303 réponses à ce sujet

[shadow-warlord]

Dragon Age 2 is not a fail...in fact Bioware should be commended for moving away from the cliche RPG story "evil is reborn,unite teh people and stop it"...

So yeah the idea of showing the life of Hawke as he rises in Kirkwall was great as was the intention to tell a more personal story but where the game actually fails is the execution of this idea...

It's sad that Bioware probably understood wrong feedback about the game and will not try another thing like that but focus only on the cliche RPG stories i mentioned above...

IF however they understood that the problem with DA2 wasn't the premise but the execution then that's great. With advances in technology etc they might be able to return to this RPG kind of story in the future without rushing it...

[ianvillan]

Faerunner wrote...

Actually, Bioware has stated that the next game will be about "Saving Thedas from itself." A far cry from the "evil is reborn,unite teh people and stop it" story.

BioWare IS convinced they had the right idea and went the right direction, and they DO believe the problem with DA2 wasn't the premise but the execution, so they ARE dedicated to doing the same thing all over but somehow make it work this time.

(Despite claims to the contrary, about combining "the best of DA:O and DA2." Forgive my cynicism, but the more information revealed about The Next Thing, the more DA2 changes seem to stay while the more DA:O features seem to remain abandoned. It honestly makes me wonder if anything in DA:O will actually return, besides random character cameos.)

To be honest, I don't think the problem most DA:O fans have is BioWare moving away from the "ancient evil awakens, must unite to stop it" plot (most people I've talked to said DA:O was great despite that plot, not because of it) but because the devs seemed to discard everything that made DA:O successful and popular in terms of role-play and game-play, without adding anything special to make up the difference. Having tons of different choices, origins, races, class specializations, non-combat skills like trap-making or poison-making, role-play freedom, tactical combat, desicions that have lasting consequences, said consequences making a lasting changes in the world, different endings, and so on were Dragon Age's golden geese, and it just felt like BioWare killed them all.

Unless the devs can bring some/most of those features back or replace them with something(s) really special and really well-delivered, I don't see how the next game is going to improve significantly. 

I agree with the bit that I highlighted that the devs are not interested in bringing back any DAO features for the next game.
Reading the dev posts on the forum they say that Voice is staying, the wheel is staying, paraphrasing is staying, iconic looks are staying, they have said how they want classes to be distinct so no dual wielding warriors etc. They have mentioned prefering the over the top combat just a bit slower.

I would like to see a dev blog about what they actually liked (not much by all indications) about Dragon Age Origins and what they plan to bring back.

[shadow-warlord]

Faerunner wrote...

shadow-warlord wrote...

Dragon Age 2 is not a fail...in fact Bioware should be commended for moving away from the cliche RPG story "evil is reborn,unite teh people and stop it"...

So yeah the idea of showing the life of Hawke as he rises in Kirkwall was great as was the intention to tell a more personal story but where the game actually fails is the execution of this idea...

Yes, because the "rags to riches" story is so unique by comparison! ^^

And I'm very sure that telling the "personal story" of a pre-defined character in a franchise that started out as a traditional RPG where the player got to mix and match different races and origins to design their own character and choose from many different dialogue options to role-play said character is a very huge improvement as well. Who needs to role-play in an RGP?

shadow-warlord wrote...

It's sad that Bioware probably understood wrong feedback about the game and will not try another thing like that but focus only on the cliche RPG stories i mentioned above...

IF however they understood that the problem with DA2 wasn't the premise but the execution then that's great. With advances in technology etc they might be able to return to this RPG kind of story in the future without rushing it...

Actually, Bioware has stated that the next game will be about "Saving Thedas from itself." A far cry from the "evil is reborn,unite teh people and stop it" story.

BioWare IS convinced they had the right idea and went the right direction, and they DO believe the problem with DA2 wasn't the premise but the execution, so they ARE dedicated to doing the same thing all over but somehow make it work this time.

