444 réponses à ce sujet

[Upset Goldfish]

toggled wrote...

Brenus wrote...

You pretty much summed up every criticism that people have about this game, yet no, Bioware refuse to comment or acknowledge them, and the herp derp blind sheep that follow the game keep on saying that no valid criticisms are being raised as to why this game is bad.

Both bioware and their newfound fans have gone completely blind and senseless to video game quality.  

Bioware has commented on the criticism - see the Eurogamer interview:

http://www.eurogamer...ge-ii-interview

Mr. Laidlaw circles the wagons and claims that anyone who doesn't like Dragon Age 2 simply hates change. He also justifies recycling areas with the 'less is more' argument.

We hate change? Oh my. 

Mr. Laidlaw, people can hate change. But you have to remember, change is like a coin, it has two faces. One face is good, whilst one face is bad. This time around, you lost the coin toss.

I for one, am not opposed to change if it BENEFITS the player experience. For example, the fact you can delete all your junk in one go, as opposed to manually removing each individual piece. THAT IS GOOD CHANGE.

But removing the voiceless character to bring in the Mass Effect-style dialogue wheel was not a beneficial change, and hampered my playing experience. 

In addition, a sequel should build on the strengths of the original. DA:O was a tactics-oriented homage to older RPG's like Baldurs gate, and having a voiceless protagonist allowed you to place yourself in the role of the hero, as opposed to Hawke, who is just another character. Since DAII is a sequel to this, the same formula should have been applied. Instead, you now have Dynasty Warriors Dragon Age. In essence, you have almost changed the game genre.

Imagine the outcry that would be had if Mass Effect 3 had no voiced Shepard, no dialogue wheel, and the ability to switch between party members. People enjoy Mass Effect for the way it is already built. In ME2, you built upon the same structure, and it worked well (with the exception of thermal clips). Just because one style of gameplay is good for one series, doesn't mean it's good for another.

And if future "change" means re-using environments, bland textures, a jumpy narrative which leaves the player almost confused, poor customisation and an ultimately shallow RPG experience, then I feel that I can say definitively that I dislike change.

[Chadthesad]

The demo gave everyone an idea, yet brief of what to expect. Yes, a lot of it was disabled, however there was a circulating mod, which unlocked that content. So they changed the inventory around. They partially removed companion customization. The same complaints are being brought up over and over. Yes, I agree that reusing interiors is amateur and cutting corners, but they did it. Big deal, move on from it. Bioware is still one of the best RPG creators if not the best. They are credible, and have resources others don't. Yes in quite a few area's it was a let down, but the combat is vastly superior and different from Origins. If you like the sequel, I'm glad, if you don't well that's your bag.

[kingjamesjr1]

L337Sarge wrote...

flushfire wrote...

Riloux wrote...

-Reusing the same four maps 500 times.

How could you?! They risked content and they did it artfully! Why, so artfully in fact that it is difficult to recognize the same areas! And do you not think that spotting what is the difference between reused areas is a game in itself?

Would you rather have a 10 hour shorter game or reused maps? Silly 4channer/PC elitist.

10 hours shorter, if it means a more meaningful and enjoyable experience overall.

U can't be serious i could definately tell what maps was being use all the  time it's just plain stupid to think a person can't tell but in any case u fail at trying make ur point because there is none  this whole game should have been dlc content for origin not to call it dragon age 2. This game lacking in every department  truly it's unfinished and still people are to stupid to realized it. Bioware Keeps this up they will lose a really good loyal customer! I dare not mention mass effect 3 if it turns out to be a bust  because mass effect 2 didn't do it for me.  i just cross my fingers a hope for the best but if mass effect turns to be trash like dragon age 2 i'm done buying any product from bioware period.

Modifié par kingjamesjr1, 14 mars 2011 - 01:41 .

