402 réponses à ce sujet

[uberdowzen]

I was going to do a quick survey of the first 3 gaming forums which came up on a search and then see if the first 10 people on each forum were negative or positive about the game but then I managed to get a virus masquerading as virus protection which I'm still in the process of getting rid of. Doh!

[Luvinn]

I was going to read the post but then i saw the account was made yesterday with no registered games.

[mcha82]

Amieera wrote...

Gaiseric82 wrote...

Drogo45 wrote...

Most do not agree. Most see that DA2 is better and more advanced than DA. You are in the minority by a long shot.

Actually that would be you.

You're delusional if you think a game that took one year to develop is better than a game that took five.

Simply delusional.

Sure it took 5 years to make it. But how much of that time did they actually work on it? Back then Bioware had sooo little funding. That's why it took so long. Now they have EA behind them. Hell the fact that they joined EA is the only reason DAO was ever finished in the first place.

"Most see that DA2 is better and more advanced than DA. You are in the minority by a long shot."

You're comment is false, opinion is pretty much split. Personally, I feel DA2 excelles in some areas, but takes 2 steps back in others.

Regardless of what anyone's opinion on DA2 is, I don't think anyone can deny, that this game was rushed. The pure number of bugs that we have on both console and PC versions are evident of that.

Modifié par mcha82, 12 mars 2011 - 05:24 .

[Yakko77]

Drogo45 wrote...

Most do not agree. Most see that DA2 is better and more advanced than DA. You are in the minority by a long shot.

I thought the game was pretty amazing myself.

The impact of your decisions had much more weight IMO than any previous BW game in that what is good/evil or right/wrong is not nearly so clear cut.  The characters were very well written and life like.  The combat, aside from a minor targetting issue from time to time was great fun.  The romance with Merill was right up there with Tali and Liara in terms of seeming genuine and passionate.  The ending was freaking amazing and is still wide open.

I  swear, someone who just likes to B!tc# invented the internet for fellow complainers.

[tbsking]

Amieera wrote...

Gaiseric82 wrote...

Drogo45 wrote...

Most do not agree. Most see that DA2 is better and more advanced than DA. You are in the minority by a long shot.

Actually that would be you.

You're delusional if you think a game that took one year to develop is better than a game that took five.

Simply delusional.

Sure it took 5 years to make it. But how much of that time did they actually work on it? Back then Bioware had sooo little funding. That's why it took so long. Now they have EA behind them. Hell the fact that they joined EA is the only reason DAO was ever finished in the first place.

Doesn't change the fact that DAO simply had more stuff.

[mcha82]

Yakko77 wrote...

I thought the game was pretty amazing myself.

The impact of your decisions had much more weight IMO than any previous BW game in that what is good/evil or right/wrong is not nearly so clear cut.  The characters were very well written and life like.  The combat, aside from a minor targetting issue from time to time was great fun.  The romance with Merill was right up there with Tali and Liara in terms of seeming genuine and passionate.  The ending was freaking amazing and is still wide open.

I  swear, someone who just likes to B!tc# invented the internet for fellow complainers.

A lot of the complaints are valid, I don't understand why fans are hesitent to say any sort of criticism of anykind toward Bioware.

I personally enjoyed the game, but it also could have been alot better. Imagine how much better this game could have been had Bioware or EA taken it's time. The fact is, there was no need to rush this game the way that they did. It turned a potentially great game into just a good game, while enjoyable, but not enduring. Bioware is better then that, you don't see Activision pushing Blizzard around in terms of their deadlines.

Modifié par mcha82, 12 mars 2011 - 05:31 .

[Gatt9]

tdawg7669 wrote...

Arvn wrote...

The unstated assumption is Bioware made the changes to push more units, to be more popular, to make more money. Yet somehow the result of that is most players now hate it? Or is it that the classic PC gamer pool is small but fanatic, and the real anger is that one of the few properties that appeared to cater to them has now started to abandon them? In other words, good or bad makes no difference at all - he actual game is irrelevant -a niche minority was "betrayed" and that is unforgivable. And kinda hilarious.

pretty much. People are afraid of the evolution of the genre. They were so used to elements of RPGS that existed only because of limited technology for the most part, that they cannot bear the advancement of the genre.