(Despite claims to the contrary, about combining "the best of DA:O and DA2." Forgive my cynicism, but the more information revealed about The Next Thing, the more DA2 changes seem to stay while the more DA:O features seem to remain abandoned. It honestly makes me wonder if anything in DA:O will actually return, besides random character cameos.)

To be honest, I don't think the problem most DA:O fans have is BioWare moving away from the "ancient evil awakens, must unite to stop it" plot (most people I've talked to said DA:O was great despite that plot, not because of it) but because the devs seemed to discard everything that made DA:O successful and popular in terms of role-play and game-play, without adding anything special to make up the difference. Having tons of different choices, origins, races, class specializations, non-combat skills like trap-making or poison-making, role-play freedom, tactical combat, desicions that have lasting consequences, said consequences making a lasting changes in the world, different endings, and so on were Dragon Age's golden geese, and it just felt like BioWare killed them all.

Unless the devs can bring some/most of those features back or replace them with something(s) really special and really well-delivered, I don't see how the next game is going to improve significantly. 

Not exactly rags to riches more like telling the story of an immigrant who gets to live in a new city,making new friends etc. On paper it sounds great, to live the story of a character or more genrally to have a personal story but as i said the execution failed...DAO ended up being more personal than DA2 because of more dialogue,better characters,dillemas etc.

As for DA3 i'm not optimistic at all...What i want from DAO is engaging story,deep characters,  "dark" artstyle, dialogue tree, no paraphrarses, important decisions and consequences etc

Sadly they are keeping the dialogue wheel which will probably nearly ruin the game for me since dialogue wheel= fewer and stupid conversations...

I'd accept not having many races,origins etc if it means an engaging story with tons of dialogue, fleshed out party members, updated graphics and many endings and consequences...

Modifié par shadow-warlord, 28 juin 2012 - 08:22 .

[SafetyShattered]

I agree that Dragon Age 2 didn't even come close to DAO, however I applaud BIoware for trying to do a different story then the traditional "save the world from an evil demony.....thing." I agree it fell very VERY short. But it wasn't terrible. I enjoyed it for what it was.

[Wivvix]

sirianb wrote...

Dear Bioware:

If you had just given us the same gameplay as Dragon Age Origins, similir quality level of story, and upgraded graphics for Dragon Age 2, I would have been happy with that. What you released is pure BS to milk the franchise. This game is nothing more than a 3D Diablo 2. CLICK CLICK CLICK it's completely mindless, and we all know you rushed this game to milk the franchise because of EA.  I'm just going to rush through the game as fast as I can to see the ending, but I am not buying any of your Dragon Age 2 DLC or expansion packs, because the game is garbage, and it's to late to patch it and salvage the game.

So in conclusion if you had just given us the same gameplay of Dragon Age Origins, and updated graphics most of your fans would have been happy. Yet this bastardized game is passed off as Dragon age 2, when it is clearly not a sequel, it's just a poorly rushed game to milk the franchise. PLEASE DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES FOR DRAGON AGE 3.

There is so much more that is wrong with Dragon Age 2, I implore you to endure the tiring, homogenous wreck through to the rolling of credits, so that you might at least fully appreciate just how bad the game is compared to Origins. In many ways it even warrants a second play-through, if for no other reason than to prove that the game also has absolutely no replayability, making that first play-through all the more abhorrent.

[ianvillan]

Faerunner wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Faerunner wrote...

(Despite claims to the contrary, about combining "the best of DA:O and DA2." Forgive my cynicism, but the more information revealed about The Next Thing, the more DA2 changes seem to stay while the more DA:O features seem to remain abandoned. It honestly makes me wonder if anything in DA:O will actually return, besides random character cameos.)
 

I agree with the bit that I highlighted that the devs are not interested in bringing back any DAO features for the next game. Reading the dev posts on the forum they say that Voice is staying, the wheel is staying, paraphrasing is staying, iconic looks are staying, they have said how they want classes to be distinct so no dual wielding warriors etc. They have mentioned prefering the over the top combat just a bit slower.

