444 réponses à ce sujet

[Dreadstruck]

Just got into Act 2, and I am starting to have my doubts too.

The only redeeming quality is Nicholas Boulton's voiceover.

[Revelo]

Riloux wrote...

-Reusing the same four maps 500 times.
-Setting the whole game in one city.
-Enemies have a ton of HP and come in waves so the game feels longer.
-Frame narrative to avoid being too descriptive about what happens between large periods of time.
-Half as much dialogue, more passive interaction.
-Millions of stupid side quests that have nothing to do with anything.
-Dull environment bereft of life and matter.
-Inability to customize companions allowed you to skip designing different armor models.
-Collecting hundreds of-- literally, junk items-- to create the illusion of immersion and depth.
-Poor character development, so you hardly care about your companions by the end of the game. 
-Lack of any substantial choices that have lasting effects.
-Contrived ending, that tells you nothing, and leaves a huge gap for sub-par DLC
-Generic UI showing a lack of creativitiy and effort.

You lose! Good day, serrah. 

This game is a far greater source of embarassment for your company than it is a disappointment for us.

Agreed with OP entirely, there really is no excuse Bioware for any of this. I really wish you would man up and admit that you have botched this.

[Apechild]

Addai67 wrote...

Apechild wrote...

Enemies are not simply endless waves, there is more tactical complexity such as assassins targeting mages and rogues (sometimes a one-shot kill for my mage PC if her health was down).  Enemy mages were much more canny and robust.

I'm afraid they are 'endless' waves. Each fight is one of two; 3-4 waves of opponents of varying toughness or a boss for whom 'adds' will be summoned when the boss reaches a certain health percentage. Every fight is in that vein and they really are. I felt that Kirkwall had more bad guys living on its rooftops than it did citizens on ground level.
I approve of the assassin's supposed hunting out the mages/rogues but from the way they kept turning from my 'Hawke', who was a mage, and running after the tank, whilst her taunt was on cooldown, made me wonder. As for enemy mages? They just teleported around - was ridiculous to watch a Frost Mage or whatever he was take a hit from  Winters Touch and instantly teleport himself a long distance from the fight and then as soon as he was attacked again he teleported again. Thats boring rather than canny or robust - if they actually had a toolset of spells with which to challenge players beyond the copy-paste teleport + big AoE centred on main character then the combat would have been improved.

I'm at a disadvantage, as combat is the last thing I care about.  However, to dispute a couple points- mages not only teleport, they go into force fields periodically, they create bombs, and it's the first time since playing DA that a blood mage has actually made my PC do the crazy shaky thing.  She was a blood mage herself, so I was impressed.  Heh.

Ah yes, the shield, forgot about that - I use dispel magic whenever I see them do that so I tend to forget about it. So thats three spells; big AoE, shield & teleport. Not enough of a toolest. If they'd had knocked my party members back with force spells as I do to mobs, or if they'd countered my magic by dispelling it or had summoned creatures to attack me, or had made use of AoE 'utility' spells to prevent my 'tank' getting to them or had any number of other types of spells then they would havebeen more of a challenge.

Some of the boss battles were tedious- the high dragon- but the rock wraith was quite a challenge.  There is only so much you can do with enemies and AI.  For what it was, there were definite improvements from Origins.

I personally want to have the choice to find alternative means to take down 'bosses', finding ways to defeat the boss that is not the same tank'n'spank the game consists of entirely. Certainly with the Rock Wraith I had to run around a little more than other bosses, but it was not that tough.

As for the other criticism, sorry, it just sounds like nitpicking to me.  If you want to play The Witcher, Witcher 2 is out in another month.  This is a different game, so I don't expect it to look or play like that one.

My other criticisms just point to the lack of immersion. If I'm told a place is a city, I expect it to be a city. I expect there to be NPC's strolling around and chatting, I expect patrols of Guards, people to be buying from merchants, I expect there to be random distractions, I expect the city to be 'alive'. To further elaborate in my comparison - in the Witcher there are street performers that will perform when peopl are around them and citizens will wander over to see what is happening. There are minstrels and bards. When it rains the citizens run for cover beneath awnings and building overhangs. The city actually feels as though somethings happening whereas with Kirkwall? Same, same, same. All the way through. A maze of brown & beige. Denerim had more character in DA:O.
We're constantly told how overpopulated Kirkwall is...so where are the masses of Fereldan refugees? Where are all the pickpockets/cutpurses that apparently lurk in Hightown? Where is the population? To me it looks as though it just consists primarily of bandits considering how many tens of dozen I've had to slay as they randomly attack me.