It kind of reminds me of Plato's allegory of the cave. The man escapes the cave and sees the greatness of the outside world, and when he tries to tell the others still trapped in the cave, he is met with harsh resistance.

I am amazed that someone obviously learned would make such a factually incorrect statement.

The elements that existed in cRPGs existed because they served very definite functions,  technology was not ever a limiting factor.  In Wastelands your party members weren't under your control and could easily hoard loot,  refusing to give it to you.  Bard's Tale ran in RT outside of combat,  Gateway to Apshai was full RT.  Dialogue with choices that affected the outcome of the game existed in numerous Adventure games,  and was implemented in FMV with the Wing Commander series an easy 5 years before Bioware.  Might & Magic implemeted FPP in 1989.  Etc.  Etc.

These things existed because they are what differentiates RPGs from Adventure games,  once you eliminate the RPG mechanics,  all you are left with is an Adventure game.  I know someone's going to try it,  so I'll head it off here,  Pretending you are fullfilling some Role isn't RPing if the game fails to acknowledge it,  pretending you're fullfilling some self-defined role isn't RPing if the Role isn't defined by the game and consequences for breaking the Role don't exist.  It's Pretending,  not RPing,  not RPG.

In short,  most of what people claim were "Technological limitations" actually never were,  the ancient C64 implemented most,  if not all of this.  The whole Myth seems to have started with people who were too young to have actually seen what was and wasn't possible,  and just assumed to be a "Limitation",  in no small part because Marketing would love for you to think this is some new amazing tech.

So honestly,  they haven't been advancing the genre,  they've been genre-shifting into Action-Adventure.  Without the RPG mechanics,  all you're left with is Tomb Raider's gameplay with dialogue.  To "Advance the Genre",  Bioware would've had to start permitting the game to recognize arbitrary actions and roles. 

Color coding basic responses so people don't have to bother reading and deciding what their Role would say isn't advancement,  not by any means.

I don't have a statistically-significant sample yet, but there seem to be a lot of cases where really old-school gamers are just fine with DA2; it's the gamers a little younger than that who are most upset. We saw it with ME2 as well.

I would be interested in those results,  but it will require moving out of the Bioware forums,  this is clear bias.

[asaiasai]

Deadmac wrote...

Duncan Anderson wrote...

Hate to break it to you sweethart, but there has been no 'fiasco' and ther certainly is no consensus that it is a disaster. This fourm is prety evenly split for/aginst DA2 and forums represent the hardest part of the fanbase to please, not to mention only being a tiny sliver of the total consumers.

Although I do not find the game to be attractive, I agree with your perceptions about "Dragon Age II's" success and failure. "Dragon Age II" can be a hardsell on day one, but on day 400 it can turn into a complete success. Some people will buy the game once it hits $20 to $30, so they don't feel as though they lost a complete $60.

Second, you are correct again. Even though the arguments are within these walls, the exact measurement cannot actually be counted by outsiders. The world is bigger than one forum.

I followed development and hung on every change, voiced concerns or approvals as content and design changes were posted by the developers for the faithful. In the end there were to many constrictions placed on the player by the new design philosophy that i cancelled my pre order and i will wait until the game is closer to the value it represents. If the new design philosophy is one of limiting the players abilities to interact with the environment and NPCs, that is the choice of Bioware, I just am not going to pay full price for half a game.

Asai 

[Yakko77]

mcha82 wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

I thought the game was pretty amazing myself.

The impact of your decisions had much more weight IMO than any previous BW game in that what is good/evil or right/wrong is not nearly so clear cut.  The characters were very well written and life like.  The combat, aside from a minor targetting issue from time to time was great fun.  The romance with Merill was right up there with Tali and Liara in terms of seeming genuine and passionate.  The ending was freaking amazing and is still wide open.

I  swear, someone who just likes to B!tc# invented the internet for fellow complainers.