I would like to see a dev blog about what they actually liked (not much by all indications) about Dragon Age Origins and what they plan to bring back.

Wow, seriously? Isn't the dialogue wheel and the paraphrasing the closest thing to being a universally disliked feature in DA2? I could be wrong, but it seems that most players, even players who adore DA2, have shown that at best they don't really care that much for the way dialogue was handled in DA2, at worst they despise it. (I could be wrong.)

If BioWare is absolutely committed to leaving out features that made the franchise successful in the first place and keeping features that most of their fans either don't like or don't care for, then I REALLY don't have very much hope for The Next Thing.

Yes they want the paraphrasing to stay as it is, people have even asked for a system like Deus Ex where if you press a button on the paraphrase or even just hover over the paraphrase it will display the whole line. But David Gaider has said that Bioware has rejected this idea and will stay how DA2 was.

[Wivvix]

ianvillan wrote...

Yes they want the paraphrasing to stay as it is, people have even asked for a system like Deus Ex where if you press a button on the paraphrase or even just hover over the paraphrase it will display the whole line. But David Gaider has said that Bioware has rejected this idea and will stay how DA2 was.

Can you point me to this statement? I'm keen to collate all of this proof that Gaider is lying through his teeth to the community about "listening to feedback".

The only people who seem to think the conservation wheel isn't a total disaster, are people who don't even bother to read the option they choose (they pick a symbol) or Bioware employees.

[Plaintiff]

Wivvix wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Yes they want the paraphrasing to stay as it is, people have even asked for a system like Deus Ex where if you press a button on the paraphrase or even just hover over the paraphrase it will display the whole line. But David Gaider has said that Bioware has rejected this idea and will stay how DA2 was.

Can you point me to this statement? I'm keen to collate all of this proof that Gaider is lying through his teeth to the community about "listening to feedback".

The only people who seem to think the conservation wheel isn't a total disaster, are people who don't even bother to read the option they choose (they pick a symbol) or Bioware employees.

"Listening to feedback" does not equate to "kowtowing to every single demand".

[TonberryFeye]

But "listening to feedback" implies that said feedback will dictate future development.

It feels like one of those areas where instead of addressing the point raised, Bioware just wants to deflect the point instead. I mean, how many ways can we go about this?

"Dragon Age 2's dialog didn't work right."
"We're confident the dialog wheel will work really well next game."

"The dialog wheel is clumsy, vague, and it breaks immersion."
"Lots of people wanted the dialog wheel to be in Origins because Mass Effect had it and Mass Effect was popular, so we're choosing to keep it."

"The combination of using emoticons to turn conversation into a weird metagame, paraphrasing that resulted in the character saying something entirely different to what you expected and the fact
that Hawke's entire personality changed to suit what you picked, instead of changing what was said to suit the personality meant that conversations became painful to work through."
"We disagree."

"You're a bunch of ****ing idiots! Nobody likes the dialog wheel!"
"We think you're being rude so we'll ignore all the points you raised and focus entire on how you raised them, complain about how you raised them, and then carry on doing what we were going to do anyway."

This is pretty much how I view Bioware's attempt at 'listening to feedback'.

[ianvillan]

Wivvix wrote...

Can you point me to this statement? I'm keen to collate all of this proof that Gaider is lying through his teeth to the community about "listening to feedback".

The only people who seem to think the conservation wheel isn't a total disaster, are people who don't even bother to read the option they choose (they pick a symbol) or Bioware employees.

It was in the is VO a must for DA3? thread, David Gaider replied about keeping voice, the wheel and paraphrasing and that they had looked at putting in the text for the line being spoken but decided against it.

[Pasquale1234]

Faerunner wrote...

shadow-warlord wrote...

Not exactly rags to riches more like telling the story of an immigrant who gets to live in a new city,making new friends etc. On paper it sounds great, to live the story of a character or more genrally to have a personal story but as i said the execution failed...DAO ended up being more personal than DA2 because of more dialogue,better characters,dillemas etc.