My comparison was purely in the way the cities are, not the gameplay, but how the world is brought to life. That I do not expect to be different. For example look at this direct comparison of screenshots;



Which would you rather walk around & explore? Which one looks like it has life & character to it?

I pre-ordered The Witcher 2 before I pre-ordered DA2 and I have to say I'm looking forward to it even more than I was before, but thats just personal preference.

Modifié par Apechild, 14 mars 2011 - 11:58 .

[2Hard2C]

Aesieru wrote...

Project Requiem wrote...

2Hard2C wrote...
-Reusing the same four maps 500 times.
1. I agree the maps repeated
quite a bit, but it was more like the same 7 maps 100 times. Bad, but
not as bad.
-At least we can both agree to this.

-Setting the whole game in one city.
2. The
majority is set in Kirkwall, but to say the whole game is a lie, unless
you rushed through and didn't do anything.
-That's still no excuse, we were given many cities to travel to in Denerium. Each with their own design.

-Enemies have a ton of HP and come in waves so the game feels longer.
3. Some have really small HP, and it varies quite a bit. You also attack faster in this game.
-The extended HP is an excuse for button mashing or faster attacking. The waves of enemies that occur in every battle you fight give the illusion that the game feels longer as well. This you cannot deny, and the whole "appearing out of thin air" does not make the game more strategical.

-Frame narrative to avoid being too descriptive about what happens between large periods of time.
4. Over 10 years, there are large periods of time of boredom or unimportance, so it makes sense in the context of the story.
-The story didn't even go as far as ten years, only seven. Many things can occur in three years, just look at what has been accomplished within each year you play, the time jumps just seemed like a sad excuse to "span" the timeline of the game.


-Half as much dialogue, more passive interaction.
5. False. You can't open up a dialogue wheel everytime you talk to somebody, but there is as much dialouge in the game. Also, if you completely beat Origins dialouge runs out after quite a while.
-Your belief that this is false, is false. Dragon Age: Origins has approximately 56,000 spoken lines where as Dragon Age 2 has only 38,000 spoken lines. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that is less dialogue than it's predecessor.

-Millions of stupid side quests that have nothing to do with anything.
6. Somebody didn't pay attention at all during Origins. Even random side-quests carry more wait than most/all of the Origins quest. One of the better changes in DA2.
-Side quests will always be side quests, but at least in Origins, there was an actual reason behind most of it. You were usually given side quests by individuals that each had presented their own reasons. In Dragon Age 2, most side quests are given by random letters, appear in a new act, or given for "lost and found" items. Of course, both game suffers from an area specifically to retrieve an abundant amount of side quests. However, there was even a Chanter's board in DA2 but from playing throughout the entire game, it never showed any side quests.

-Dull environment bereft of life and matter.
7. Again, somebody wasn't paying attention during Origins. The Deep Roads looked the same, the woods looked the same, and everything was brown.
-At least there was variety, every hideout in DA2 looked the same, every dungeon looked the same, every cave looked the same. The Wending Woods at least shared a Dalish camp, a forest that wasn't linear, and a ruins within that. In the second installment, a cave in Wounded coast looks just a like a cave in the Bone Pit, which looks just like the caves in Sundermount.

-Inability to customize companions allowed you to skip designing different armor models.
8. You can upgrade them. Look around, they are there for those who look.
-Upgrading does NOT replace the ability to customize companions. The upgrades only gave "pre-made" boosts to their stats and do not change the appearance whatsoever. If we were given the ability to actually equip them with armor we found, their stats would be much better than a set one.

-Collecting hundreds of-- literally, junk items-- to create the illusion of immersion and depth.
9. At least the junk items are marked as such. In Origins, you picked up bad loot right and left, and carrying around Deathroot and Elfroot was a pain.
-Deathroot and Elfroot were useful for those who actually crafted, and even 99 of each would only take up two slots of your inventory. The loot system in DA2 has been significantly dumbed down because just about everything you pick up is junk. All equipment that does not fit within your class are thrown out the side.

