlative difference.

While I personally dislike the non-tactical nature of combat in DA2 (at least as far as the demo showed me -- my game doesn't arrive until tomorrow), I have no problems playing a game that's just "good." I really can't wrap my head around the bipolar postings on this board (or, truth to be told, any feedback area on the 'Net for any subject). "Importing my DA:O game doesn't work, so the game is A TOTAL FAILURE and I won't play it because 0.0005% of the game won't reflect my personal reality." "This game is AWESOME and all of you people concerned about tactics are just whiners." The most enjoyable postings have, as usual, taken the more thoughtful road which leads through the middle -- just like all of the reviews I've read thus far at (for example) IGN, G4, and GS.

But of course, I've just made myself part of the problem, haven't I? Intolerant about intolerance -- too zen for me...

Please. EA told them to make their games for the 15-17 year old console players and dumb them down in the process to make people that dont play rpgs play rpgs. Why? Because Bioware sold their soul to EA to make TOR which is going to fail to WoW and end up destroying their reputation in the process. This isnt hard to figure out.

[Graunt]

Ecaiki wrote...

JamesX wrote...

... considering MMO tactical is pretty bad.  It is more team work based than "tactics"  a chimp with recorded macros can "tactic" an MMO.    You just require a set solution for almost all the fights and spam it to high heaven.  RPG requires next to no tactics - they are designed for average (or maybe a little below, since some are for children) intelligence.

Tactics are really only applicable to instant death shooters like Rainbow 6.

I didn't think it was possible to pack that much ignorance into so little text, but you sir have done it, I award you one internet.

Exactly.  I was going to point out exactly why his statements were so completely contradictory, but it doesn't matter.  My chimp IQ wouldn't be able to press the correct keys.

BobSmith101 wrote...
Combat would have probably been ok, had they not forgotten to put the Autoattack option in (speaking of console versions here).

Hammering X once a second, really not my idea of fun.

Sorry to hear that it turned out like this -- I actually trusted that Bioware was competent enough at least get something as simple (yet important) a feature like that in, especially since they stated that it was in. They can PR spin it in whatever way they like, but they really shouldn't have made such a claim without actually knowing the facts. Rush, rush, rush...

Please. EA told them to make their games for the 15-17 year old console
players and dumb them down in the process to make people that dont play
rpgs play rpgs. Why? Because Bioware sold their soul to EA to make TOR
which is going to fail to WoW and end up destroying their reputation in
the process. This isnt hard to figure out.

Translation: Blah blah, I love to spout pointlessly typical conspiracy theories before having even played much of the game, but that doesn't matter, I know what I'm talking about!

Modifié par Graunt, 08 mars 2011 - 06:58 .

[Haexpane]

What happened to the old "Baldur's Gate spiritual successor"? DA2 is... IDK what it is, but it's not BG 3d

I thought they weren't going to gut/strip and dumb down gear and inventory? WTH? I already have 3 Mass Effects I don't need Mass Effect w/ dragons

[Morning808]

[quote]yhishtchie wrote...

I guess I'm in the minority in that I prefer political intrigue and enemies who can actually think, versus taking on swarms of mindless orc-like beasts.[/quote]

Oh no, nothing like that happened in Origins! I remember having to take on many mindless enemys during Origins...Arch Demon included

Modifié par Morning808, 08 mars 2011 - 06:54 .

[JamesX]

Ecaiki wrote...

I didn't think it was possible to pack that much ignorance into so little text, but you sir have done it, I award you one internet.

Sounding like a true 4chan-er  

If you think MMO is tactics, go play chess with a chess master, or play something like Dawn of War 2.  MMO Boss Fights are predictable and formulated.  It is about tactics for the first group that solves it.  After that everyone just follows a set formula.  It is mind numbingly boring, once you done it for few times.  It requires about as much intelligence as a child.  Because the Boss are not human nor are they intelligent.  Once you figure out the rules they are predictable and idiotic.

[Haexpane]

Is this how it is?
--------------------------------

• . Hawke is the only character you wield full inventory control over, swapping out ever-more-effective weapons, armor, and accessories.
• Other characters have restrictions that slightly squash the joys of equipping your party.
• None of your other party members can equip different armor.
• Instead, you acquire upgrades for them and slot in runes that you can purchase after you've found or bought recipes for them.
• Varric's only weapon is the crossbow he calls Bianca, and
• there are no specialty arrows (ice, fire) for him to equip.
• It's disappointing to browse a vendor's wares or sort through your loot, only to see that Hawke is the only character allowed to use so many of the items

----------------------------------

OMG they ruined the party experience again? (ME1 to ME2) /sigh

I pre-ordered DA2 signature, so my mistake.

