506 réponses à ce sujet

[NoMad2011]

Dragon Age 2 is not so bad. It's not bad at all. It's just not DAO-2. It's a new game with its experiments. The game has two significant disadvantages - locations and lack of communication with party members comparing to DAO. It was really good in Origins that you could talk to them not onle in the camp, but at the other places as well (though it felt awkward when occasionally my Warden was asking Leliana or Alistair about something during their visits to underground).
One more thing that people don't like is about rushed scenario. Well, I also felt that, but the story itself was much more intriguing than in DAO. It's just so banal to save the world again and again like in TES for example. What I appreciate in DA-2 is the story. And of course the gameplay process is much more convinient. Characters are slightly more interesting than in DAO.
Of course, if they had worked over the game three more months or even longerm it would be much better. But it doesn't mean that the game is bad. 

Modifié par NoMad2011, 28 décembre 2011 - 05:07 .

[ADelusiveMan]

It's a good game. It's much more fun than Dragon Age: Origins combat-wise, but the characters aren't as developed I think. I kinda miss the communication between characters as stated above, and I really don't like how it didn't continue from Origins that much. DA2 doesn't have as good of a story as Origins, but it's still fun nonetheless. It's just not 'epic' fantasy. It's more of political fantasy, with a lot of personal stuff involved. The best way I have to describe DA2 is this. It's about a person who arrives in the right city at the right time.

Modifié par ADelusiveMan, 28 décembre 2011 - 05:43 .

[Prinnyruler]

I hated the first playthrough for reasons people already know.

However, after a long break after finishing it, I cranked it up again and played as a default female warrior.
I chose Varric, Isabella and Bethany as my party, and chose sarcastic answers to every question option.
The banter between these characters, along with my own character's wit, made the game a lot more enjoyable for me.

[Morroian]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
My point was missed. Now that hating on DA2 has become popular, gaming websites are starting to catch on. Do you think it is a coincidence that originally positive from many websites are now publishing articles that are the complete opposite?
No, gaming websites are jumping on the bandwagon. I realize many have different opinions on these websites, but like i said, the admins ultimately decide the published articles, and hating on DA2 is the new in-thing.

How can anything they write be taken seriously if this is the way they operate?

SpockLives wrote...
It may come as a shock to you, but game review sites and magazines get paid by game companies to write positive reviews.  Naturally all the pre-release reviews were mostly positive.  The reviewers got paid to say good things.  After launch, however, reviewers felt free to give a different opinion.

When this has been proven to happen the mags have been heavily criticised so its by no means certain. Even if it were the case why do you apparently consider it acceptable?

Gunderic wrote...
Yeah, game is still bad. I remember clearly when Gaider said something like 'It was the same with Origins at launch, but people forgot. Let's give it two weeks.'
Well your game's still crap Bioware.

And I see the haters still prefer to spend time on forums of games they hate, spouting ad hominems, rather than doing something more constructive. 

And no it isn't crap, it remains a good but flawed game.

nitefyre410 wrote...
Oh god... kill this thread with fire... i'm tired of it.. I liked it... not great not terrible but enjoyable .. some hate it... at the end of the day its was a change of direction was it needed?most likely Was executed in the best way possible?

Yes some just refuse to move on.

Modifié par Morroian, 28 décembre 2011 - 09:56 .

[alex90c]

Morroian wrote...

And no it isn't crap, it remains a good but flawed game.

Nah, still crap.

[Meris]

alex90c wrote...

Morroian wrote...

And no it isn't crap, it remains a good but flawed game.

Nah, still crap.

Nope it isn't crappy.

The thing about Dragon Age 2 is that BioWare has fanboys. And having fanboys is only for ill: one half of the fanboybase will love everything you make without putting their critique minds to work, the other will criticize everything in a rather pedantic way and hate anything you make - to the latter you either changed too much or you're lazy for not changing anything at all, nothing in between.

