444 réponses à ce sujet

[moilami]

Aesieru wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

I liked the ME series, but what you're mentioning is hand-waving nearly all the issues with Dragon Age 2 such as mass use of recycled environments.

Hmm, ME recycling was at first Then I got indoctrinated or whatever the fancy word was and accepted the copy paste mission grind. At least I could do "BOOM HEADSHOT!" If ME gets ripped of sucky Mako wrestling in mountains and copy paste missions an excellent game comes visible.

[BeyondFrozenTrees]

I'm maybe about halfway through the game (maybe more, maybe less, it's difficult to tell), so my experiences are based on that.

[quote]
Riloux wrote...
-Reusing the same four maps 500 times.
[/quote]

While gathering the 50 sovereigns, the recycled caves were noticeable, but it didn't bother me a lot - but certainly, I'd like it much more if every cave was different. But if one had to choose between maps and stories, I'd choose to have more stories.

[quote]
Setting the whole game in one city.
[/quote]

I think it's pretty interesting to have one big city in which the game takes place. It's refreshing to be able to get to know a city well. Though I must say that the quests that take you outside the city are a welcome change, to freshen the palate, so to speak.

[quote]Enemies have a ton of HP and come in waves so the game feels longer.[/quote]

Indeed! Especially the coming in waves part. Battle after battle, there's always more enemies that spawn - and not just from logical places, but also out of thin air! It gets stale. Sometimes it's fine to have more enemies rush in from other rooms, but if it's done too often, it just gets boring. It also takes something away from tactical planning if the
enemies appear from all around you. [I also wish that the glyphs of paralysis could be of another shape, like a line on the ground so you could once or twice per battle draw a long line that the enemies couldn't cross. Might make for a more tactical experience.]
[/quote]


[quote]Frame narrative to avoid being too descriptive about what happens between large periods of time.[/quote]

I think that the framed narrative is fine, even welcome as it does allow the game to cover a larger period of time. But perhaps it would be better if we could make some decisions about what happens during the years we're not shown.

[quote]Half as much dialogue, more passive interaction.[/quote]

I love dialogue. It's one of the major reasons I love BioWare games. That said, I'm not sure what you mean by that ^ ?

[quote]Millions of stupid side quests that have nothing to do with anything.[/quote]
I like the various side quests, they show you what life is like in the city.

[quote]Dull environment bereft of life and matter.[/quote]
How are DA2's environments different from the environments in Origins? Could you provide some examples of this? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

[quote]Inability to customize companions allowed you to skip designing different armor models.[/quote]
Then again, the outfits of the characters change during the course of the game, I understand? So in a way, they may have had to create more armor models, or at least as many as in Origins? That said, I wish there was an option for us to have the companions either wear their own clothes and armor or to have them wear other armor that Hawke gathers during the quests.

[quote]Collecting hundreds of-- literally, junk items-- to create the illusion of immersion and depth.[/quote]
There have always been spoons and all kinds of "useless" items in games, don't think it's a problem here. In fact, the random junk can sometimes inspire imagination, if aptly named.

[quote]Poor character development, so you hardly care about your companions by the end of the game.[/quote]
So far, I haven't really seen any difference from Origins regarding this. I find the characters interesting.

[quote]Lack of any substantial choices that have lasting effects.[/quote]
I, too, would like to have substantial choices, but I also understand that it's a difficult thing to accomplish while keeping costs to an acceptable level. Not sure if another Origins type of story where you would start with different backgrounds and then step into the same role for the rest of the game (be it Warden or something else). But would people appreciate that kind of a structure in another game in this series? Anyway, there have been some choices that have been tough to make - although I think one should always be mindful of not making a choice artificially hard by having the character choose ONLY from two different options - usually there could be a third option that would be more logical - at least for a rational, nonprejudiced/non-violent character.

