203 réponses à ce sujet

[UnrealCraft]

Stalky24 wrote...
Conclusion
Bioware has created great, but modern, RPG with modern combat, modern storyline, modern converastion system, modern character and its developement, all adjusted for style of todays games, leaving old school behind
for good. And thats what pisses off so many people.

Gamespot:
Dragon Age: Origins (PC): 9.5 Editors' Choice
Dragon Age 2 (PC): 8.0

I guess people dont like old school games anymore......

Modifié par UnrealCraft, 15 mars 2011 - 08:07 .

[Lee337]

Didn't the same kind of thing happen with Mass Effect 2? People complaining about all sorts of stuff,that the story was awful or the rpg elements are gone. But Mass effect 2 PC has a user score of 8.8 with only 17 negative reviews out off 700 or so. Dragon Age 2 had 962 negatives out of 1592 reviews. Which may show that its not just about the changes or for nostalgic reasons. But I do find the amount of reviews strange, it is double mass effect in just over a week. --Just figured out thats because more people reviewed mass effect on consoles, not pc!

Modifié par Lee337, 15 mars 2011 - 08:13 .

[CroGamer002]

Well somebody noticed evolution of RPGs today and "classic" RPG fanboys just don't want to adapt.

[Katarian]

Eurhetemec wrote...

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.

I don't think it is that tactical. I'm playing on hard and in 99% of fights all the tactics I use are unload all your AoE attacks at the start of the fight, mop up any survivors (or try to stay alive if fighting harder opponents), when the next wave spawns unload all your AoE attacks as they come off cooldown, rinse and repeat until all the waves are dead or you are. Actually trying to funnel enemies in tight spaces to make the best use of AoE attacks and tanking, doorways or really small rooms, backfires as the camera completely fails in tight spaces. I spent loads of time looking at the new, extremely boring, ceilings when characters have been forced right back into a wall or corner and the ceiling, or floor, and the back of the character I am controlling is all I can see.

Actually to be honest most of fights follow the above method, and then I reload a quicksave and do the fight properly now that I know when and where the respawns are going to come from. If I didn't do that I would very quickly run out of potions, injury kits, and money.

Boss fights have required some tactics. Though that is mainly due to the way they setup with abilites that will kill you far too quickly, and partly due me having specced my characters to deal with the 99% of fights that are wave upon wave of multiple enemies rather then one really tough enemy.

[jennamarae]

Autolycus wrote...

As for you miss Jenna, you are the vocal minority if you don't agree with me hehe

Yeah well, I disagree with you. And in a show of one-ups-manship (is that a word?), I hereby declare that your father is a turnip and you smell like celery.


On topic, I don't hate DA2 but I'm certainly not satisfied with it as-is. Partially because I hate the way you're railroaded at the end and partially because it's a game of side-quests in between the few main story quests. Not that those are my only complaints, but those two of my big ones. Of course, I'm not a fan of the third-person perspective either.

[elimccl]

A lot of generalizations and simplifications in this thread, along with a lot of fan rhetoric.

I didn't like it because I found the gameplay to be stale and boring, not because it lacked RPG elements, or whatever other excuse you'd like to invent to place in my mouth. Also, I found the story to be a mess of subplots that lacked the central drive necessary to unite the story, as a whole. While I felt like Origins' story was immature in its central plot, in that it was just a generic "go fight this dragon" quest, it at least had a central plot. This game lacks that in spades. You can try to play this off as "the central plot was the character trying to survive," or "the central plot was the buildup to the final scene," but this is, again, rhetoric used by those who didn't think the game was that bad, to try to ignore the obvious. Speaking as a writer, there is a structure to storytelling that is necessary in one form or another, in order to communicate a story and its central theme. It is possible to see DA2 as a contained story, but only in hindsight, which is the problem. One of the basics of good storytelling is establishing an endgame for the story in the first chapter - what the conflict is, who is involved and asking the question of how it can be resolved. This gives the reader a direction to look towards, in uniting all the story elements as he reads. DA2 attempts to do this by alluding to the events at the end of the game, yet this fails to establish the central characters (the villain most pertinent does not appear until Act 3), the driving conflict (apparently, Templars versus Mages, which we do not see happen until Act 3) or the possibility of resolution (the event is a certainty; by the time you get to the event and expect to now have the ability to resolve the conflict, the game ends.)