Not that Dragon Age 2 doesn't deserve flak for being a brutal cash-in, but it doesn't derserve absolute flak either. In fact, it did a lot for the brutal cash-in that it is.

In other words: Dragon Age 2 is neither Crap (1 through 6 out of 10) nor a Blessing from the Heavens (8.5 through 10 out of 10). Its 7.

Modifié par Meris, 28 décembre 2011 - 10:07 .

[alex90c]

Meris wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Morroian wrote...

And no it isn't crap, it remains a good but flawed game.

Nah, still crap.

Nope it isn't crappy.

The thing about Dragon Age 2 is that BioWare has fanboys. And having fanboys is only for ill: one half of the fanboybase will love everything you make without putting their critique minds to work, the other will criticize everything in a rather pedantic way and hate anything you make - to the latter you either changed too much or you're lazy for not changing anything at all, nothing in between.

Not that Dragon Age 2 doesn't deserve flak for being a brutal cash-in, but it doesn't derserve absolute flak either. In fact, it did a lot for the brutal cash-in that it is.

In other words: Dragon Age 2 is neither Crap (1 through 6 out of 10) nor a Blessing from the Heavens (8.5 through 10 out of 10). Its 7.

I'd hardly say the criticisms levelled at DA2 are "pedantic", there are big chunks of what the game was which a number of people just thought flat out sucked, e.g. recycled maps, everyone being insane, being in same city for seven years, dislike the art style, dislike the combat etc. etc. - that isn't "well this game sucks because of extremely minor issue X", its "big glaring issues X, Y and Z need to be fixed".

[Meris]

alex90c wrote...

Meris wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Morroian wrote...

And no it isn't crap, it remains a good but flawed game.

Nah, still crap.

Nope it isn't crappy.

The thing about Dragon Age 2 is that BioWare has fanboys. And having fanboys is only for ill: one half of the fanboybase will love everything you make without putting their critique minds to work, the other will criticize everything in a rather pedantic way and hate anything you make - to the latter you either changed too much or you're lazy for not changing anything at all, nothing in between.

Not that Dragon Age 2 doesn't deserve flak for being a brutal cash-in, but it doesn't derserve absolute flak either. In fact, it did a lot for the brutal cash-in that it is.

In other words: Dragon Age 2 is neither Crap (1 through 6 out of 10) nor a Blessing from the Heavens (8.5 through 10 out of 10). Its 7.

I'd hardly say the criticisms levelled at DA2 are "pedantic", there are big chunks of what the game was which a number of people just thought flat out sucked, e.g. recycled maps, everyone being insane, being in same city for seven years, dislike the art style, dislike the combat etc. etc. - that isn't "well this game sucks because of extremely minor issue X", its "big glaring issues X, Y and Z need to be fixed".

As previously said, there's a lot of issues with DA2, IMO, mainly difficulty system overhaul (friendly fire and more extreme difficulty settings), map recycling, Kirkwall lacking reactiveness; progressively deteriorating story over the game; even less ways to resolve issues and quest objectives without combat; the loot system and the overuse of the wave mechanics in combat.

But to call the game 'crap', everything must be wrong. And to do so negative fanboys touch articles of personal preference like their faults are universal: the combat is 'jrpgish' (whatever that means) and 'dumbed down'; the art direction is inherently bad; there's no way to implement an engaging game centered on a single location and its surroundings; a cliffhanger ending; npc inventory system; the faster combat; the voiced protagonist; the action-based elements of combat and so on.

Negative fanboys also make a big deal of things like bow strings and a sword supposedly being too long (when it actually isn't).

The game is neither crap nor good, its above average.

Modifié par Meris, 28 décembre 2011 - 10:40 .

[eroeru]

@NoMad2011

That's a double post right there... Is it intentional?? (you seemed to have edited it).


On a side note, yes, many people rightfully claim DA2 is crap. Many people rightfully claim it's fun. Some don't like "fun" games, some don't like "serious" games.

That's that, as far as I'm concerned...

[MagmaSaiyan]

alex90c wrote...