A protagonist of humble origins rises in power and becomes a celebrated hero throughout their world.

Yeah, I think it's pretty similar to many games I've played before. No ancient evil, but it's the same hero story.

Honestly - in some respects, DA2's story was not all that different from DAO's, although I suppose it depends to some degree on which origin we're talking about.

It can be said that, for example, a city elf or dwarf commoner in Origins did have the experience of rising from a humble background in obscurity to a position of great power and prestige in a different culture.

We also had an ancient evil antagonist in DA2 - the lyrium idol, and perhaps to a lesser degree, the thin veil present in Kirkwall, created by its history of cruel slavery.

I also found the Warden's story to be much more personal than Hawke's, probably because I never connected with or really understood Hawke.

[Alikain]

DA2 was like some anime game. when i got to the end i was like what this, can humans really do that. its was just horrendous game-play. i couldn't combine my mage spells anymore. i couldn't chose to become arcane warrior anymore. that was it for me.

[TonberryFeye]

There's something else that was watered down from Origins - the lack of options.

In Origins, you really have no choice but to become a Warden. Every origin story makes it clear that without Duncan you're a dead man (or woman). The game then keeps you on track by removing the option of running away - only the Grey Wardens can unite Ferelden against the Blight. If you cut and run, the implication is "you could, but you'd never outrun the Blight." You have to step up and be the hero because the alternative is an ignominious death in the gutter.

In DA2 there is no such motivation. You went to Kirkwall to escape the Blight, and you were forced to stay due to being a slave in all but name; you had a debt to replay, remember?
The problem is that debt was repaid via a handwave, and so when Act I kicks off we are a free man (or woman) who can make his (or her) own choices. Moreover, that same timeskip confirms the Blight is over, so we don't have to stay in the Free Marches anymore. Yes, Lothering is gone, but Ferelden is not.
We are reminded over and over that our character is seen as a Ferelden, not a Marcher / Kirkwallian. At best, what keeps us there is a lack of money. By Act II that obstacle is gone - now there really is nothing keeping us in Kirkwall.

Hawke, and by extension the player, should have been a clear reason to want to stay in Kirkwall and involve himself (or herself) in the conflicts that followed.

[Cutlasskiwi]

TonberryFeye wrote...

There's something else that was watered down from Origins - the lack of options.

In Origins, you really have no choice but to become a Warden. Every origin story makes it clear that without Duncan you're a dead man (or woman). The game then keeps you on track by removing the option of running away - only the Grey Wardens can unite Ferelden against the Blight. If you cut and run, the implication is "you could, but you'd never outrun the Blight." You have to step up and be the hero because the alternative is an ignominious death in the gutter.

In DA2 there is no such motivation. You went to Kirkwall to escape the Blight, and you were forced to stay due to being a slave in all but name; you had a debt to replay, remember?
The problem is that debt was repaid via a handwave, and so when Act I kicks off we are a free man (or woman) who can make his (or her) own choices. Moreover, that same timeskip confirms the Blight is over, so we don't have to stay in the Free Marches anymore. Yes, Lothering is gone, but Ferelden is not.
We are reminded over and over that our character is seen as a Ferelden, not a Marcher / Kirkwallian. At best, what keeps us there is a lack of money. By Act II that obstacle is gone - now there really is nothing keeping us in Kirkwall.

Hawke, and by extension the player, should have been a clear reason to want to stay in Kirkwall and involve himself (or herself) in the conflicts that followed.

True, but I found it the same with DAO. The game didn't give enough justification to stay in Ferelden instead of going to Orlais to rally other wardens. I kept hearing that darkspwan might try to hunt me down during my travels. But I figured that they could try to hunt me down while I gather real allies in Orlais instead of going through with Flemeth's suicide mission.

[Pasquale1234]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

True, but I found it the same with DAO. The game didn't give enough justification to stay in Ferelden instead of going to Orlais to rally other wardens. I kept hearing that darkspwan might try to hunt me down during my travels. But I figured that they could try to hunt me down while I gather real allies in Orlais instead of going through with Flemeth's suicide mission.