Modifié par Haexpane, 08 mars 2011 - 06:56 .

[Iwasdrunkbro]

you cant even talk to your party members..... even in the complete fail that was mass effect 2 atleast you could speak to your party members. i feel so ...betrayed.

[Amioran]

Sabiancym wrote...

 An actual review of Dragon Age 2 instead of just a review based on the history of the company and the first game.

http://www.gamespot....alclk;gamespace

8/10.  The way it should be.  It's a step back.

I don't know why they gave it 8/10. If you read well the review they seem to think it best than DAO in almost all things. 1.5 points less just for no skills/stremlined inventory and opinable "not so oustanding companions" is a bit too much imo, considering all the improvements they listed.

As I said the problem of sequels is that they are not judged fairly. If DA2 had not DAO as comparison then it would have taken 9.0 and maybe even more.

Naturally all sequels are compared to the originals, the problem is the way this comparision is made. It seems like that if you don't closely follow the steps of the original then you do a mistake. If however you do things too similar then you are bashed because you bring nothing new to the table. To achieve a score higher than an original than this last must be almost perfect in all points, and this isn't fair at all.

All in all it's very difficult to please reviewers with sequels, apart exceptions as CoD and co. that gets good reviews also if everytime they are the same thing over and over.

Modifié par Amioran, 08 mars 2011 - 06:57 .

[Haexpane]

Amioran wrote...

Sabiancym wrote...

 An actual review of Dragon Age 2 instead of just a review based on the history of the company and the first game.

http://www.gamespot....alclk;gamespace

8/10.  The way it should be.  It's a step back.

I don't know why they gave it 8/10. If you read well the review they seem to think it best than DAO in almost all things. 1.5 points less just for no skills/stremlined inventory and opinable "not so oustanding companions" is a bit too much imo, considering all the improvements they listed.

As I said the problem of sequels is that they are not judged fairly. If DA2 had not DAO as comparison then it would have taken 9.0 and maybe even more.

Naturally all sequels are compared to the originals, the problem is the way this comparision is made. It seems like that if you don't closely follow the steps of the original then you do a mistake. If however you do things too similar then you are bashed because you bring nothing new to the table. To achieve a score higher than an original than this last must be almost perfect in all points, and this isn't fair at all.

All in all it's very difficult to please reviewers with sequels, apart exceptions as CoD and co. that gets good reviews also if everytime they are the same thing over and over.

Baldur's Gate 2 says hi.   being a sequel is not why I like full party control and inventory control.  It's one of my favorite parts of RPGs, and games like BG2 made me LOVE the aspect of a full party I had control over.

They gutted it, exactly like they gutted ME2 to be a "gather your friends and fight the boss" ADD game.

[Daidoji Tangen]

1. I think this reviewer is comparing DA2 to the memory of DA:O rather than DA:O. Often times, things are better than you remember. I have no concrete proof, but I get that feeling.

2. Often times, the person complains about something only to go on to say the exact opposite. Like the dialogue. THe reviewer complains that it is many times a "false" choice (which is not true since you affect your general personality) but then goes on about how you get to make greater game-altering decisions than in DA:O.

3. The character complaints.... this is one of the big reasons that I get the "simply loves the original so much" feelings. I honestly want to know how many times the person played Origins compared to 2. Spending more time (ie more playthroughs) can easily affect how much you like someone. And Oghren? He was comic relief. Really not comparable to Varric other than being a male Dwarf (at least as far as I seen, I just got Varric before I had to quit). Maybe it was just me, but I never thought Oghren was a super awesome character. Amusing? Yes! On par with Alistar or Morrigan in personality? No. He was pretty paper thin as far as depth goes. Especially in Awakening.

3. I have no problem with this new gift-giving system. Was it super complex or satisfying in the original? I would rather have a stripped down version where I give only the personal stuff (like Zeveran's Dalish gloves or Morrigan's mirror) than a bunch of meaningless items (sure, alchohol means a lot to Oghren, but all I get is a +6-10 and seeing a bar move up).