Meris wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Morroian wrote...

And no it isn't crap, it remains a good but flawed game.

Nah, still crap.

Nope it isn't crappy.

The thing about Dragon Age 2 is that BioWare has fanboys. And having fanboys is only for ill: one half of the fanboybase will love everything you make without putting their critique minds to work, the other will criticize everything in a rather pedantic way and hate anything you make - to the latter you either changed too much or you're lazy for not changing anything at all, nothing in between.

Not that Dragon Age 2 doesn't deserve flak for being a brutal cash-in, but it doesn't derserve absolute flak either. In fact, it did a lot for the brutal cash-in that it is.

In other words: Dragon Age 2 is neither Crap (1 through 6 out of 10) nor a Blessing from the Heavens (8.5 through 10 out of 10). Its 7.

I'd hardly say the criticisms levelled at DA2 are "pedantic", there are big chunks of what the game was which a number of people just thought flat out sucked, e.g. recycled maps, everyone being insane, being in same city for seven years, dislike the art style, dislike the combat etc. etc. - that isn't "well this game sucks because of extremely minor issue X", its "big glaring issues X, Y and Z need to be fixed".

you and others find that so hard to believe? recycled maps well they do get pretty bad a times but why would any maps be any different if you are in the same place for years, at least the devs did enough to have a few that have you enter in different parts of the area.

where anyone in real life probably wouldnt mess with blood magic(though maybe a select few) they are obviously weak minded and with Meredith in power that just fuels the insanity.

what he/she cant be in a town for more than what 3yrs?  been in the same town for even more than 7yrs, not something a gamer likes to experience but really where else would he go an what reason would that be to go? that would be idiotic to add that in a game and not see what happens with the templars,mages, and qunari and obviously the devs did this to start a new possible dangerous threat for either an expansion or the next game or both. they had to have something that made sense to continue the story

[orionshield]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The above post by Orion made my head hurt. All valid points, but there isn't a sentence that doesn't end with an exclamation point and the formatting is painful.

Not trying to sound negative, but I felt like I had to say something.

In response, though, I agree with a lot of the points. Junk items are worthless and have no use... why have them? Acts were too long on the dull parts and too short on the good. The DLC HAVE done things much better, which is a good sign, but still frustrating that all of DA2 wasn't done this way in the first place. And the darkspawn appearance is disgraceful, why they changed them I could NEVER begin to explain.

Actually Fast Jimmy, could you give some good ideals for formatting? I did sense the format was awkward! Thanks!!!! -Kris

[Plaintiff]

SpockLives wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Which means the administrators of gamepro and otherr websites approved articles that portrayed DA2 in a positive light. Why did they allow them? Why didn't they bash DA2 in the initial release phase, if they think it sucked so much?

It may come as a shock to you, but game review sites and magazines get paid by game companies to write positive reviews.  Naturally all the pre-release reviews were mostly positive.  The reviewers got paid to say good things.  After launch, however, reviewers felt free to give a different opinion.

That doesn't fly.

If the review sites and magazines have already sold out their integrity, then I can't trust anything they say ever. It doesn't matter if this new opinion piece represents their honest official stance, they shouldn't have lied in the first place. Publications have a duty to their readers to be reliable and consistent.

If Bioware has half a brain, they'll ignore the litany of mindless insults from such fickle sources, since they obviously can't be trusted to offer fair and objective criticism. Individual readers would be smart to do the same.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 29 décembre 2011 - 02:55 .

[SpockLives]

Plaintiff wrote...

SpockLives wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Which means the administrators of gamepro and otherr websites approved articles that portrayed DA2 in a positive light. Why did they allow them? Why didn't they bash DA2 in the initial release phase, if they think it sucked so much?

It may come as a shock to you, but game review sites and magazines get paid by game companies to write positive reviews.  Naturally all the pre-release reviews were mostly positive.  The reviewers got paid to say good things.  After launch, however, reviewers felt free to give a different opinion.