You also had the Loghain/Howe problem.  IIRC, Orlais did send some Wardens (along with other troops), but Loghain turned them away at the border.  After having heard about what had happened to Ferelden's wardens at Ostagar, it was decided that a single warden (Riordan) might be able to sneak into Ferelden to help, but he was caught and imprisoned until your warden helped him escape.

[Plaintiff]

TonberryFeye wrote...

But "listening to feedback" implies that said feedback will dictate future development.

It feels like one of those areas where instead of addressing the point raised, Bioware just wants to deflect the point instead. I mean, how many ways can we go about this?

"Dragon Age 2's dialog didn't work right."
"We're confident the dialog wheel will work really well next game."

"The dialog wheel is clumsy, vague, and it breaks immersion."
"Lots of people wanted the dialog wheel to be in Origins because Mass Effect had it and Mass Effect was popular, so we're choosing to keep it."

"The combination of using emoticons to turn conversation into a weird metagame, paraphrasing that resulted in the character saying something entirely different to what you expected and the fact
that Hawke's entire personality changed to suit what you picked, instead of changing what was said to suit the personality meant that conversations became painful to work through."
"We disagree."

"You're a bunch of ****ing idiots! Nobody likes the dialog wheel!"
"We think you're being rude so we'll ignore all the points you raised and focus entire on how you raised them, complain about how you raised them, and then carry on doing what we were going to do anyway."

This is pretty much how I view Bioware's attempt at 'listening to feedback'.

Well I don't really want them to listen to your feedback anyway. So it works out pretty great for me.

[LobselVith8]

TonberryFeye wrote...

But "listening to feedback" implies that said feedback will dictate future development.

It feels like one of those areas where instead of addressing the point raised, Bioware just wants to deflect the point instead. I mean, how many ways can we go about this?

"Dragon Age 2's dialog didn't work right."
"We're confident the dialog wheel will work really well next game."

"The dialog wheel is clumsy, vague, and it breaks immersion."
"Lots of people wanted the dialog wheel to be in Origins because Mass Effect had it and Mass Effect was popular, so we're choosing to keep it."

"The combination of using emoticons to turn conversation into a weird metagame, paraphrasing that resulted in the character saying something entirely different to what you expected and the fact 
that Hawke's entire personality changed to suit what you picked, instead of changing what was said to suit the personality meant that conversations became painful to work through."
"We disagree."

"You're a bunch of ****ing idiots! Nobody likes the dialog wheel!"
"We think you're being rude so we'll ignore all the points you raised and focus entire on how you raised them, complain about how you raised them, and then carry on doing what we were going to do anyway."

This is pretty much how I view Bioware's attempt at 'listening to feedback'.

Pretty much. This reminds me when Bioware claimed fans weren't pleased with their "innovations."

[Realmzmaster]

Listening to feedback does not imply it will affect future development. It simply means that Bioware has listen to your suggestions and everyone else's suggestions. Bioware will now have to decide which suggestions if any will make it into future development.

Listening does not mean Bioware is going to do as you say. Bioware has other gamers who are making suggestions and they want to see their suggestions implemented also.

The final decision lies with Bioware. You may or may not see your suggestions implemented or your complaints addressed.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 30 juin 2012 - 02:53 .

[TonberryFeye]

However, does it not strike anyone as odd that the people they listen to are the ones who prefer elements of DA2, which has been proven to be a flop compared to Origins, has invoked far more negative feedback, alienated a good chunk of the Origins fanbase (who are the sole reason Bioware made the sequel - the DA franchise would have been dropped if it bombed with Origins) and generally going against anything that remotely resembles a sound business strategy?

You'd think someone at EA of all places would understand the idea of "follow the money." We now have two different approaches to making a Dragon Age game: Origins, and failure. Bioware is repeating failure. Why is nobody at EA demanding that they follow Origins to rake in some cash?