I could go on and try to use logic and reasoning, but fans are going to see what they want to see. I actually thought DA2 was going to be better than Origins. I did not especially like the combat in Origins, as I felt it was boring for the classes I would play and repetitive for the rest. I found the story of Origins to be somewhat childish beyond the character interactions. So, you can't try to dismiss my concerns as being tainted by some distant, ill-defined notion of kainotophobia. The game was rushed, and more produced than inspired. The story was, indeed, awkward and stumbling, with no clear direction.

There are a good number of good things about the game, but by the end of it, they are overshadowed by the multitude of bad things. Trying to put words in critical mouths accomplishes nothing more than making yourself feel better about your own fandom.

[Deylar]

Stalky24 wrote...

DA2 has set race and origin, your character has a voice.
It allows much more personal and developed story, where 
your character is real and part of society, rather then avatar of the outsider.
It has its huge advantages and I love listening to the dialogues and when
you tune them right, you can have a lot of fun with them. But it sets away
the player... not knowing what my character is actually going to say is
taking me from the perfect merge of him and me. 

I completely disagree with this statement. I felt nothing for Hawke or his family. Being a preset character with a history, doesn't make for a good dialogue or a good connection to a character. Its the way its written and its the way it is executed and this wasn't executed well.

Trust me I play recent RPGs with Voice acting and Preset characters. Two Worlds 2 for example. I liked the Voice Acting and guess what in Two Worlds 2 they gave me sentences of what exactly my character was going to say. Not a dialogue wheel with a brief paraphase of what I might say.

Fable 3 as well is a voice acted character, and has a preset history.

Yet, I like the character in Fable 3 and Two Worlds 2 over DA2's Hawke.

Hawke is plain, boring, and I don't care. I was forced to care. "Oh no family member dies, feel sad". 

Where as Fable 3, all though semi the same in linear. I still was able to explore and journey and felt like my character was my character. And he had personality. And he changed throughout the years. And the cities and atmospheres changed to my decisions. And people changed. And I had a real sense of accomplishment. I cared for my friends in that game. I cried when important people died. It pulled  at my heart strings and engaged me in a story.

The same thing with Two Worlds 2. The history wasn't shoved down my throat. I wasn't told what' a good option, what's a bad option, and what's funny option. I was given sentences and I could whatever I pleased and my character was Voice Act. I stil had a sense of accomplishment, I had sense of adventure, and exploration. And have felt my character as grown.

DA2. Had none of this. It doesn't have any of these qualities. I didn't feel Hawke had grown. Kirkwall didn't change. My decisions felt like they were meaningless. I didn't feel a sense of accomplishment and change.

[Eurhetemec]

Katarian wrote...

Eurhetemec wrote...

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.

I don't think it is that tactical. I'm playing on hard and in 99% of fights all the tactics I use are unload all your AoE attacks at the start of the fight, mop up any survivors (or try to stay alive if fighting harder opponents), when the next wave spawns unload all your AoE attacks as they come off cooldown, rinse and repeat until all the waves are dead or you are. Actually trying to funnel enemies in tight spaces to make the best use of AoE attacks and tanking, doorways or really small rooms, backfires as the camera completely fails in tight spaces. I spent loads of time looking at the new, extremely boring, ceilings when characters have been forced right back into a wall or corner and the ceiling, or floor, and the back of the character I am controlling is all I can see.

Actually to be honest most of fights follow the above method, and then I reload a quicksave and do the fight properly now that I know when and where the respawns are going to come from. If I didn't do that I would very quickly run out of potions, injury kits, and money.

Boss fights have required some tactics. Though that is mainly due to the way they setup with abilites that will kill you far too quickly, and partly due me having specced my characters to deal with the 99% of fights that are wave upon wave of multiple enemies rather then one really tough enemy.

I don't know what version of DA2 you're playing on Hard, but apparently it's not the same one as me.

If you unload all AE immediately on my version, the cooldowns on your spells may well be down when the second and third waves come, and you're going to be screwed, because you won't be able to quickly eliminate the weaker enemies. It sounds, from the fact that you're talking about reloading and then acting accordingly like you're actually doing the same thing, but saying you're not. If you're having to position to deal with waves of enemies, then that's tactics, my friend. I do agree that it should be clearer where they're coming from though! 

Less roof-jumpers (and make it clear that they will come with like shouts and so on before they do), and more people pouring out of doorways one-by-one (in very quick succession, like 1/second) and running into position, please. So there is certainly some criticism there, but I like waves better than "Here r sum mobs 4 u 2 kill" which is what 99% of games do.

If you don't use doorways and so on, it's much harder to fight effectively. I get the camera complaints, but pretending you *can't* use doorways etc. because of the camera is just silly. I do it all the time, and somehow I don't end up staring at the ceiling and floor. So maybe there's something wrong with yours?