That doesn't fly.

If the review sites and magazines have already sold out their integrity, then I can't trust anything they say ever. It doesn't matter if this new opinion piece represents their honest official stance, they shouldn't have lied in the first place. Publications have a duty to their readers to be reliable and consistent.

If Bioware has half a brain, they'll ignore the litany of mindless insults from such fickle sources, since they obviously can't be trusted to offer fair and objective criticism. Individual readers would be smart to do the same.

True, which is why the only opinion of a game that I trust is my own.  At the same time, Bioware should trust the opinions of the people who actually paid to play the game instead of those who got free copies (i.e. professional reviewers).

[Plaintiff]

SpockLives wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

SpockLives wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Which means the administrators of gamepro and otherr websites approved articles that portrayed DA2 in a positive light. Why did they allow them? Why didn't they bash DA2 in the initial release phase, if they think it sucked so much?

It may come as a shock to you, but game review sites and magazines get paid by game companies to write positive reviews.  Naturally all the pre-release reviews were mostly positive.  The reviewers got paid to say good things.  After launch, however, reviewers felt free to give a different opinion.

That doesn't fly.

If the review sites and magazines have already sold out their integrity, then I can't trust anything they say ever. It doesn't matter if this new opinion piece represents their honest official stance, they shouldn't have lied in the first place. Publications have a duty to their readers to be reliable and consistent.

If Bioware has half a brain, they'll ignore the litany of mindless insults from such fickle sources, since they obviously can't be trusted to offer fair and objective criticism. Individual readers would be smart to do the same.

True, which is why the only opinion of a game that I trust is my own.  At the same time, Bioware should trust the opinions of the people who actually paid to play the game instead of those who got free copies (i.e. professional reviewers).

Well then I guess we mostly agree.

[DreamwareStudio]

Plaintiff wrote...

SpockLives wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Which means the administrators of gamepro and otherr websites approved articles that portrayed DA2 in a positive light. Why did they allow them? Why didn't they bash DA2 in the initial release phase, if they think it sucked so much?

It may come as a shock to you, but game review sites and magazines get paid by game companies to write positive reviews.  Naturally all the pre-release reviews were mostly positive.  The reviewers got paid to say good things.  After launch, however, reviewers felt free to give a different opinion.

That doesn't fly.

If the review sites and magazines have already sold out their integrity, then I can't trust anything they say ever. It doesn't matter if this new opinion piece represents their honest official stance, they shouldn't have lied in the first place. Publications have a duty to their readers to be reliable and consistent.

If Bioware has half a brain, they'll ignore the litany of mindless insults from such fickle sources, since they obviously can't be trusted to offer fair and objective criticism. Individual readers would be smart to do the same.

Actually, it does fly regarding review sites.  Higher-ups (one proven case is the CEO of now defunt 3DO) threaten to yank advertising from review sites.  Even without that threat, review sites/mags still fear that happening.  Launch is considered especially critical, so I'm not surprised that a review site/mag initially gave Dragon Age 2 a good review knowing the review bordered on rubbish then backtracked later to hopefully regain some lost credibility.

As for trusting the reviews...you have to take what you read with a grain of salt.  Because of the advertising dollars, it's rather obvious the review sites/mags have a conflict of interest.

Just because you, I, or whoever don't agree with the criticisms of a game does not mean the critics are mindless or fickle.  It's the way those customers feel, and they have a right to feel that way, just as you have a right to like something.

A lot of the criticism I see is from long-standing Bioware customers, not something to be taken lightly because these people help serve as the customer base and contribute to a certain number of basically guaranteed sales.  If you lose the majority of them, you have no base, and with no base there's noplace from which a company can grow.

[Fast Jimmy]

From my memory, it seemed to me that the review from G4 was perhaps the most honest. It said they made some changes, some worked, some didn't, that some quests felt like an incredibly long "To Do" list and that the ending will leave some players unsatisfied.