-Poor character development, so you hardly care about your companions by the end of the game. 
10. Talk to them. And explore.
-Talking them does nothing but give one-liners. We are only given the choice when we are "told" to talk to them for a companion quest. And "exploring" only gives them party banter where we can understand the characters better, but not where we can interact with them.

-Lack of any substantial choices that have lasting effects.
11. Out and out lie. Beat the game, there is at least one, not none.
-Nothing to say here, there are some choices that do have a great effect on the story.

-Contrived ending, that tells you nothing, and leaves a huge gap for sub-par DLC
12. Except for Awakening and Shale, all the other DLC for Origins was sub-par. Moot point.
-Once again, does not excuse for the false advertising of the story when we were told to "embark on an adventure that spans for a decade". Seven years. Not ten, seven. If three years were added for DLC, then we all should agree that is unjustified.

-Generic UI showing a lack of creativitiy and effort.
13. They simplified it. Deal.
-The simplifications were, in fact, the problem. And it does show a huge lack of creativity and effort because the menu looks nearly EXACTLY like the interface in Mass Effect 2.

You obviously rushed through the game(or have yet to beat it), and much of your criticizism is unnessesisary if you took your time with the game. It has it flaws, but it is NOT bad.

I put in 60 hours into the game, and I did not rush it, I took the time to do mostly every quest, some of which were impossible due to it being bugged. The flaws and lack of originality to copy and paste are BAD. The only good thing I can see in the game was the writing. The ending, which was AMAZING by the way, but dissapointing to be left open-ended. Oh, and the faster loading and saving times, those were great.

1. We agree, it is out-and-out bad.

2. The OP said the entire game took place in Kirkwall. That is false, because there is Sundermont, Wounded Coast, Bone Pit, and the Deep Roads. All are locations outside of Kirkwall.

3. Not all eniemes have huge HP bars. Some do, but most have medium to quite small HP bars.

4. Has every single moment in the last ten years for you been exiciting? Has there been periods(up to several years) that nothing really important happens? If so, then that is why they used the framed narrative so that way you don't sift through years where nothing important to the story they are trying to tell happens.

5. I may very well be wrong, butI don't believe either. If you can show me a source as to where you found that information that'd be appreciated.

6. There was no reason to do any of the sidequests in Origins. They just appeared just as randomly in Origins as DA2. Only in DA2, you actually know where you have to go to do those side quests. (Not to mention A LOT of Origins quests arn't even started until you've almost completed them. Not as many fetch quests in Origins, but DA2 did have some more powerful and morally grey choices than Origins).

7. Not going to say the enviroments don't repeat a heck of a lot, because they do it and it's annoyingly cheap, but not as big of a step back as your making it out to be. Ferelden was dark and brown, and browner.

8. But it is still customization. Not the best of it, but you don't have to buy any of the armor upgrades, ever.

9. That is another problem with DA2. And I agree it is annoying, but Origins had plenty of useless items as well that would be scattered througout your inventory. It is junk and marked as such.

10. What I'm saying is do their companion quests and take them along for quests.  Because some companions pop-up in other companions locations from time to time. (You obviously didn't have the Aveline vs. Isabella cat fight)

11. We agree on this.

12. 3 years where, nothing happens. Maybe Bioware didn't want to have us complaining about that time after the Deap Roads where nothing happens and how boring it was.

13. It wasn't great, but wasn't annoying or bad. And for console players it was a huge step-up.

Overall, you came into DA2 honestly expecting Origins 2.0(making an assumption). Just don't expect anything and you'll find you will dislike the game less.

To each his own.

[KendallX23]

ok...so DA 2 was not as good as origins...agreed..but it was still a very good game on it's own...seems to me u expected..well not sure what u expected..but except the reused zones...i find nothing i don't like...

[Pixieking]

2Hard2C wrote...


Overall, you came into DA2 honestly expecting Origins 2.0(making an assumption).

I would say a lot of us came to DA2 honestly expecting the quality of DA:O. I didn't care about a direct sequel. I do care about a game that's as well written and produced as the first game.

Modifié par Emoking, 14 mars 2011 - 12:13 .

[Svancara]

my 2 cents on the OP, I mostly disagree but there are some valid points:

-Reusing the same four maps 500 times.
Honestly doesn't bother me much and I'm at the start of the third act.

