336 réponses à ce sujet

[17thknight]

Twaddlefish wrote...

I thought he addressed a lot of the major concerns that PC gamers. He admitted things we'd rather not believe e.g. that it wasn't a primarily PC development, but I think he's being quite fair about things. The thinking 6/10 is a bad score is nonsense though, 60% is GOOD and at university level it'll net you a 2:1.

6/10's are a death sentence for a video game.

Games are NOT reviewed on a 1-10 scale. They are reviewed on a 7-10 scale. Anything below a 7 is pure garbage and utterly unplayable.

Any score, 1-6, is essentially a 0.

Once you start rising above that, 7 is a low rental, 8 is where people can have varying levels of disagreement over the quality of the game and it'll please some but not others.

9 is where the game is solidly a quality title.

6/10 is not good.

THAT being said, this game is not getting 6/10's across the board, that's not even remotely the aggregate, but he'd better take a long, serious look at the criticisms from people giving those levels of reviews and fix the problems. You bring the 6's up to 8's and everyone else will be in the 9's and 10's.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Bundin wrote...

There are some decent explanations inthere, like why importing saves has little consequence: we don't want to alienate non-Origins players (money) and it would feel tacked on. The second one is fine with me to be honest. ME2 had some of those cameos that didn't add anything to the story and seemed very out of place.

It also confirms the "we were rushed" comment that's been posted elsewhere. Apparently it was making more different dungeon maps or add more content. I'd expect Bioware to take the time to do both properly but apparently there were strict constraints (can't have DA2 take too long to make, people might forget all about Origins and less money would be made).

I hope that after ME2 and DA2, their followups will be less "streamlined" by the money-minded management.

Agreed on too many cameos and mentions of past events being a negative. That kind of "small univerese syndrome" proved very irritating in ME2. Just how many of your past acquintancies are you going to run into on Ilium alone? Not to mention every side quest NPC somehow finding out that you are alive and spamming you with inconsequential email... Haven't played DA2 yet, but if it has avoided that, I consider it a plus.

The only thing is, if those meaningful few connections to DA:O are bugged or created carelessly... That would/will suck too (I've read some spoilers...) <_<

Eh, I gotta disagree. That's what the writing staff is for (I'm looking at you Gaider). THere's no need to limit the concept of importing to mere cameos and occassional references. With a little more creativity, the decisions can mean oh so much more. The real reason as to why Origins is mostly ignored is that they didn't have time to develop the kind of content needed to make the decisions truly relevant. In other words, rush job.

[Goldrock]

Most the whiners are the ones in whining in the forums and you gotta also relize the people in the forums are minorities there tons of people out there who dont take the time to lurk on forums who are problably enjoying the game i for one am loving the game yeah nothing like part 1 its its own little game based in the dragonage universe.

[Ebenezer]

Here's one.

"We designed that because we thought that the ability to whirl around and snap off a fireball at a guy who's charging you, rather than shuffling in and launching it usually a couple of feet behind him, created a much stronger sense of responsiveness. To me that benefits the PC players and the console players."

Here's where he's just completely wrong. when an enemy is charging at you and you cast a fireball targeted on that enemy there is a good chance he is going to be close enough to you when the fireball hits, especially because of the faster gameplay, that the fireball will damage YOU and the enemy. The WHOLE POINT of casting behind the enemy was so that you dont blow yourself up.

It was so nice to use the overhead view to place your AoE before so you could avoid things like that happening. But they removed that for console limitations, praise how easy it is to target specific enemies on the consoles now, and made AoE spells do no damage to your party on the "Normal" difficulty (which should be "Easy" difficulty) to compensate for the horrible snap-to-nearest-target-with-no-overhead-view-to-precisely-place-a-spell-where-you-want.

I really dont think he understands exactly how bad some of the design decisions are.

[corebit]

Eurogamer: One stronger criticism levelled at Dragon Age II was that it was designed by committee; it tried too hard to appeal too far and wide, and in doing so it lost a sense of self.

I think this was a very spot-on. I also think the developers tried too hard in this respect, and the game no longer feels like a Dragon Age game. It seems Mike Laidlaw and team only wanted to change stuff for the sake of change.

Modifié par corebit, 11 mars 2011 - 12:03 .