They didn't state any of these things as bad, but just that it would likely turn off some other fans. Which I think is the most honest and fair way to appraise the game.

[DreamwareStudio]

Yep, I read that review, thought it was fair as well.

[vallore]

Meris wrote...


But to call the game 'crap', everything must be wrong. And to do so negative fanboys touch articles of personal preference like their faults are universal: the combat is 'jrpgish' (whatever that means) and 'dumbed down'; the art direction is inherently bad; there's no way to implement an engaging game centered on a single location and its surroundings; a cliffhanger ending; npc inventory system; the faster combat; the voiced protagonist; the action-based elements of combat and so on.

Most are criticizing specific features, like the ones you included here, not to just criticize everything about the game but because those are relevant issues for them.

Disliking some of those features, subjective as it may be, may greatly hamper the enjoyment of the game. So it is no minor issue, even if another player enjoys them, or finds them of little relevance for his fun.

Fact is, the reasons for liking or disliking those features may be subjective, ( and I would desagree that the reasons for disliking some of them are so), but regardless, if a large part of the audience dislikes them, then that becomes an objective problem. Any company that ignores it would risk losing a significant part of their audience next game.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

From my memory, it seemed to me that the review from G4 was perhaps the most honest. It said they made some changes, some worked, some didn't, that some quests felt like an incredibly long "To Do" list and that the ending will leave some players unsatisfied.

They didn't state any of these things as bad, but just that it would likely turn off some other fans. Which I think is the most honest and fair way to appraise the game.

I also thought G4 review was the fairest of the lot. One aspect of G4 is that it is not dependent on the gaming companies for advertisement.  That is because only three of the shows on the channel are tech or game oriented now.

[staindgrey]

google_calasade wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

EA and Bioware are not independent companies. To lay blame at the door of either is laying blame at the door of both.

While that does hold some weight since we shouldn't make EA out as a total scapegoat, they aren't on the same level in decision making. They aren't equal partners. EA is the boss, and Bioware the subordinate. Bioware technically has the final say in the development studio, but EA is their wallet, and thus a very instrumental voice. If EA wants DAII rushed out to beat competition at the sacrifice of quality, then that's what happens. If EA wants to give The Old Republic an enormous amount of resources by comparison in order to take on WoW, then that's what happens. If EA wants to slap t he Bioware logo onto other developers that have nothing to do with Bioware, then that's what happens. Bioware, as an acquired studio, has little weight in these decisions unless they have a plan for finding another publisher to fund them.

To make better use of your example, to lay blame at the door of EA's house is laying the blame at the door of Bioware's room within EA's house.

Exactly, there's little to no distinction between them.  I understand that fans of Bioware's illustrious past want to idealize that Bioware still exists in one form or another as a separate entity and lay blame for Dragon Age 2 at EA's feet, but the fact remains, Bioware and EA are the same company.

As for whether "Bioware" has the final say in anything, I don't have access to EA's organizational hierarchy, so I won't make the assumption that they do or do not.  In my corporate experience, subdivisions provide input, but in the end, the parent always makes the final determination.  Regardless how the decisions were reached regarding Dragon Age 2, to absolve one of guilt and use EA as a scapegoat in this instance makes no sense because Bioware is now a label and fails to exist as a separate body.

I'm pretty sure you missed the point I was trying to make.

Bioware and EA are not equals in business decisions. They are not partners. EA is the owner, and Bioware is the owned. This isn't to say that Bioware consists of mindless slaves, but you want to treat the two as equals, when they're not. If Bioware wants to do X, and EA wants to do Y, which do you think gets done?

Here's the best analogy I can think up... You want to treat the EA/Bioware relationship as it stands as a married couple. They are joined together, and if the husband does somethign wrong, the wife is along for the ride because they madea commitment. Well, I would look at that as more of EA being the parent, and Bioware being the child. If EA's a bad parent, that's not necessarily reflective in what Bioware does, but Bioware lives under the same roof and relies on EA for survival. In this case, Bioware is still free to make its own decision, but they are either enabled or impeded by father EA.