[quote]Contrived ending, that tells you nothing, and leaves a huge gap for sub-par DLC[/quote]
Haven't gotten to the ending yet so can't comment on that. :-)

[quote]
Generic UI showing a lack of creativitiy and effort.
[/quote]

I like the user interface - one can easily take in the information there and it looks cool. The attributes screen and how it affects the derived attributes is excellent. (Also, if they decided to cut corners, why wouldn't they just have kept the original UI and made only slight modifications to it?) I think that it takes talent to make a clutterfree user interface that gives you the information clearly. But, the difference in opinion regarding the UI in this case may well be simply a matter of personal preference.

Modifié par BeyondFrozenTrees, 14 mars 2011 - 07:23 .

[Gorionsson]

WilliamShatner wrote...

When they realized they had an extremely short time to make the game they should have decided to make the game like Baldur's Gate II, same basic game with more stuff and a couple of updates, while working on their "reinvention" in the background for DA3. 

Creating a mostly brand new game with significantly changed features takes a lot of time, time that could have been spent on content.  So instead of getting the better, bigger version of Dragon Age you get a game that half-asses on both "reinvention" and content.

This is so true.
How they could kill their own franchise in this manner is unbelievable.
I also love Mr. Laidlaws damage control/head in the sand-routine.
Still, the game isn't terrible, but an average spin-off on the back of an excellent game.

[james1976]

I do not hate BioWare and I certainly know what deadlines are like. But I have to say I am very disappointed in the game so far. While I can still give a 7/10 for the PC, it would have been a 10/10 if not for a number of factors. I feel I'm being generous with that as well. I've played through the end of Act 1 and I'm already tired of playing it. I hear Act 2 is much better, but I'm gonna wait until my next day off to continue the journey. I just cannot get motivated to play DA2.

Summary...next time I'll feel warned when a game is showered with this much pre-order DLC.

[Dan UK]

Azmodaii wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

let me tell you then, young one...
By saying that sorting through collected armour weapons and whatnot is "meaningless" and that equipping your party is "dressing up", I would already like to direct you to fps games like Halo or Cod where you are solely in charge of your own character. This was supposed to be an RPG game, and not only any rpg game, but a bioware rpg game.  Now many many people like me who love and have always loved Bioware games do so because of the immersive atmosphere, the unique characters and the sense of accomplishment. Getting lost into the world, going through the missions, only to stop in between and better  equip and prepare your teammates for the challenge to come. In this game, you just charge head on, check the star rating of something in your inventory and replace it accordingly. Its silly, its lazy and its stupid. Simplifying the itemization of an rpg game is a design flaw, not an improvement, and all you halo boys should understand the differences between genres.

Games like Fallout, ME, BG , Kotor and even DA 1 were all great because of the sense of exploration. Staying in the same generic, stale and static environment is boring and dull and just annoying. I loved the sense of fighting in new environments then having a breather in a new city, exploring that city, engaging in dialogue with every character, again preparing for your next mission as you should do in an RPG. Whereas in an action game you just storm through everything, because that is the point of that particular genre.

You talk about ME 1 like it was as dumbed down of a poor game as this one, well let me tell you that it was definitely not, I remember rummaging through every weapon and armour looted and distributing it to my companions, making decisions when distributing talents and levelling up, In this game I could not care less about any of the characters and just set it to auto level up. The first time i've done this in any bioware game ever.

Its a poor game that is oversimplified for mass appeal. Its a bioware game and a sequel to Dragon age, and therefore it was always bound to sell well, and it did, Mission accomplished for EA. I , however will not prepurchase further titles before reading every review on the game from now on, I trust bioware can still produce quality games like they used to as opposed to cookie cutter generic stale games like this and I will await that day.

Its so sad that i had to bother writing all this :/

 Quite simply, +1

[Justin2k]

With all due respect Stanley, rather than be seen to not be clamping down on the people with issues with the game, why doesn't someone from Bioware actually speak out, acknowledge that this game really isn't what it was billed up as (or of the quality people have come to expect from Bioware) and maybe even apologise to the fanbase.