-Setting the whole game in one city.
Who cares, there are other games who did it too (NWN, BG)

-Enemies have a ton of HP and come in waves so the game feels longer.
The one doesn't have anything to do with the other I believe.

-Frame narrative to avoid being too descriptive about what happens between large periods of time.
Experimental way to tell a story, again it didn't bother me much.

-Half as much dialogue, more passive interaction.
Havn't noticed

-Millions of stupid side quests that have nothing to do with anything.
There are a couple that bother me yes (like where you find random quest pieces that you have to 'drop off' with an NPC to get a gold piece, had a terrible Assassin's Creed feel to it, zero immersion there).

-Dull environment bereft of life and matter.
It does feel a bit lifeless at times, but not as much that caused a gamebreaker for me.

-Inability to customize companions allowed you to skip designing different armor models.
Didn't mind it in ME2, not minding it here either. It gives my companions more identity for me.

-Collecting hundreds of-- literally, junk items-- to create the illusion of immersion and depth.
Again, the one doesn't have anything to do with the other, lots of RPG's have vendor trash items.

-Poor character development, so you hardly care about your companions by the end of the game.
Havn't noticed, in fact I laughed harder with my companion's banter and comments during their personal quests than in Origins.

-Lack of any substantial choices that have lasting effects.
Truth be told, I havn't come across any yet either.

-Contrived ending, that tells you nothing, and leaves a huge gap for sub-par DLC
Have to finish it still so can't comment there

-Generic UI showing a lack of creativitiy and effort.
I actually like the UI and don't think this has anything to do with a 'lack' of anything.

[Darian Tylmare]

Some things are cheap design. Reusing maps for almost every area is cheap, even if there is like one plant more or one cart less.
For bosses and encounters Bioware walked the cheap way too. Give them obscenly amounts of health to wittle down and let enemies attack in waves. Now there's nothing wrong with attack waves because that can be fun but it's the same over and over again.
As I posted a topic about it, actually 90% of the loot is junk. It's not different in other RPGs but come on, kill a high dragon and get 70 silver. That's unfair and cheap again.
And the surroundings are pretty devoid of life, but that's mostly so in every game.
Well, a sci-fi like UI is something of a poor choice on the artistic side, but it's really much cleaner.
The whole game playing in one city, the characterization and the framed narrative don't bother me.

Modifié par Darian Tylmare, 14 mars 2011 - 12:29 .

[shadownian]

 Ok..so.....after multiple plays through i have some opinions....

First off...I think we all know somebody in the big game magazines is getting paid pretty well for all theses 9.0 or 9.5 ratings. Ill explain...to me...this is what the ratings stand for...(well some)

10--For its release time/genre its the best..period. Nothing matches it at that perticular time.
9 to 9.5- -nearly flawless...only 1 or 2 minor issues that are barly noticable and dont affect the game.
8 to 8.5-- Great game...great story/idea...great execution with a few minor flaws that are noticable but dont affect the overall feel of the game.
7 to 7.5-- Good game...still something to recommend but needed more work/time to fix obvious flaws that affect gameplay and feel of the game. Still a good game but could have been better.

Now that bieng said i would place Dragon Age 2 in the 7 to 7.5 range. Not even close to the 9's and up weve been seeing.And heres why....

1. Obvious laziness/rushed feel-- The reuse of locations. The inabilty to customize characters. The limited local of the game. Obvious graphical flaws. The reuse of alot of the same voice talent. (in some cases this was a good thing). The limited romances. Basic menu design. etc

2.  Limited replayablity-- I've been thru 3 times and im almost at the point of bieng done with the game totally. The main reason i see is the lack of choice in this game. Things like your characters reation to events are frustrating. At one moment your character seems to get a good grasp on things...the next he/she's like...duh. The scene with the lily killer comes to mind. You see him run into a room...they make a point to show you this as if it means something...but yet your character never questions where he went. Sidequests he/she will hunt people down...but when it matters or could save somebodies life..(no spoiler)...your character is just like...oh well guy got away...no biggie. Also how the game forces you into losing people. I like the whole player choice idea better. If you want to be a goodie who does everything he can to save everyone...fine...if you want to be a jerk and tell everyone off...thats good too...but it should be your choice. Even when your supposively bieng a jerk...most of the time your still bieng a nice guy...just firm...again forcing you to make certain decisions and allowing certain story lines to happen. The qunari bieng a big one here...why cant i tell em off and say...you know what...i hate you guys and i will kill you whenever i get the chance...but i cant...i got to be thier slave and like it.