I seriously doubt that the DAII team was fine with a 16-month development schedule. But they swallowed that due date and did what they could. Likely, they initially had more time than that, but EA pushed it out quicker so that DAII wouldn't be competing with Skyrim or ME3, but also wouldn't be in development for too long. They decided to capitalize on timing rather than quality, and Bioware had little choice in the matter unless they felt like breaking away from EA (if that's legally possible or financially feasible in the first place).

To put this into perspective... Each CoD game gets a longer development schedule than did DAII. You know, the franchise infamous for making the same damn game every year. DAII was more ambitious than any CoD game has been, but fell short on almost all accounts because of that.

Personally, I'm glad I got to play DAII, and not DA:O v.2.0. I know many here are actually asking for another DA:O, but I prefer my favorite series to not be stagnant.

[ezeruz]

zx2781 wrote...

Taritu wrote...

It's a good game, it's just not bioware good.

Well said!

Well said indeed.

[DreamwareStudio]

staindgrey wrote...

I'm pretty sure you missed the point I was trying to make.

Bioware and EA are not equals in business decisions. They are not partners. EA is the owner, and Bioware is the owned. This isn't to say that Bioware consists of mindless slaves, but you want to treat the two as equals, when they're not. If Bioware wants to do X, and EA wants to do Y, which do you think gets done?

Here's the best analogy I can think up... You want to treat the EA/Bioware relationship as it stands as a married couple. They are joined together, and if the husband does somethign wrong, the wife is along for the ride because they madea commitment. Well, I would look at that as more of EA being the parent, and Bioware being the child. If EA's a bad parent, that's not necessarily reflective in what Bioware does, but Bioware lives under the same roof and relies on EA for survival. In this case, Bioware is still free to make its own decision, but they are either enabled or impeded by father EA.

I seriously doubt that the DAII team was fine with a 16-month development schedule. But they swallowed that due date and did what they could. Likely, they initially had more time than that, but EA pushed it out quicker so that DAII wouldn't be competing with Skyrim or ME3, but also wouldn't be in development for too long. They decided to capitalize on timing rather than quality, and Bioware had little choice in the matter unless they felt like breaking away from EA (if that's legally possible or financially feasible in the first place).

To put this into perspective... Each CoD game gets a longer development schedule than did DAII. You know, the franchise infamous for making the same damn game every year. DAII was more ambitious than any CoD game has been, but fell short on almost all accounts because of that.

Personally, I'm glad I got to play DAII, and not DA:O v.2.0. I know many here are actually asking for another DA:O, but I prefer my favorite series to not be stagnant.

No, I got what you were saying.  I apologize that I was not more clear when I said there was no distinction between them.  What I meant to say is that a EA decision is a Bioware decision because they are, in fact, the same company.  Bioware is now nothing more than a label of EA.

Modifié par google_calasade, 29 décembre 2011 - 07:07 .

[Morroian]

google_calasade wrote...

Actually, it does fly regarding review sites.  Higher-ups (one proven case is the CEO of now defunt 3DO) threaten to yank advertising from review sites.  Even without that threat, review sites/mags still fear that happening.  Launch is considered especially critical, so I'm not surprised that a review site/mag initially gave Dragon Age 2 a good review knowing the review bordered on rubbish then backtracked later to hopefully regain some lost credibility.

From a consumers POV the reasons don't matter it still means you can't trust anything the site says. True it reflects badly on the publisher as well as the site and the publisher may well face a backlash but the site is still knowingly publishing an incorrect review.

[slimgrin]

At this point I don't think the series can compete with the competition. Bioware will have to re-invent it yet again if they wan't their beloved fantasy IP to be taken seriously. DA2 was a blind stab in the wrong direction. TW2 and Skyrim have set the precedent for what modern gamers expect in a fantasy RPG, and all I can say is good f*cking luck competing with those two games.

Modifié par slimgrin, 29 décembre 2011 - 10:03 .