A lot of the complaints are valid, I don't understand why fans are hesitent to say any sort of criticism of anykind toward Bioware.

I personally enjoyed the game, but it also could have been alot better. Imagine how much better this game could have been had Bioware or EA taken it's time. The fact is, there was no need to rush this game the way that they did. It turned a potentially great game into just a good game, while enjoyable, but not enduring. Bioware is better then that, you don't see Activision pushing Blizzard around in terms of their deadlines.

Blizzard?  LOL!  It shouldn't take 5-10 years to make a game.  The technology and talent is widenly available to make decent games in a series every 2-3 years.  Also, I did point out an annoying targeting issue.  My mage from time to time, instead of striking with her staff would just spin it around.

Also, from time-to-time, one of my companions (usually a rogue it seemed) instead of engaging the enemy would run circles.  An annoyance that can easily be fixed with a download.

If I'm guilty of heaping too much praise on this game then others (not yourself specifically)  are blowing things waaaaaay overboard.

[OutbackerDave]

Exzander1 wrote...

ObjectivelySubjective wrote...

Exzander1 wrote...

Actually, "most" of us don't agree. First, this forum is fairly split on the subject, as mentioned before. Second, the vast, vast, VAST majority of people that have the game don't even post on these forums. There is a very vocal minority, no doubt, but guess what? There was and still is one for ME2, there was and is one for Fallout 3/New Vegas, there's always a very vocal minority that takes over a few message boards when a second/third game comes out that state these very things.

Personally, I don't prefer Origins or DA2 or DA2 over Origins. Both do what they do very well, both are fun, enjoyable, and entertaining.

This game is far from a "disaster", it's actually a really good game.

It's hard to see something as being  "good" when it's a stripped down version of a much superior product.

Lets see now:
- The menu screens are boring and simple. Out goes the old scroll type menu for a bland black background.
- Locations are EXTREMELY limited. So limited, that the creators felt like throwing in crap like Day/Night to trick people into thinking that there are more locations.
- Customization is extremely limited. So much for having your entire team wearing the same style armor.

I simply cannot see how someone can like the game if they've played Origins. Hell, even people who've worked on the game have come out and admitted that it was rushed.

This game was a HUGE backlash for Bioware. I mean it even forced me to make a new account out of fear that they will ban me from playing.

Menu? What do you mean by menu? The game's menu is pretty much exaclty the same. If you're talking about all menus (inventory, skill tree menu, quests, etc) then this one is actually sleeker and more well designed. Simple yes, but why the hell would I want my menus complicated?

Locations is a fault, I don't disagree. Does this make for a disaster of game? Uh, no, not even close and in no way shape or form. It's a legit complaint - no game is perfect.

Customization is worse than DA:O but not bad by any means. It's still "good", it still gets the job done, and you can still customize every character except armor. You can do weapons, shield, trinkets, rings, necklace, etc. You can't change their armor, that's it.

Compare this to:

Better combat
Better graphics (debatable, based on which art style you like)
better story (yes, it has a better story, how many times have you played a hero trying to take down an ultimate evil like you do in Origins? Pretty much every game out there)
better talent tree/skills

Now, even if you don't agree with some of the above positives, that still doesn't make this a disaster of a game, or a terrible game, or a bad game. It's a very solid rpg, it's long, lots to do, many side quests, fun combat, interesting story, you still have the tactics on hard mode and above, etc etc.

If you want to say the game isn't as good as Origins, I can completely understand that. However,  to say this game is a disaster or is bad, is plain out ridiculous, it has all the elements to make a very solid, fun RPG, and it's just that.

It just so happens that because you and others compare it to Origins it looks bad, but in reality, it's not, it's a solid,  fun, good  RPG

I really do not want to jump in on this
discussion/debate but one thing you said did annoy me (you did not annoy
me but a fact you brought up did).

I really do not understand why we cannot change our companions armor. That makes no sense to me. If anyone can direct me to as to why such a decision was made, I would appreciate it.

[tbsking]

OutbackerDave wrote...

Exzander1 wrote...

ObjectivelySubjective wrote...