[Elric Highblade]

Am I the only one who thinks of the idea of a "super blight" interesting?
When I think of two Archdemons stapled together?
****, that's cool.

Y'see, if you've read the game's lore- you know Blights are hardcore- but nothing new. They've been defeated plenty of times, and there's very few Gods left that can awaken and become Archdemons. But a SUPER BLIGHT?

I want to fight a game where you fight World War Blight, man.
NATIONS SUNDERED, armies broken, whole civilizations marshalled againts the final push of the darkspawn!

Come on, DA:O's blight was like weak.
I want a BIG WAR.

[Maruset]

indeed. 60%= D-

Also, say no to Super Wardens with golden hair and sparks flying all around them.

Modifié par Maruset, 11 mars 2011 - 12:05 .

[DarkGin87]

change is not always a bad thing

[Teh Chozen Wun]

17thknight wrote...

keyip wrote...

Any specific problems with the interview? I thought it was superficial but that's the interviewers fault really.

He's far too dismissive of criticism, especially when he says that everyone's "just reactionary" because this game "isn't Origins".

That is the truth though. All the complaints on this forum are because DA2 ain't DA:O2.

[LordJeyl]

17thknight wrote...
However, in reference to your point about imports, I really wish they would have simply ignored it completely. There's no reason the two games need to cross over at all. This could have been a completely different story, utterly unrelated to Origins. Which would have been fine, but once that's decided, trying to shove Origins back into it is going to feel hamfisted.

What? I for one don't think the elements brought on over from Origins is hamfisted. I actually prefer continuing the story of a world that your Warden character helped shaped. To ignore the past game's storyline would feel more like Bioware didn't like Origins.

I prefer to have a series with continuity.

[17thknight]

Teh Chozen Wun wrote...

That is the truth though. All the complaints on this forum are because DA2 ain't DA:O2.

That's not even close to the truth. Every criticism I have against the game is leveled squarely at it on its own terms.

How can you possibly say that recycling dungeons isn't a criticism of the game on its own? 

[chosef]

Foxhound2020 wrote...

If you read the full interview, he explains that the game wasnt everything they wanted in the reviews of 86, and they want to improve next time. its not as great as they wanted.

Actually he said that they expected better reviews and acceptance, not that the game would be better.

The whole interview could be summed up as

"We made a great game with some smaaaaal mistakes, and it's the players fault they didn't like it. We will, however, address some of the minor issues the plebeans expressed their concerns about(it's just reactionary drivel anyway, we know better than them why they THINK they dislike the game", but we will generally keep on trucking and making things our way untill the consumers start believing us our games are actually good.

Oh and yes- we did prioritize consoles over PC. Here, have this lie about the graphics being awesome - some people might fall for it."

[Veracruz]

Wulfram wrote...

Hopefully, internally at least they'll be able to look honestly at where DA2 has failed to live up to it's predecessor.

Including whether PC voice over was a good decision.

One thing is what they can say in public and another what they say in private. Silly marketing and emotional users...

Their interpretation of what "failed" to "live up to its predecessor" may not match what some players would like to think though. But DA II has changes based on feedback from DAO so DA III should follow that path too.

[Malja]

DarkGin87 wrote...

change is not always a bad thing

Of course not. There's a proper way to change and a way to screw it up, though.

[Morty Smith]

Goldrock wrote...

Most the whiners are the ones in whining in the forums and you gotta also relize the people in the forums are minorities there tons of people out there who dont take the time to lurk on forums who are problably enjoying the game i for one am loving the game yeah nothing like part 1 its its own little game based in the dragonage universe.

And as you have proven not all who like the game are playing it 24/7. So please don´t assume.

[Phex]

I suppose it was to be expected. They announced the release date for Dragon Age 2 months and months in advance, and they stuck to it. You don't make an epic, score shattering RPG experience in the time that was put into DA2.

I don't really know what to say, BioWare did what they could with the time and requirements that were given to them.

[Mox Ruuga]

Veracruz wrote...

One thing is what they can say in public and another what they say in private. Silly marketing and emotional users...

Their interpretation of what "failed" to "live up to its predecessor" may not match what some players would like to think though. But DA II has changes based on feedback from DAO so DA III should follow that path too.

True enough.