As for boss fights, well, yeah, how you spec affects them. Sure, if you maximise AE at all costs, that will make lots-o-mobs fights easier, and bosses harder - it's your choice, ultimately.

[Eurhetemec]

Deylar wrote...

Yet, I like the character in Fable 3 and Two Worlds 2 over DA2's Hawke.

This isn't criticism, Dey, this is just your very personal like/dislike. Just look around for some opinions on the Fable 3 main character. You're in a tiny minority for liking him and feeling attached to him.

That's not to say you're WRONG to feel that way. You can feel it all you like!

But you're wrong to try to make claims that you're objectively correct on this, and that's what you're doing. It's just a feeling you have, and not a common one (even most DA2 haters like Hawke and the characters).

[Deylar]

Eurhetemec wrote...
This isn't criticism, Dey, this is just your very personal like/dislike. Just look around for some opinions on the Fable 3 main character. You're in a tiny minority for liking him and feeling attached to him.

That's not to say you're WRONG to feel that way. You can feel it all you like!

But you're wrong to try to make claims that you're objectively correct on this, and that's what you're doing. It's just a feeling you have, and not a common one (even most DA2 haters like Hawke and the characters).

Fable 3, I explored and adventured with the character.

Hawke, I was confined to a city, didnt' feel like I had explored, or had changed much. The title Champion doesn't hold much value when people are asking me to find them a blanket. [blanket is an example]

[Eiia]

I like how the only reasons you could possibly dislike this game is that 1# you're a hater. 2# you're a troll. 3# you are afraid of change. The fact that the story(telling) is mediocre at best, mmo-like quests, copy paste zones, lack of atmosphere, tons of filler combat to create an illusion of the game being longer and so on sure ain't a valid reason for not scoring it with a 90+..

Despite their similarities, Mass Effect 2 is a much, much better game imo. The story(telling) is good, the companion characters have dept, and the game has a wonderful atmosphere..

[Deylar]

Eiia wrote...

I like how the only reasons you could possibly dislike this game is that 1# you're a hater. 2# you're a troll. 3# you are afraid of change. The fact that the story(telling) is mediocre at best, mmo-like quests, copy paste zones, lack of atmosphere, tons of filler combat to create an illusion of the game being longer and so on sure ain't a valid reason for not scoring it with a 90+..

Despite their similarities, Mass Effect 2 is a much, much better game imo. The story(telling) is good, the companion characters have dept, and the game has a wonderful atmosphere..

1. I'm sorry to hear you're a hater

2. You're a troll, thanks for waning me

3. You're afraid of change, better get over yourself then

[brownxiii]

Autolycus wrote...

Whereas becoming the Champion of Kirkwall had you start out from a refugee, to a merceneary/smuggler, to a treasure hunter, to a noble ... to the champion. You don't suddenly become someone everyone relies on. as in DAO.

Then why does every country joe and their damn dog want my help then? lol

'cause you make a name for yourself in Kirkwall.. Rather than being bestowed upon Grey Warden title. You made yourself "the-guy-to-go-to".

[brownxiii]

elimccl wrote...

A lot of generalizations and simplifications in this thread, along with a lot of fan rhetoric.

I didn't like it because I found the gameplay to be stale and boring, not because it lacked RPG elements, or whatever other excuse you'd like to invent to place in my mouth. Also, I found the story to be a mess of subplots that lacked the central drive necessary to unite the story, as a whole. While I felt like Origins' story was immature in its central plot, in that it was just a generic "go fight this dragon" quest, it at least had a central plot. This game lacks that in spades. You can try to play this off as "the central plot was the character trying to survive," or "the central plot was the buildup to the final scene," but this is, again, rhetoric used by those who didn't think the game was that bad, to try to ignore the obvious. Speaking as a writer, there is a structure to storytelling that is necessary in one form or another, in order to communicate a story and its central theme. It is possible to see DA2 as a contained story, but only in hindsight, which is the problem. One of the basics of good storytelling is establishing an endgame for the story in the first chapter - what the conflict is, who is involved and asking the question of how it can be resolved. This gives the reader a direction to look towards, in uniting all the story elements as he reads. DA2 attempts to do this by alluding to the events at the end of the game, yet this fails to establish the central characters (the villain most pertinent does not appear until Act 3), the driving conflict (apparently, Templars versus Mages, which we do not see happen until Act 3) or the possibility of resolution (the event is a certainty; by the time you get to the event and expect to now have the ability to resolve the conflict, the game ends.)