And I'm not talking about Laidlaws "everyone who doesn't like my masterpiece is scared of change" attitude or the shill reviews your engineers have been putting on metacritic telling us how wrong we are to have issues with this perfect game..

Modifié par Justin2k, 14 mars 2011 - 07:28 .

[Zanderat]

Justin2k wrote...

With all due respect Stanley, rather than be seen to not be clamping down on the people with issues with the game, why doesn't someone from Bioware actually speak out and maybe even apologise to the fanbase.

And I'm not talking about Laidlaws "everyone who doesn't like my masterpiece is scared of change" attitude or the shill reviews your engineers have been putting on metacritic telling us how wrong we are to have issues with this perfect game..

Agree.  The devs, Laidlaw and Gaider especially, don't seem to get what made DAO special in the first place.

So, instead of the continuation of the self described spiritual successor to BG2, we get "press a button and something awesome happens."  <_<

Modifié par Zanderat, 14 mars 2011 - 07:32 .

[moilami]

[quote]BeyondFrozenTrees wrote...

Indeed! Especially the coming in waves part. Battle after battle, there's always more enemies that spawn - and not just from logical places, but also out of thin air! It gets stale. Sometimes it's fine to have more enemies rush in from other rooms, but if it's done too often, it just gets boring. It also takes something away from tactical planning if the
enemies appear from all around you. [I also wish that the glyphs of paralysis could be of another shape, like a line on the ground so you could once or twice per battle draw a long line that the enemies couldn't cross. Might make for a more tactical experience.]
[/quote]

[/quote]

Please understand "tactical planning" can be more than in WoW where raid leader asks "link achi" in /2 trade channel.

I myself like very much of this new feature in DA2 where enemies suddenly get reinforcements. It keeps me a little bit on my toes during the whole fight. It gives tons of joy to the fight to not know is there more enemies coming or not. And it increases the tactical challenge because you have to adapt quicly to changing situation - and that if anything requires tactical thinking both before and after the enemy reinforcements.

(Not saying how immersion breaking those reinforcements popping and floating out of nowhere are, and not saying how immersion breaking mobs standing in neat formations waiting for The Grinder are.)

[Tirigon]

Dont hate on Gaider though.

His Dragon Age books put him beyond criticism. Hate on the rest of bioWare if you feel like......

Edit: Goes to Zanderat.

Modifié par Tirigon, 14 mars 2011 - 07:35 .

[Justin2k]

On another note that Laidlaw speech really annoyed the hell out of me. Practically saying that DA2 was a top notch game and people only don't like it because they are scared of change.

I've played pretty much every RPG released in the last 20 years. Oblivion was very changed from Morrowind, and not in a direction I particuarly liked but I could still recognise its merits as a good game.

If DA2 had been different from Origins but a good stand alone game, I would be saying it was a good game.

The fact is, if not for Bioware, or Dragon Age name, this game would be getting an average score of 6/10. Because thats all its worth.

[Addai]

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

It sounds like you prefer shooters and not a tactical squad game.

ME was a commercial success, IMO, because it's a shooter and it successfully appealed to that sort of gamer.  They are a larger pool than the classic RPG players.  But more copies sold =/ a better game.  For what they were, ME1 and 2 were good games.  It doesn't mean all games have to be like them.

[moilami]

Addai67 wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

It sounds like you prefer shooters and not a tactical squad game.

ME was a commercial success, IMO, because it's a shooter and it successfully appealed to that sort of gamer.  They are a larger pool than the classic RPG players.  But more copies sold =/ a better game.  For what they were, ME1 and 2 were good games.  It doesn't mean all games have to be like them.

I am quite sure Big Mac is the most sold food stuff. Does it mean Big Mac is the best food?

One thing I have no hope to understand ever is that how masses can even suggest sales tell what is the best.


Edit: Or if "pro critics" rate Big Mac to be 9.9 does it mean it is perfect hamburger rofl.

Modifié par moilami, 14 mars 2011 - 07:40 .