[Brp650]

agree 100% with the OP.
I dont think of it has DA, more like Hawke the champion of........something
But got to love the "modern" game play comment...made me giggle

Yes i am an elitist....my rig would b*tch slap your console and make it run all the way back home to Sony or Microsoft
Sad thing is, i can just push a button one my mouse and my character will swing away or shoot fire bolts at all the big bad people. No need to target, just push a button. No fingers on the keyboard, nothing. Push the button with one hand while drinking a crush with the other...OUTSTANDING Modern gaming
Maybe i need to paint my tower black and scribble XBox on it when ever i play this........game

[blacqout]

Personally i thought that the side quests were brilliant. Much more interesting than in Origins, at least.

Though i wasn't thrilled with how often the maps were re-used and the lack of any substantial decisions, i considered mostly everything else on your list to be an improvement. Especially the custom armour each party member had. It made them look much more distinctive... and i'm sure that hardly anyone changed Morrigan out of her default robes for anything other than the identical looking one you acquired on her mission.

[GregoriusMaximus]

blacqout wrote...

 Especially the custom armour each party member had. It made them look much more distinctive... and i'm sure that hardly anyone changed Morrigan out of her default robes for anything other than the identical looking one you acquired on her mission.

Always being the same made them more distinctive!!!

Welcome to 1984, where DA2 is doubleplusgood!!!

[kingjamesjr1]

blacqout wrote...

Personally i thought that the side quests were brilliant. Much more interesting than in Origins, at least.

Though i wasn't thrilled with how often the maps were re-used and the lack of any substantial decisions, i considered mostly everything else on your list to be an improvement. Especially the custom armour each party member had. It made them look much more distinctive... and i'm sure that hardly anyone changed Morrigan out of her default robes for anything other than the identical looking one you acquired on her mission.

 the side quest were all boring nothing in dragon age 2 drew you in period,Unlike Origins  was a good rpg  period how can u even compare the two if there was a vote on either game guess what my vote would be Origins hands down.

Almost forgot anytime EA gets their hands on a good title they turn that game into doggy dun not worth picking up period

Modifié par kingjamesjr1, 14 mars 2011 - 01:53 .

[aksoileau]

Everytime I see Riloux post and see that stupid avatar of hers I throw up a little. I hate your posts. DIAF

[thedistortedchild]

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.

The bold stuff and, a ridiculous amount of glitches in which the environment lost all color Cassandra was a floating head, and quests couldn't finish.

[Bebbe777]

So based on what we've seen and if BW continues on the same path, DA3 and ME3 is gonna be crap

[Soilborn88]

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.

You said it.

[blacqout]

kingjamesjr1 wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Personally i thought that the side quests were brilliant. Much more interesting than in Origins, at least.

Though i wasn't thrilled with how often the maps were re-used and the lack of any substantial decisions, i considered mostly everything else on your list to be an improvement. Especially the custom armour each party member had. It made them look much more distinctive... and i'm sure that hardly anyone changed Morrigan out of her default robes for anything other than the identical looking one you acquired on her mission.

 the side quest were all boring nothing in dragon age 2 drew you in period,Unlike Origins  was a good rpg  period how can u even compare the two if there was a vote on either game guess what my vote would be Origins hands down.

Almost forgot anytime EA gets their hands on a good title they turn that game into doggy dun not worth picking up period

I'm pretty sure that the quest in which you escort the Qunari Mage was listed as a side quest...

Sure, you got a lot of side quests which were essentially just looting some junk item and then talking to some stall owner, but there were a lot of eally great side quests too.

[2Hard2C]

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.

Let's go point by point:
-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.

-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.

-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.

-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.

-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.

-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.

-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.

-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.

-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.
-Poor character development, so you hardly care about your companions by the end of the game. 
10. Talk to them. And explore.

-Lack of any substantial choices that have lasting effects.
11. Out and out lie. Beat the game, there is at least one, not none.

-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.

-Generic UI showing a lack of creativitiy and effort.
13. They simplified it. Deal.

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.

[Addai]

I still like Origins better, but I have to disagree with many of the OP's points.

Dialogue is briefer and there is less of it, but it is much better organized and integrated IMO.  People react to small things and do so appropriately, there is more interactivity between party members and between your party and PC, there is an acknowledgement of time progression and plot points.