Exzander1 wrote...

Actually, "most" of us don't agree. First, this forum is fairly split on the subject, as mentioned before. Second, the vast, vast, VAST majority of people that have the game don't even post on these forums. There is a very vocal minority, no doubt, but guess what? There was and still is one for ME2, there was and is one for Fallout 3/New Vegas, there's always a very vocal minority that takes over a few message boards when a second/third game comes out that state these very things.

Personally, I don't prefer Origins or DA2 or DA2 over Origins. Both do what they do very well, both are fun, enjoyable, and entertaining.

This game is far from a "disaster", it's actually a really good game.

It's hard to see something as being  "good" when it's a stripped down version of a much superior product.

Lets see now:
- The menu screens are boring and simple. Out goes the old scroll type menu for a bland black background.
- Locations are EXTREMELY limited. So limited, that the creators felt like throwing in crap like Day/Night to trick people into thinking that there are more locations.
- Customization is extremely limited. So much for having your entire team wearing the same style armor.

I simply cannot see how someone can like the game if they've played Origins. Hell, even people who've worked on the game have come out and admitted that it was rushed.

This game was a HUGE backlash for Bioware. I mean it even forced me to make a new account out of fear that they will ban me from playing.

Menu? What do you mean by menu? The game's menu is pretty much exaclty the same. If you're talking about all menus (inventory, skill tree menu, quests, etc) then this one is actually sleeker and more well designed. Simple yes, but why the hell would I want my menus complicated?

Locations is a fault, I don't disagree. Does this make for a disaster of game? Uh, no, not even close and in no way shape or form. It's a legit complaint - no game is perfect.

Customization is worse than DA:O but not bad by any means. It's still "good", it still gets the job done, and you can still customize every character except armor. You can do weapons, shield, trinkets, rings, necklace, etc. You can't change their armor, that's it.

Compare this to:

Better combat
Better graphics (debatable, based on which art style you like)
better story (yes, it has a better story, how many times have you played a hero trying to take down an ultimate evil like you do in Origins? Pretty much every game out there)
better talent tree/skills

Now, even if you don't agree with some of the above positives, that still doesn't make this a disaster of a game, or a terrible game, or a bad game. It's a very solid rpg, it's long, lots to do, many side quests, fun combat, interesting story, you still have the tactics on hard mode and above, etc etc.

If you want to say the game isn't as good as Origins, I can completely understand that. However,  to say this game is a disaster or is bad, is plain out ridiculous, it has all the elements to make a very solid, fun RPG, and it's just that.

It just so happens that because you and others compare it to Origins it looks bad, but in reality, it's not, it's a solid,  fun, good  RPG

I really do not want to jump in on this
discussion/debate but one thing you said did annoy me (you did not annoy
me but a fact you brought up did).

I really do not understand why we cannot change our companions armor. That makes no sense to me. If anyone can direct me to as to why such a decision was made, I would appreciate it.

The official reason was that it preserves their unique appearances, like Morrigan's robes. There are those of us, however, that suspect it was an effort to rush developement but cutting out the need to render different armors.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
The elements that existed in cRPGs existed because they served very definite functions,  technology was not ever a limiting factor.  In Wastelands your party members weren't under your control and could easily hoard loot,  refusing to give it to you.  Bard's Tale ran in RT outside of combat,  Gateway to Apshai was full RT.  Dialogue with choices that affected the outcome of the game existed in numerous Adventure games,  and was implemented in FMV with the Wing Commander series an easy 5 years before Bioware.  Might & Magic implemeted FPP in 1989.  Etc.  Etc.

These things existed because they are what differentiates RPGs from Adventure games,  once you eliminate the RPG mechanics,  all you are left with is an Adventure game.

I'm not quite following which of the things in the first paragraph are supposed to be RPG mechanics. All of them? Or are they just mechanics that could be used by any game and happened to be used in RPGs? And are you really calling Wing Commander an RPG?

I would be interested in those results,  but it will require moving out of the Bioware forums,  this is clear bias.