I could go on and try to use logic and reasoning, but fans are going to see what they want to see. I actually thought DA2 was going to be better than Origins. I did not especially like the combat in Origins, as I felt it was boring for the classes I would play and repetitive for the rest. I found the story of Origins to be somewhat childish beyond the character interactions. So, you can't try to dismiss my concerns as being tainted by some distant, ill-defined notion of kainotophobia. The game was rushed, and more produced than inspired. The story was, indeed, awkward and stumbling, with no clear direction.

There are a good number of good things about the game, but by the end of it, they are overshadowed by the multitude of bad things. Trying to put words in critical mouths accomplishes nothing more than making yourself feel better about your own fandom.

This is one of the best explanations to not to like the game, I have ever read. Makes total sense.

[Lotto]

Stalky24 wrote...

Conclusion
Bioware has created great, but modern, RPG with modern combat, modern storyline, modern converastion system, modern character and its developement, all adjusted for style of todays games, leaving old school behind
for good. And thats what pisses off so many people.

i know you spent a lot of time on this, but...no.  i just think it's a bad game.  i don't even have experience with games like BG.  some people don't like it simply for what it is.  it might be easier for you to just accept that.

[cljqnsnyc]

royceclemens wrote...

cephasjames wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Sequels are only made because people bought the first game. Of course they want to attract a larger audience, but it's the fans who gave Bioware the right to even make a sequel.

Yes, sequels are only made because people bought the first game. And, because of that success, that's why they make a sequel that tries to appeal to a greater audience. No sequel, ever, has been create just for the people who bought the first.

Indeed.  Feature that not everyone DAO was aimed at liked it.  If they catered to the die-hard fanbase, they'd have sold a copy of DAII to everyone within that fanbase except for those who didn't like it and thus, fewer copies sold.  Keep pandering to the base and fewer and fewer copies move until BioWare either bankrupts itself or EA sells it Activision.  And no one wants that!

I read elsewhere that this is the same kind of uproar that greeted Bob Dyan when he went electric.  Instead of folkies, it's 4chan and RPGCodex and instead of The Voice of a Generation, it's a damned game developer.





I think we can factor in what I like to call White Flight Gaming, named after the real estate phenomenon where when a black family moves into a white neighborhood, white families start moving out.  The same rules apply here (and no, I'm not calling anyone racist, so let's nip that in the bud right now)...

You have an RPG that sells well and it's an RPG fan's wet dream: Customization and micromanaging out the yin-yang. Sequel rolls around where, as all sequels will, changes are made to appeal to a broader audience maybe, in hopes, of using the sequel as a gateway drug for someone who's never played an RPG before.  But doing that means trying to put up a bigger tent and inviting in people who aren't in the pathetically small RPG gaming pool.

Well, we can't have that, now can we?  Those who view RPG gaming as a class status (as I've noticed most of the folks on this board do) will cry "bloody murder!" "Consolization!"  "Streamlined!"  "Dumbed down!"  If anyone who's ever picked up a controller, played a Halo or CoD game and said they liked it, while also saying they liked an RPG, then said RPG must be terrible.  The question of whether or not they enjoy a game is moot.  It's that the wrong kind of gamer can't enjoy it, and that's what makes something a good RPG, apparently.

Cool kids move in?  Nerds move out.  It's that simple.

Who ever said sequels are ONLY for the audience of the first game? I stated they are made BECAUSE OF the previous audience, not strictly for them! If a game flops, how can there be a sequel? You misread my statement. The buzz and interest created by what came before is how you get a sequel. And this is NOT A SEQUEL!!!! It takes place in the same universe but doesn't continue the story of the first game. It's a spin off, not a sequel. Hey, if you like this new STREAMLINED form of rpgs, I'm happy for you. I however, do not. I enjoy complex storytelling, REAL customization, and ACTUAL exploration, not just flashy combat with slight elements of a story, trips to the same cut and pasted locations, tons of filler content, and restricted customization. If that makes me a nerd or an old man, fine with me! I've never cared how someone who doesn't know me chooses to define me. This may just be a difference of taste or age...I'm hardly a kid...and what is considered to be "cool" is strictly a matter of opinion.

I wonder how shooter and action game fans would react if the situation were reveresd? Less bang, bang, mash, mash, and more story?  How about a streamlined shooter? Or rather a more story driven one? Completely change the formula of the next COD, Halo, or Gears Of War and see what happens then? I don't mean rework things, no. I mean COMPLETELY change what you knew as your favorite shooter into something far different. It wouldn't play...which is why it has never happened! The internet would be aflame with angry shooter fans! Some might enjoy, sure. But I'll bet most of you would indeed scream BLOODY MURDER!!!  But rpg fans are supposed to just accept DA2 as the new form of rpgs? No!!!

