203 réponses à ce sujet

[Rivehn]

One day we will be the game.

[abaris]

I freely admit I only played the demo.

But, it goes a little bit deeper than, times have changed, time to move on or accept it.

The demo got you aquainted with a few things this game was all about.

First, the combat style. I don't like it, I never liked over the top things like that, regardless of known and liked franchise or something completely different. So, simply saying, its not DA, but something completely different, wouldn't have opened my wallet, since its not what I want to experience on my screen.

Second, the companions. You learn quite a bit about how that's handled and I admit I already had my concerns when I first played Awakening. You can't talk to them, unless the game thinks its time for a talk. Also, you're thrown into the first fight immediately. So, getting to know them was a no go. It was like, ah, that's supposed to be my mother, ah OK. Ah, my sibling just died - I should feel something, but sorry, I know diddly about that pixelboy. In DAO you had a period to learn about yourself and - family or friends.

Third, graphics. You can't make any significant changes under dx9. Medium is the absolute. I don't know what's possible under dx11, since my card only shoulders 10.

All in all, it just seemed to fast paced and action related for my tastes. I played my fair share of shooters, but I didn't enjoy them well enough to keep spending money on action based games. And I got the impression, this would rather be action based. So again, obviously not my cup of tea, but no hatred involved. Noone forces me to buy after all.

And something on the side. It has been said, they have to open to the mass market. Might be, its a business decision, probably the right one from their point of view. But the mass market isn't loyal. They move on to the next sensation and forget pretty quickly.

[Lee337]

I don't get why everyone who likes DA2 thinks people who don't is because they're nostalgic.

[TheTWF]

abaris wrote...

the mass market isn't loyal. They move on to the next sensation and forget pretty quickly.

I think the loyalty of dedicated gamers is kinda questionable right now given how nearly the entire DA:O fanbase decided DA2 was bad based on a teaser and some line about fighting like a Spartan, holding that unchanging contempt tight during the dev cycle. release, and post release.

Nice tone of I'M BETTER THEN YOU there by the way.

Lee337 wrote...

I don't get why everyone who likes DA2 thinks people who don't is because they're nostalgic.

Go through the negative threads and point out to me the ones that don't mention DA:O or Baldur's Gate.

Modifié par TheTWF, 15 mars 2011 - 06:10 .

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Lee337 wrote...

I don't get why everyone who likes DA2 thinks people who don't is because they're nostalgic.

Well part of it is, and also a PC elitist attitude. I haven't bought a new PC game in over decade because I hate playing with a keyboard and mouse, and I don't have the money to upgrade my PC every other week.  

[truekorhil]

I have to kind of agree with this thread. I liked DA:O better than DA2 mostly because DA:O felt a lot more epic and had a larger gameworld. That being said DA2 was still a awesome game.

[abaris]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Lee337 wrote...

I don't get why everyone who likes DA2 thinks people who don't is because they're nostalgic.

Well part of it is, and also a PC elitist attitude. I haven't bought a new PC game in over decade because I hate playing with a keyboard and mouse, and I don't have the money to upgrade my PC every other week.  

All in all I'm playing with a four year old rig. I had to change my processor and mainboard, since lightning stroke last summer. The insurance took care of that. No problems, I still can play todays games with nearly maxed out settings.

The reason why I personally don't like consoles is forking out an additional 400 for something that's only good for gaming, but without any enhancements from the fanbase. No modding there. Also, you can't upgrade your console. If it gets too old to shoulder a certain game, you have to go for a new one. And usually, to top it off, games are more expensive, due to the license fee.

Nothing elitist about that. I like to have a universal machine for my daily work as well as my games.

[Kopawapatezi]

abaris wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Lee337 wrote...

I don't get why everyone who likes DA2 thinks people who don't is because they're nostalgic.

Well part of it is, and also a PC elitist attitude. I haven't bought a new PC game in over decade because I hate playing with a keyboard and mouse, and I don't have the money to upgrade my PC every other week.  

All in all I'm playing with a four year old rig. I had to change my processor and mainboard, since lightning stroke last summer. The insurance took care of that. No problems, I still can play todays games with nearly maxed out settings.

The reason why I personally don't like consoles is forking out an additional 400 for something that's only good for gaming, but without any enhancements from the fanbase. No modding there. Also, you can't upgrade your console. If it gets too old to shoulder a certain game, you have to go for a new one. And usually, to top it off, games are more expensive, due to the license fee.

Nothing elitist about that. I like to have a universal machine for my daily work as well as my games.

But see, you just sound like someone who prefers PC as their gaming system.