Well, I'm only really interested in how self-selected Bio fans are reacting, so that doesn't bug me.

[Sothlol]

So who's looking forward to the Witcher 2, Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim after this disappointing, linear, obviously rushed and repetitive title

Modifié par Sothlol, 12 mars 2011 - 06:42 .

[Anathemic]

Sothlol wrote...

So who's looking forward to the Witcher 2, Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim after this disappointing, linear, obviously rushed and repetitive title

Not ME3 but Witcher 2 and Skyrim definatly

[thebatmanreborn]

DA2 is not that bad. Sure, there are some negatives and I mentioned that in my review, but I am still enjoying it. Its not terrible.

[AlanC9]

tbsking wrote...

The official reason was that it preserves their unique appearances, like Morrigan's robes. There are those of us, however, that suspect it was an effort to rush developement but cutting out the need to render different armors.

I have a somewhat different theory, though related. I don't think the folks at Bio really believe in loot-based gameplay anymore.

[Lux]

"Rushed disaster"?

Not a disaster, and not that rushed. I think there was a lot of planning involved, intent on meeting a deadline and a greater cinematic experience. That meant simplification in certain areas that they thought could be achieved appropriately, and resources used in the most effective way possible.

I'm disappointed on some simplified parts of the game but it's still entertaining.

[Faust1979]

Sothlol wrote...

So who's looking forward to the Witcher 2, Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim after this disappointing, linear, obviously rushed and repetitive title

I'm looking forward to playing Mass Effect 3, the graphics for Skyrim look awesome but I will wait for Fallout 4. Never played The Witcher 1 because my computer couldn't run it

[Andarthiel_Demigod]

For those saying that it was a failure look at the Wiki entry:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age_II
and read the bottom. It got mostly eights and nines with a few sevens among the professional reviewers and that's saying something. Of course it didn't reach Origin's scores but it still got some good reviews.

[thebatmanreborn]

Faust1979 wrote...

Sothlol wrote...

So who's looking forward to the Witcher 2, Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim after this disappointing, linear, obviously rushed and repetitive title

I'm looking forward to playing Mass Effect 3, the graphics for Skyrim look awesome but I will wait for Fallout 4. Never played The Witcher 1 because my computer couldn't run it

you need to play The Witcher.  Great stuff.

[Nimrodell]

DA2 is not rushed and not disaster... sure there are some things that may bother players, but it is beautiful game with good and compelling story and less predictable. And I should stop reading posts from whiners. Moral of the day for me.

[Kharde]

I love you Seb...

Edit: :S Forgot I hit the Bioware button instead of the normal thread title... Seb's responses just made me laugh.

Modifié par Kharde, 12 mars 2011 - 07:16 .

[Sothlol]

Andarthiel_Demigod wrote...

For those saying that it was a failure look at the Wiki entry:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age_II
and read the bottom. It got mostly eights and nines with a few sevens among the professional reviewers and that's saying something. Of course it didn't reach Origin's scores but it still got some good reviews.

The wiki article also contains this gem of a fact.

"During the development Brent Knowles,
the lead designer of Dragon Age:Origins, decided to resign from
participating in designing Dragon Age 2, as he was not satisfied with
what Dragon Age 2 would be"

Says it all really now doesnt

[Andarthiel_Demigod]

thebatmanreborn wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

Sothlol wrote...

So who's looking forward to the Witcher 2, Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim after this disappointing, linear, obviously rushed and repetitive title

I'm looking forward to playing Mass Effect 3, the graphics for Skyrim look awesome but I will wait for Fallout 4. Never played The Witcher 1 because my computer couldn't run it

you need to play The Witcher.  Great stuff.

I agree and it's quite cheap now since the Witcher 2 is coming out next month!
Oh yea

Modifié par Andarthiel_Demigod, 12 mars 2011 - 07:27 .

[uberdowzen]

tbsking wrote...

The official reason was that it preserves their unique appearances, like Morrigan's robes. There are those of us, however, that suspect it was an effort to rush developement but cutting out the need to render different armors.

Uh, how would cut down the work load at all? Of anything it creates more work.