[Tirigon]

Addai67 wrote...

ME was a commercial success, IMO, because it's a shooter and it successfully appealed to that sort of gamer. 

Hmm. This is a very odd opinion (no offense). Personally I didn´t see it as shooter at all. Of course there were some shooter elements, but for really being one it would require things like not having a healthbar - especially, not having any bosses who survive a headshot! - and a good cover system beyond "ducked = invulnerable, standing up = dead".

What i´m saying is, coming from a shooter PoV ME2 fails about as much as it does coming from a RPG PoV, ME1 however is even waaay closer to RPG than it is to shooter, imo.

[Rhodric78]

I'm with OP on this one and I make no apologies for doing so.

Don't think I've seen it mentioned yet, but there is one stupid thing that is bugging the hell out of me. At the Viscount's Keep, at the top of the first steps, is a group of gentlemen complaining about waiting for hours to see the Viscount. This same conversation is heard in EVERY friggen chapter with the same folks over and over. So I guess it's safe to assume they've been waiting there for ten years now to see some one? Sloppy.

And if were going to do a progression story where ten years or so is detailed, why then has absolutely nothing changed in the city? Shops are in the same place, people are still wearing the exact same thing etc. This may be silly, but I think some changes would have really made the city feel lived in, especially since most of the game takes place there.

DA2 has totally bummed me out

Modifié par Rhodric78, 14 mars 2011 - 07:42 .

[Kane-Corr]

Addai67 wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

It sounds like you prefer shooters and not a tactical squad game.

ME was a commercial success, IMO, because it's a shooter and it successfully appealed to that sort of gamer.  They are a larger pool than the classic RPG players.  But more copies sold =/ a better game.  For what they were, ME1 and 2 were good games.  It doesn't mean all games have to be like them.

No, no. I'm an Rpg person at heart...just not as hardcore and old in my ways and beliefs as others are. I mean, why not enjoy a hybrid or two? I DO like shooters...but I would 100% much rather play an rpg. What I was saying was this....Bioware is not your typical studio. They DO look at quality...and part of that quality is gained through change, enhancements, etc. With Dragon Age, they made that necessary change. Yeah, many people didn't like it...but that's tough. If you cannot accept even a little bit of change, then why even bother playing new videogames. Stop with the COD crap, and stop with the EA crap. Those excuses are garbage and obselete now. What you should do (person who hates DA2 and where Bioware is heading) is take the game for what it is and just play it.

Oh, and don't hype yourself up before a release as well...easier to cope and marvel at what the game turns out to be later on. I was amazed by DA2, mainly because I went in unknowing.

Yeah, it had some crazy flaws and stuff...but the characters and the realistic story really outweighed those stupid, and trivial things. It's set in a city....SO ROLEPLAY it. This ain't any sandbox for you people. Sometimes people can be stubborn. Yeah, would I have wanted some crazy epic storyline with a few more characters and what-not? Who wouldn't, right?

You really have to adapt...and if not, then oh well, time to move on...

[Alexander1136]

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.

I wouldn't say it's an embarassment, its just a majority of people are idiots and weren't as pissed about the cut corners. i was dissapoint with it but it did move the story foward. i said before it came out that i knew the gameplay would be mindless and mainstream all i really cared about was the story continuation. the game might blow but the story is awesome as little of it as there is.

[Yalision]

Personally I have no complaints for the atmosphere or characters or character development. I think the game was beautiful and every character had interesting dialogue and motivation. The conflicts within some of the characters was even very emotional, so some of the melodrama in this thread I think is misplaced - though not all of it.

I very much agree with the waves of characters and the reused, beaten to death maps being a problem, however.

[Littlemad]

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.

I completely agree with you.
It just sucks big time.

[javierabegazo]

I don't see how this is deserving of its own thread. Please continue discussion in the sticky
Your Dragon Age II Review *NO SPOILERS PLEASE*

http://social.biowar...1/index/6413491