3. Limited romance options-- This one peeved me a bit. Dragon age had  great romance/friend interaction. This one...(being a guy)...i have very limited choices for one. Merril i found to be funny....her ramblings cracked me up...but shes not somebody i would really want to get with and shes also way to easy to hook up witjh. On one play thru i had her almost hating me cause i wouldnt let her do what she wanted throughout the game. Then i had one conversation where i thought if i was nice and chose the heart option....just to be nice and boost her rating towards me a bit...id be ok...next i know she jumps me and tells me she loves me...with a low approval rating.
Isabella on the other hand is a bit harder to get to the love stage with....but she never comes and visits or has anything to really say to you after that point....Its like ok...i love ya...now leave me alone...lol.
Overall the romances seemed more like one of those....oh gee i guess we have to put this in...rather than...we should put those back but make it great. On top of it all...they went from....toned down...but classy love scenes in Mass effect2...to completely removing them in Dragon Age 2. This time around i felt more like romance was a quest rather than a relationship...ok i got the quest...did it...now its done and i can forget about it kind of thing. Which was really disappointing.

4. Oddities. Just those quirks i thought...what the hell. I mentioned the whole...hunting of the lily killer thing....and the whole qunari thing already...but things like....why mark an item as trash...but have it be a quest item??  How come when playing a mage nobody ever looks at me and yells "apostate!!"...lol How come bioware never wants you to rule. Your given the option to say let me take charge but your turned down...even though the people would love it....and evenm if you do get the ending where you take over leadership...in the end story/cutscene it telles you that you took off shortly after anyway. What is bioware thing with heroes that run off?? At the end of both DA games the hero runs off never to be seen again...really...thats the best they could come up with?? And whats with the chantry board?? Ive never seen a job on it!! whats the point?? more dlc for use to buy?? That just oozes laziness/profiteering 

I mean seriously i know im getting into a huge thing here and i could keep going...but i do like the game...it just leaves me scratching my head going...what the hell were they thinking!!!

Shadownian

[ragnaven]

Not to be a jerk or anything but the 2 implies it is a sequel, it played on assumptions. Don't defend that by saying we were stupid to expect better, if I go make Modern Warfare 3 and all it is about is flying cruise missels into crap then by your logic no one could compain. Why because that is a part of modern warfare. But people would complain because it isn't the game they were lead to believe they were buying.

Simply put, you tell me this is a sequel it better actually be like one, it can't go off the page and dance around in a flower patch going la la la for years at a time then have you come back to busy work.

[Apechild]

ragnaven wrote...

Not to be a jerk or anything but the 2 implies it is a sequel, it played on assumptions. Don't defend that by saying we were stupid to expect better, if I go make Modern Warfare 3 and all it is about is flying cruise missels into crap then by your logic no one could compain. Why because that is a part of modern warfare. But people would complain because it isn't the game they were lead to believe they were buying.

Simply put, you tell me this is a sequel it better actually be like one, it can't go off the page and dance around in a flower patch going la la la for years at a time then have you come back to busy work.

Well said sir.

[Evolution33]

I don't mind the repeated enviroments that much. So far in this game I have found the sidequest to be much deeper than in Origins. Origins sidequests consisted of going to a field and saving a caravan or going to a field and killing an abomanation. There really wasn't a lot of depth to the sidequests, but in DA2 the sidequests I have played so far have been multi-leveled and rather deep and might even have some impact on the story. If they had to reuse enviroments to give me longer and deeper sidequests then I am fine with it. I would rather they not do it, but reused enviroments are better than go to a field and kill enemies.

[sector001]

Nostradumbazz wrote...

Chickenhawked wrote...