4. I do consider less time hassling with inventory a good thing. A real good thing. And I like keeping unique looks for my characters rather than having everyone in the same bland armor.

5. Skills. Well, let's talk about the non-crafting and non-stat boosting skills, since one is still there if different and having more health/mana/stamina really isn't a skill. I miss Coercion. I loved bending people to my will. I often forgot about Stealing. And while Survival... I really don't know what to say about Survival. I wish they could include it, but with changing the crafting skills, I can see how there would not be much room to support it.

6. I support the new combat system, but fully understand people who prefer DA:O.

7. My TV is **** so I hate the new graphics. Only because now I have to sit up close if I want to read anything.

8. I don't think everything is simplified as it is streamlined. THere is a difference. Steamlined gives the player less control in order to focus on the important things (ie the new gift system) and hopefully provide a tighter narrative.

9. The reviewer says the story is unfocused. I haven't played enough either way. But it is possible. Not many games take place over such a long time. It is a risk and may not have paid off as much as Bioware wanted.

[Bigdoser]

Sooooo when has an 8 out of 10 been bad?

[Iwasdrunkbro]

I CANT TALK TO MY PARTY MEMBERS = not an origins memory but something that people ENJOYED that was STRIPPED FROM THE SEQUEAL

do you not understand this?

[Gerudan]

AlanC9 wrote...

I guess you didn't play ME1, then.

Yes, it was a problem there, too. 

[Rann]

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...

Rann wrote...

I think the reviews are simply indications of the obvious -- there are games that are just "good" -- not stunningly great, and not fatally flawed, but worthwhile to play and replay nevertheless, and hopefully the devs take what they've learned from the feedback and build something better next time. I'm at least glad that they are experimenting -- there's been a nice progression from BG all they way through DA:O, but not every one of those steps was a superlative difference.

While I personally dislike the non-tactical nature of combat in DA2 (at least as far as the demo showed me -- my game doesn't arrive until tomorrow), I have no problems playing a game that's just "good." I really can't wrap my head around the bipolar postings on this board (or, truth to be told, any feedback area on the 'Net for any subject). "Importing my DA:O game doesn't work, so the game is A TOTAL FAILURE and I won't play it because 0.0005% of the game won't reflect my personal reality." "This game is AWESOME and all of you people concerned about tactics are just whiners." The most enjoyable postings have, as usual, taken the more thoughtful road which leads through the middle -- just like all of the reviews I've read thus far at (for example) IGN, G4, and GS.

But of course, I've just made myself part of the problem, haven't I? Intolerant about intolerance -- too zen for me...

Please. EA told them to make their games for the 15-17 year old console players and dumb them down in the process to make people that dont play rpgs play rpgs. Why? Because Bioware sold their soul to EA to make TOR which is going to fail to WoW and end up destroying their reputation in the process. This isnt hard to figure out.

Ah, another black & white bit of viewpoint on a thoroughly grey subject... I didn't see that one coming... 

Yes, a multinational merchant of video games in a down economy would definitely want to deliberately alienate a well-established (and paying) demographic, one that already shows inclination to shell out more on their preferred platform (i.e., generally PC) and that therefore might be somewhat liquid with regard to other transactions. Makes total sense now; thanks for the, um, explanation.

[Ecaiki]

JamesX wrote...
Sounding like a true 4chan-er  

If you think MMO is tactics, go play chess with a chess master, or play something like Dawn of War 2.  MMO Boss Fights are predictable and formulated.  It is about tactics for the first group that solves it.  After that everyone just follows a set formula.  It is mind numbingly boring, once you done it for few times.  It requires about as much intelligence as a child.  Because the Boss are not human nor are they intelligent.  Once you figure out the rules they are predictable and idiotic.

Knowing the strategy and actually pulling it off are two totally different things.  Otherwise, for example, everyone who went into Icecrown Citidel in WoW would have beaten all 14 hardmodes every time.  Belittle it all you want, but getting people to work together, and utilising their strengths properly to achieve a goal still falls under tactics.

Oh, just for clarification, I'm assuming we're going to gloss over the fact that all mobs in Origins were preprogrammed AIs, that always reacted in a predictable manner, right? 

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...

you cant even talk to your party members..... even in the complete fail that was mass effect 2 atleast you could speak to your party members. i feel so ...betrayed.

...what are you talking about?

Modifié par Ecaiki, 08 mars 2011 - 07:06 .