It would be a shame if they started "effecting" all of their games. You can't turn everything into some sort of "Mass Effect 2" hybrid. I enjoyed ME2, even though it too was "streamlined." In that case though, we still had a strong story and great characters. But do we really need ME2 in DA? No.   DA2 may not be completely without merit, but it is a far cry from what I have come to know as an rpg. I prefer substance over style. Nice to have them both....which is what Bioware specialized in. Maybe they'll get back to that? I hope. 

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 16 mars 2011 - 02:08 .

[ozenglish]

With games, the one thing I look at before I buy a game is, have I played the demo, and what did I think?

Secondly, I am actually becoming a fan of the hybrid rpg genre, on the simple fact that I have a insanity enducing job, I work out 5 days a week in the gym, I have a girflriend and I don't want to be sat around all day trying to tweak the mechanics of the game by optimizing hidden "dice roll" mechanics.

Thirdly, I don't care if people think I am fanboy for saying this, but generally, the majority of games I own are BioWare titles, on the simple fact, that they make games I like to play. They are interesting, funny, immersive and escapist. And that is what games are designed for, If I want realism, then I will just turn off the computer, and go outside.

[Deylar]

ozenglish wrote...
Secondly, I am actually becoming a fan of the hybrid rpg genre, on the simple fact that I have a insanity enducing job, I work out 5 days a week in the gym, I have a girflriend and I don't want to be sat around all day trying to tweak the mechanics of the game by optimizing hidden "dice roll" mechanics.

I have 10hr class schedule for college. Taking 12 to 20 units a semester.

And yet I prefer a game that lasted 5 months instead of a hybrid rpg that last me 30 something hrs.

Simply because its a game that I can continue to come back to.

I haven't beaten Red Dead Redemption yet and I prefer that, which has lasted me months, over DA2.

More gameplay means more for me to continue going back to and not hvaing to buy a new game.

[sleepyowlet]

The reason why I don't like DA2 is actually pretty simple. It is not a role-playing-game. And now please don't jump down my throat yelling that you can customize your character and have an inventory and stat points and stuff. These things don't make a role-playing-game. These things just take care of the game physics.
What makes a game a role-playing-game? I'll give you a clue: It's in the name. Role-playing. As in climb abord a characters head and take it for a drive. Role-playing is to become that character for a time, to feel what they feel, to give them a personality, and to interact as that character with other characters and make emotional connections.

I can't do that with Hawke, because I can't talk to my companions whenever I feel like it, I can't simply ask them for their opinions on stuff, or about their past. I can't get into Hawke's head, because Hawke isn't my character - she's got a voice, and I'm perpetually surprised at what comes out of her mouth. In a RPG that should not be the case. During a RPG the character and the player are one. My Warden was predefined in some areas, but I could still decide for myself if Ceridwen Amell was liked by the other apprentices, if she liked Jowan or not. I could give her a personality. She was mine, I felt connected to her. And if I wanted to hear the lines she said, I'd say them myself in the exact way I wanted them to sound.

That's my main gripe. There are others, sure, like The Magical Coast Of Déjà-Vu, or the elves from Uncanny-Valley. But these are things I could live with, if I could only role-play.

[TwistedComplex]

I wish they would just reboot the Baulders Gate series as a cRPG so people would quit bi***ing

[HawXV2]

People forget that, without EA, Origins may not have sold as well. I think this is a superior game in most ways to Origins, but it would be better if they named it Dragon Age: Rise to Power.

[Balerion84]

 It's elementary, my dear Watson.

www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/14/wit-the-opening-hours-of-dragon-age-ii/

This sums up my thoughts about DA2. I don't hate it, it's not bad, I'm just disappointed because it's rushed, disjointed, unfinished and the development team either got lazy or were so stressed by their deadline that they couldn't tie all things together. 

Modifié par Balerion84, 16 mars 2011 - 10:00 .

[Maderas_]

Warlokki wrote...

Old School RPGs time is over... at least for now. Maybe they'll be fashionable laterm but ATM, they're not. Get over it.

Guess that's why Origins sold so well, eh? What an asinine thing to say.

EA just wanted to plop out a sequel and rake in some quick cash, and it looked better to throw around a bunch of marketing terms and pretend they were catering to some new brotosterone demographic by making everything "sexy" and streamlined, rather than admit they were just chopping out 90% of the content and giving us the shaft.