BioWare devs and directors: You need to grow some balls and that's all there is to it. You are incredibly talented people who know how to make an excellent game, and your talents are being stifled by business. Look at you! You guys are AFRAID to say you had to cut corners. You are AFRAID to say you had a time limit. You are AFRAID to say that you can lose your jobs if you post honestly on these forums. It's in your CONTRACT that you can only do what Electronic Arts/the higher ups want you to do. And for what? For dirt pay, that's what; you guys are among the hardest workers IN THE WORLD. I know because I've been there! I know because I have done unpaid overtime to get a game out when it needed to be out. I know that when you are working on a game, it consumes your life. I know why you always thank your family and friends in the credits of your games: You make sacrifices to get the games out; you often have to ignore those family and friends because of work.

And again, for what? For moderate amounts of cash, compared to the ridiculous amounts of pay that your producers and CEOs are making. The FACT is that making a game takes WAY more skill, time, and effort than setting up a game's advertisements, or designing a game's cover.

Pro tip: You don't need to live or work like this. Companies like Blizzard also work under the thumb of big business, but they DO NOT give in. If the game is not done, it is not done, and it doesn't matter what the hell Activision or anyone else says about it; they are NOT going to rush a game or release it unfinished. Your producers/higher ups can say whatever the hell they want and make every threat in the book--don't you DARE ever listen to them again. You people are very special and unique: You can actually make GOOD VIDEO GAMES in a modern world plagued by BAD VIDEO GAMES. Do NOT let that ability be taken away from you. If that means going to court to deal with constricting contracts, do it. Stop letting yourselves be bossed around, and never ever put yourself in that scenario again. READ your contracts, and never sign a thing unless you like everything it says.

In conclusion: DA2 isn't that great and you KNOW it, but is it a skill/idea issue? NO, AND YOU KNOW IT. You were rushed and budgeted, and that's all there is to it. I know you'll never be able to say that in public, but I just want you to know that the more observant among us do know that, and we are rooting for you; I hope that, in the very near future, you can go back to making complete, unhindered games.

Well said. I thank all of the team of designers but Mike Laidlaw. He can get punched in the daddy bags from my standpoint.

Really?  Do people really think BioWare employees are going to come out and speak their minds when EA controls the pay checks... I really don't think people have yet grasped what happened back in 2007 or just don't understand how coperations function. 

[skan5]

 

Apechild wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I'm at a disadvantage, as combat is the last thing I care about.  However, to dispute a couple points- mages not only teleport, they go into force fields periodically, they create bombs, and it's the first time since playing DA that a blood mage has actually made my PC do the crazy shaky thing.  She was a blood mage herself, so I was impressed.  Heh.

Ah yes, the shield, forgot about that - I use dispel magic whenever I see them do that so I tend to forget about it. 

Why would you do that? Force Fielding themselves the way they do it is incredibly stupid, especially when they do it at the start. They essentially CC themselves and take themselves out of the fight. It was just either really poor ai coding or a really poor design decision, or something that was possibly not all the way thought out.

Unless, of course, there's some other force field effect you guys are talking about? Additionally, you're forgetting that the full blood mage bosses also have a powerful single target attack, though it's easy to interrupt.

Outside of a few exceptions though, I agree with you Apechild in that a lot of bosses (not all) in this game play exactly the same.

[KratosAuron]

ragnaven wrote...

Not to be a jerk or anything but the 2 implies it is a sequel, it played on assumptions. Don't defend that by saying we were stupid to expect better, if I go make Modern Warfare 3 and all it is about is flying cruise missels into crap then by your logic no one could compain. Why because that is a part of modern warfare. But people would complain because it isn't the game they were lead to believe they were buying.

Simply put, you tell me this is a sequel it better actually be like one, it can't go off the page and dance around in a flower patch going la la la for years at a time then have you come back to busy work.

Not to be a jerk or anything, but its called Dragon Age 2 not Dragon Age Origins 2.....

[emirdumani]

I pre-ordered DA2 in December of last year and i could not wait for my game to reach me so went to a friend who purchased the standard edition as a digital copy and finished the game on weekend as a mage.

While there are some minor things i did not like (repetative maps and new darkspawn designs), I can safely state that this is the most improvement I saw in a video game (including Mass Effect 2).

In my opinion Dragon Age: Origins was a masterpiece and DA2 is even better. I have only one thing to say to the people who are criticising without remorse is please don't be callous. This amount of work and progress can not be ignored just because you don't like some of the changes.

My signature edition will arrive in a few days and will finish the game a couple more times, can't wait for more DLC.