If you were an elitist you would have been like, "Oh, you don't play on PC? Well, you're troglodyte!" And you would have left it at that.

Or something.

I'm just a console gamer, 'cause I ignint.

[Lee337]

I only liked DA:O for the story, I didn't like the combat and as such didn't care about any of the RPG stuff. Second time round I just switched it to casual to blast through combat bits. I haven't played baldurs gate.
I didn't like it mainly because it was very repetative and the story had no drive and there was very little reason to care about the dull lifeless city you get stuck in. Nothing to do with DA:O or any other game. I just didn't like it.
I play on the PC but mostly because I can't play consoles easily because I can't hold the control pad.

[Rivehn]

One day the game will be us.

[abaris]

But see, you just sound like someone who prefers PC as their gaming system.

If you were an elitist you would have been like, "Oh, you don't play on PC? Well, you're troglodyte!" And you would have left it at that.

Or something.

I'm just a console gamer, 'cause I ignint.

But I don't get why not liking a certain game style should have anything to do with being PC elitist. That implies something and I'm not sure what its supposed to be. It sounds as if PC and console players would be two different kinds of breed.

Well, it may be true insofar as consoles are often handed out by parents for their kids. So it could be young vs older. Young usually likes action more than old. If that's the case, I can agree, but everything else fails as an explanation. If it means, the developers don't make full use of the potential they have at their hands, because they aim for the lowest common denominator, console players should be rather upset than content.

In any case, everyone has to decide for their own, what's worth 60+ bucks. As I said above, my wallet stays closed, since I strongly feel, this isn't my cup of tea.

[aries1001]

I think people still are comparing DA2 and DA: Origins to the Bioware D&D games. However, there exist several more rpg series, for instance Wizardry and Ultima and the old Might and Magic games. These games did not use the D&D ruleset. The Gothic games as well as the Witcher games did not use the D&D ruleset; the Elder Scrolls games (Oblivion e.g.) do not use the D&D rules. And the latter games also only have one set character that you can customize. And in The Witcher, Geralt has two, maybe three weapons he uses. And he only has one or two armors that he uses. And quite frankly, to me, this was enough. I do not, as a gamer and a player, to sell all the (useless) loot, I find in rpg games. In Oblivion, for instance, it takes 2-3 hours, if not 3-4 hours, to sell all loot from a dungeon.

In Bioware's first game, Baldur's Gate, you played as one character also. However, you could customize your npcs, too. The only game in which you created all 6 characters from scratch were - the Icewind Dale games. The combat in both Gothic, The Witcher and the old Might and Magic games could also be described as ation-oriented. And the combat in both Morrowind and Oblivion is clearly action-oriented.

As for conversation, yes in the old days you choose lines you read, today you choose from lines you read. But in the lines, and the tone of the lines, are now organised in a dialogue wheel, not in 5-6 lines ou read. I have no problems with this, but this is because I see games more as a visual medium than anything else.

As for the story, I really like the story: no ancient evil, no secret organization, no saving the world. Just a story about a man or woman. And how fate? forms his or her destiny....or is it herself or himself that does so...

[Lee337]

I like the idea of the story, but for many reasons I felt it wasn't done well enough for me to feel involved at all.

[abaris]

aries1001 wrote...

I think people still are comparing DA2 and DA: Origins to the Bioware D&D games.

Once again, I highly doubt that. If you don't like a certain style, you don't play, regardless if its called DAII or the Button of Doom. Its not in the title, but the contents.

[Kopawapatezi]

abaris wrote...

But see, you just sound like someone who prefers PC as their gaming system.

If you were an elitist you would have been like, "Oh, you don't play on PC? Well, you're troglodyte!" And you would have left it at that.

Or something.

I'm just a console gamer, 'cause I ignint.

1) But I don't get why not liking a certain game style should have anything to do with being PC elitist. That implies something and I'm not sure what its supposed to be. It sounds as if PC and console players would be two different kinds of breed.

Well, it may be true insofar as consoles are often handed out by parents for their kids. So it could be young vs older. 2) Young usually likes action more than old. If that's the case, I can agree, but everything else fails as an explanation. If it means, the developers don't make full use of the potential they have at their hands, because they aim for the lowest common denominator, console players should be rather upset than content.

In any case, everyone has to decide for their own, what's worth 60+ bucks. As I said above, my wallet stays closed, since I strongly feel, this isn't my cup of tea.

1) It shouldn't, and I wouldn't. Call of Duty: Black Ops sold well on PC, and many PC gamers play online, and will swear that PC is the way to go with Black Ops or just about any first person shooter. There are arrogant gamers of all kinds, and I realize this, and I see many here. The elitism here is not about what the person likes, but how the person acts about what he or she likes. The people that I would call "PC elitist" around here, are people I could also call "pretentious without any real reason to be". A better example, someone in middle school who likes Phish over say, Alicia Keys(God I love her...), in other words, a hipster lite.