That's why I'm worried as to what conclusions they will draw from the chillier-than-expected reception the game got.

[DonKaran]

this "I've seen perfects, I've seen less than perfects. There are some things I think that are certainly fair criticisms" says alot..
they knew there were selling horse **** to their real fans who supported them since baldurs gate

[RohanD]

Sorry, I really don't want to be rude, but screw it that line about the recycled environments was the last straw.The gloves are off. This guy Mike Laidlaw, he is a POLITICIAN.

[Ebenezer]

Teh Chozen Wun wrote...

17thknight wrote...

keyip wrote...

Any specific problems with the interview? I thought it was superficial but that's the interviewers fault really.

He's far too dismissive of criticism, especially when he says that everyone's "just reactionary" because this game "isn't Origins".

That is the truth though. All the complaints on this forum are because DA2 ain't DA:O2.

False.

Even if this was the first DA game, if there was no DA game before it, people would still be mocking them for the reused areas, the ugly Elves, the one city, not being able to customize your companions further, lack of a main plot, excessive use of and odd portrayal of gay characters, and the completely unbalanced difficulty level scaling and combat in general, among other things.

Whether DAO existed or not does not mean they didnt completely screw up in those and more areas.

But hey, he blames it on the players.  He mentions taking enchantments out of DA3, because they are to complicated.  Because since the dawn of gaming people in his opinion are too stupid to understand item upgrading.  Nah, mechanics like that never worked in any games made by RPG developers... like Bioware.

[keyip]

Ebenezer wrote...

"I'd much rather make a game that
challenges people and doesn't
just rest on its laurels."

Challenges
people huh?  In response to "What's the mood like?" referring to how
people feel about the game, thats what he comes out with.

It was a stupid and vague question and got the answer it deserved. It  could easly be interpreted (or misinterpreted) to mean what's the mood like in the studio (which is probably how he took it, it's also what I immediately thought of when I read the question).

17thknight wrote...

He's far too dismissive of criticism, especially when he says that everyone's "just reactionary" because this game "isn't Origins".

I kinda agreed with that comment though. There's some legitimate criticism floating around but there's also been some real knee jerk reactions.

17thknight wrote...He's also extremely dismissive of PC gamers. Like we should just suck it up that the capabilities of a PC are being utterly ignored in favor of a console-centric release. There's no reason that something like what we play with should held to the standards of a 360's ram, processor, and controller. It's insulting to the people who made this company what it is: PC RPG gamers.

Dismissive? I didn't think he was dismissive. He' dismissive because the game wasn't designed for high-end machines and he didn't apologise for it? Sorry but I like PC games that cater for lower-end rigs.

17thknight wrote...
And most importantly, including basic things like an isometric camera does not at all require you to test between "low and high end machines". Give me a break.

I think we all realise they were pushed for time with this release. It's regrettible but they had a deadline and the game has enough problems without including more work for them.

17thknight wrote...
He also flat-out says they dumbed-down the game for mass appeal.

I don't believe he did but I may have glossed over it. Can yu post the bit where he said this please?

Modifié par keyip, 11 mars 2011 - 12:14 .

[chosef]

Kordaris wrote...

Should I post screens comparing this game graphics to graphics in games from the year 2000 ?

How about 1998? That's when Half-Life was released and it had similar polygon count and textures for montains/rocks

To above poster:

"I think we all realise they were pushed for time with this release. It's
regrettible but they had a deadline and the game has enough problems
without including more work for them."

Well, that is one of the main point of the crap they are getting. You just basically said(and even this interview confirms it) that the game is unfinished/half-assed. Then why isn't it half-priced? Not only does it literally have half the content in playing hours, but they also cut corners to boot.

Worse product = lower price or worse reception and frustration. It's not a complicated concept.

Modifié par chosef, 11 mars 2011 - 12:21 .

[17thknight]

Ebenezer wrote...

But hey, he blames it on the players.  He mentions taking enchantments out of DA3, because they are to complicated.  Because since the dawn of gaming people in his opinion are too stupid to understand item upgrading.  Nah, mechanics like that never worked in any games made by RPG developers... like Bioware.

Yeah, just look at the Materia system in FF7 and the jewelcrafting in WoW. Stupid gamers never figured it out and those games both bombed as a result!