[Baaleos]

I agree with everything the OP Said.

Yes - The Map's were re-used to an insane degree.
Yes - There was a lack of diversity in NPC Enemies and Character Design.

In the end we are left with a feeling that this story was dwarfed by the Hero of Fereldan's story in Cinematic Experience and grandure....

I feel a little disappointed that EA and Bioware gave such a build up for DA 2, and then dug themselves into a hole with this sad imitation of a Dragon Age Origin's.

They dug themselves into a hole, because no matter how much they try, any Downloadable Content they release, will be bound by the framework set up in DA2, and to make the environment, the world etc, better, they will need to release essentially, a new game.
DLC cannot make this game better.

I bet the DLC they release, will probably be imitations of the already existing areas, more blood mages in a city supposedly bereft of Blood Mages, and Templars chasing us around in circles.

[Apechild]

skan5 wrote...

 

Apechild wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I'm at a disadvantage, as combat is the last thing I care about.  However, to dispute a couple points- mages not only teleport, they go into force fields periodically, they create bombs, and it's the first time since playing DA that a blood mage has actually made my PC do the crazy shaky thing.  She was a blood mage herself, so I was impressed.  Heh.

Ah yes, the shield, forgot about that - I use dispel magic whenever I see them do that so I tend to forget about it. 

Why would you do that? Force Fielding themselves the way they do it is incredibly stupid, especially when they do it at the start. They essentially CC themselves and take themselves out of the fight. It was just either really poor ai coding or a really poor design decision, or something that was possibly not all the way thought out.

Unless, of course, there's some other force field effect you guys are talking about? Additionally, you're forgetting that the full blood mage bosses also have a powerful single target attack, though it's easy to interrupt.

Outside of a few exceptions though, I agree with you Apechild in that a lot of bosses (not all) in this game play exactly the same.

I just prioritise killing the mages - because of the party AI, they don't shift from AoE's about to go off next to them, I just try and kill off the mages first to prevent my dullards getting totaled by an AoE - I get quite a bit of tunnel vision so remembering to shift everyone is not high on my priority list. So I remove the shield, cast Crushing Prison, kill 'em. I have plenty of knockbacks incase enemies get close whilst dealing with the opposing mage, so thats not a problem.

I know it's silly to prioritise them, but with not knowing how many waves are coming I just find it easier to take 'em out first.

[Psion17]

I've been playing the game for quite a few hours now and totally agree with all the OP's points. What were the devs thinking when they shoved this one out the door? It's so heavily dumbed down it defies belief, but we all know why don't we?

As with nearly every game in existance these days it has sucumbed to the dreaded (dare i say it) CONSOLIZATION disease, its a full on pandemic within the gaming world and needs to be stamped out as soon as possible. I was hoping that Diablo 3 would be able to stay out of the reach of this contagion, but i've since read that even that is to be ported, what is the gaming world coming too? Its all about the money money money....

[Darian Tylmare]

I think people should stop talking about consolization but start talking of games meaning buisiness.
There's a reason why most new games are clones or franchise products. Play save to get money. The consoles are not to blame, it's the publishers and their shareholders for being greedy.

[Legbiter]

Most of the OP's points apply equally to his beloved DA:O as well. Junk loot? Check. Samey game enviornment? Check. Unimportant side quests? Check.

Did the OP even play DA:O?

DA:O was still a great game.

[Zanderat]

Darian Tylmare wrote...

I think people should stop talking about consolization but start talking of games meaning buisiness.
There's a reason why most new games are clones or franchise products. Play save to get money. The consoles are not to blame, it's the publishers and their shareholders for being greedy.

Agree.  DAO sold very well, selling 3.2 million copies.  You would think that would be enough to prove the viability of BG2 style RPG's.  BUT NO.  They wanted more and evidently felt that the only way to do it was to dumb it down.  Very sad,

[darklordpocky-san]

Legbiter wrote...

Most of the OP's points apply equally to his beloved DA:O as well. Junk loot? Check. Samey game enviornment? Check. Unimportant side quests? Check.

Did the OP even play DA:O?

DA:O was still a great game.

We're mostly upset that those aspects were the ones to recieve an "upgrade".

it's like the beat themselves at being lazy

Modifié par darklordpocky-san, 14 mars 2011 - 02:33 .