2) Perhaps. But I don't think the target was fully the console audience, so much as it was the Call of Duty audience. Dragon Age: Origins did well on consoles, because there are plenty of RPG fans on the consoles. Of course, many of the RPGs are action RPGS. Origins was attractive: It looked fun, engrossing, bloody, and sexy(lol), that's damn awesome!  Plenty of these console gamers were disappointed and insulted by Dragon Age II. I wasn't, because I'm easily pleased. EA must love me.

[Lee337]

abaris wrote...

aries1001 wrote...

I think people still are comparing DA2 and DA: Origins to the Bioware D&D games.

Once again, I highly doubt that. If you don't like a certain style, you don't play, regardless if its called DAII or the Button of Doom. Its not in the title, but the contents.

I doubt it too, some people will be, but not all. 

[aries1001]

abaris wrote...

aries1001 wrote...

I think people still are comparing DA2 and DA: Origins to the Bioware D&D games.

Once again, I highly doubt that. If you don't like a certain style, you don't play, regardless if its called DAII or the Button of Doom. Its not in the title, but the contents.

I just meant that people normally compare new things to what they're familiar with. If they're more familar with the D&D rules, they will compare DA2 to the D&D rules.

As for Bioware creating a human Hawke, male or female, because about 80% of user data showed people playing a (male) human noble, this is up to Bioware. If we, as the intended audience, don't like this, we can decide to not buy the game. As we can, if we do not like e.g the conversation wheel or other stuff in DA2 - not buy it, I mean. And in regards to people playing DA: Origins quitting after the first hour or so, maybe they didn't quit because of the combat, but because of the quests, the dialogue, the characters. And because of the marketing campaign promised something like an action game - but with swords instead of guns. Maybe that's why these people quit DA: Origins.

In response, Bioware did make it somewhat easier to get into the game by making the first ½ hour or so about Varric telling a tale about the legend and the myth that is Hawke. And the the real story begins. And I wonder how many people playing the first ½ hour or so, will quit DA2 this time around. I see it like this: The people quitting DA: Origins might not necessarily have been doing so because the combat was slow or unresponsive, but because of the quests, the dialogues and the interactions between the characters. And even I, as a somewhat old school rpg gamer, found the origins in DA: Origins, way too long. The Dalish Elven Origin took at least 5-6 hours, or maybe 10-12 hours, to do.
And like I said in my first post, I don't like the idea of saving the world, the ancient evil threat, joining the secret order.
This, I feel, have been done so many times, so that it now has become a mockery, a kliché, of itself.

[abaris]

Kopawapatezi wrote...

1) It shouldn't, and I wouldn't. Call of Duty: Black Ops sold well on PC, and many PC gamers play online, and will swear that PC is the way to go with Black Ops or just about any first person shooter. There are arrogant gamers of all kinds, and I realize this, and I see many here.

Yeah, as I said, I played shooters too. But they didn't grow enough on me to fork out for yet another 60 for something action based.

It all boils down to developing a certain taste. And I discovered I liked RPGs with emphasis on roleplaying and outfitting my companions more than run, dodge, cover. DAO met my criteria pretty well as did quite a few other games in the past decade. I own most of Bioware's games, starting out with the whole NWN1 series. That's what I came to expect from that label.

It's all fine and dandy, that they want to expand their market, but I for one am lost as a customer, if they're expanding it this way. That's not a quality judgement, just a personal observation.

[nightlordv]

aries1001 wrote...

abaris wrote...

aries1001 wrote...

I think people still are comparing DA2 and DA: Origins to the Bioware D&D games.

Once again, I highly doubt that. If you don't like a certain style, you don't play, regardless if its called DAII or the Button of Doom. Its not in the title, but the contents.

I just meant that people normally compare new things to what they're familiar with. If they're more familar with the D&D rules, they will compare DA2 to the D&D rules.

As for Bioware creating a human Hawke, male or female, because about 80% of user data showed people playing a (male) human noble, this is up to Bioware. If we, as the intended audience, don't like this, we can decide to not buy the game. As we can, if we do not like e.g the conversation wheel or other stuff in DA2 - not buy it, I mean. And in regards to people playing DA: Origins quitting after the first hour or so, maybe they didn't quit because of the combat, but because of the quests, the dialogue, the characters. And because of the marketing campaign promised something like an action game - but with swords instead of guns. Maybe that's why these people quit DA: Origins.

In response, Bioware did make it somewhat easier to get into the game by making the first ½ hour or so about Varric telling a tale about the legend and the myth that is Hawke. And the the real story begins. And I wonder how many people playing the first ½ hour or so, will quit DA2 this time around. I see it like this: The people quitting DA: Origins might not necessarily have been doing so because the combat was slow or unresponsive, but because of the quests, the dialogues and the interactions between the characters. And even I, as a somewhat old school rpg gamer, found the origins in DA: Origins, way too long. The Dalish Elven Origin took at least 5-6 hours, or maybe 10-12 hours, to do.
And like I said in my first post, I don't like the idea of saving the world, the ancient evil threat, joining the secret order.
This, I feel, have been done so many times, so that it now has become a mockery, a kliché, of itself.

User data can be faulty at best. I am sure there are many different people including myself who may have STARTED as a human noble on their first play through and then went back to play an elf or dwarf on their second play through.
 They put in the static Hawke character because it saved them time, and also because of the huge success that was Mass Effect 2.

[AlanC9]

Kopawapatezi wrote...

I have yet to see someone compare DA2 to Planescape: Torment. :^$

I've seen it quite a few times, actually. Mostly about the companion armors, or rather the lack thereof.

[Lee337]

I may have been able to play through again if not for the one cave/house and magical appearing enemies who fall from the sky.

[Eurhetemec]

Lee337 wrote...

I don't get why everyone who likes DA2 thinks people who don't is because they're nostalgic.

It's because an awful lot of the people who dislike DA2 and are VERY LOUD about it are quite clearly nostalgic, or pining for systems which didn't actually work very well in DA:O. I mean, I saw a lengthy rant on another board about how DA2 sucked compared to DA:O, and what it basically boiled down to was "Mages are no longer auto-win and I am angry about that!".

Also, the criticism from people who clearly aren't nostalgic seems to largely be kind of vague and non-specific. Stuff like "the game didn't draw me in" or "I didn't like the way the plot was broken up". It's totally a fine reason to dislike something, but it's not very cutting and it's hard to discuss because it's so non-specific and cloud-like.

Whereas some loudmouth screaming about how the extra waves of enemies in fights (something DA:O did have in several combats, of course) "ruin" the game or that Hawke having a voice is killing their soul is easy to argue with, and thus attracts the attention. Add to that all the bull**** metacritic reviews written by people who clearly haven't played the game, but hate it for not being DA:O, and it all adds up.

[Eurhetemec]

Yeah, as I said, I played shooters too. But they didn't grow enough on me to fork out for yet another 60 for something action based.

It all boils down to developing a certain taste. And I discovered I liked RPGs with emphasis on roleplaying and outfitting my companions more than run, dodge, cover. DAO met my criteria pretty well as did quite a few other games in the past decade. I own most of Bioware's games, starting out with the whole NWN1 series. That's what I came to expect from that label.

It's all fine and dandy, that they want to expand their market, but I for one am lost as a customer, if they're expanding it this way. That's not a quality judgement, just a personal observation.

DA2 isn't action-based, though. It's still a highly tactical game, and contains far more in the way of RP than most games that describe themselves as RPGs. It's not an inventory-game, that's true - you don't spend a very long time outfitting the characters (though still far longer than classics like the Ultima games), so this whole line of objection seems poorly-conceived.

In fact, it's particularly problematic, as DA2 has better tactical options than DA:O did, which was a far more mindless slog in combat. Maybe though, people prefer that mindless slog (NWN1 was certainly also a mindless slog most of the time, but BG1/2 and PS:T weren't), which is fair enough. Certainly DA2 has better RP options than any NWN game, or BG1/2.

[abaris]

nightlordv wrote...


 They put in the static Hawke character because it saved them time, and also because of the huge success that was Mass Effect 2.

Funny thing is, I liked Mass Effect too. I found both on a fleamarket and thought "what the heck?".

Mass Effect surely is different and usually not my style, but I did like the fixed hero character in this one. And saying that means something, since I'm totally not into Science Fiction.

But, and that's a capitalised BUT. Fantasy and action based scifi RPG are two different puppies. In Fantasy I want to create my own kind of hero or heroine. And since its Bioware, I want to get to know my companions, I want to talk to them when I feel like it and I expect some romance. I certainly don't want an action based hack and slash experience.

And that's all what it is about. Once again, my personal impression.

[AlanC9]

nightlordv wrote...
User data can be faulty at best. I am sure there are many different people including myself who may have STARTED as a human noble on their first play through and then went back to play an elf or dwarf on their second play through. 

Why wouldn't that show in the data too?