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.

Environments are re-used, true, but Kirkwall itself did not feel or look lifeless.  The ambient chatter and noise was more varied, there were small creative details that Origins lacked.

Side quests not meaning anything- well that's why they're called side quests.  Feel free to skip them.  They fill in color of the environment and roleplay possibilities.

[kingjamesjr1]

Destrega wrote...

The 10 year narrative thing didn't bother me much.
What did bother me about it was that apparently your character did absolutely nothing in between these years that you didn't have control over him.
No extra gold, or a new paintjob on his estate... anything?? Really? Companions hint at things they did, but they didn't even bother to attempt to fill in these gaps for the sake of keeping the consistency of the story going.

It really did feel more like 3 parts of a DLC/Smaller game campaigns slapped together, which to be honest might have been a better idea to go with than this.

what makes a good rpg nowadays i certain enjoy dao which i love i just don't understand if it not broke why change it da2 is not change it a step back imo

Modifié par kingjamesjr1, 14 mars 2011 - 02:39 .

[_Cheveyo]

Upset Goldfish wrote...

toggled wrote...

Brenus wrote...

You pretty much summed up every criticism that people have about this game, yet no, Bioware refuse to comment or acknowledge them, and the herp derp blind sheep that follow the game keep on saying that no valid criticisms are being raised as to why this game is bad.

Both bioware and their newfound fans have gone completely blind and senseless to video game quality.  

Bioware has commented on the criticism - see the Eurogamer interview:

http://www.eurogamer...ge-ii-interview

Mr. Laidlaw circles the wagons and claims that anyone who doesn't like Dragon Age 2 simply hates change. He also justifies recycling areas with the 'less is more' argument.

We hate change? Oh my. 

Mr. Laidlaw, people can hate change. But you have to remember, change is like a coin, it has two faces. One face is good, whilst one face is bad. This time around, you lost the coin toss.

I for one, am not opposed to change if it BENEFITS the player experience. For example, the fact you can delete all your junk in one go, as opposed to manually removing each individual piece. THAT IS GOOD CHANGE.

But removing the voiceless character to bring in the Mass Effect-style dialogue wheel was not a beneficial change, and hampered my playing experience. 

In addition, a sequel should build on the strengths of the original. DA:O was a tactics-oriented homage to older RPG's like Baldurs gate, and having a voiceless protagonist allowed you to place yourself in the role of the hero, as opposed to Hawke, who is just another character. Since DAII is a sequel to this, the same formula should have been applied. Instead, you now have Dynasty Warriors Dragon Age. In essence, you have almost changed the game genre.

Imagine the outcry that would be had if Mass Effect 3 had no voiced Shepard, no dialogue wheel, and the ability to switch between party members. People enjoy Mass Effect for the way it is already built. In ME2, you built upon the same structure, and it worked well (with the exception of thermal clips). Just because one style of gameplay is good for one series, doesn't mean it's good for another.

And if future "change" means re-using environments, bland textures, a jumpy narrative which leaves the player almost confused, poor customisation and an ultimately shallow RPG experience, then I feel that I can say definitively that I dislike change.

I like what you say, at first I liked the idea of the voiced character. Then I played the game I get your point.

[Naitaka]

Op, you missed the myriad of game stopping bugs that show obvious lack of proper QA. Even though Bioware's game always plagued by some bugs. This is the first time that their game has so many bugs that could easily have been found just by playing through the game normally.

Modifié par Naitaka, 14 mars 2011 - 02:22 .

[Stanley Woo]

I am rather pleasantly surprised by the debate in this thread. Please keep it up, and let's please not allow name-calling, swearing, or insults to ruin what I consider to be one of the more reasonable threads in this forum. THank you, everyone.

[Braag]

I agree with OP. It's not a bad game however, I still enjoyed it. But it could have been in a really great game like Origins was if it was given more time. I liked the new combat system in DA2 but so many other aspects of it was rushed to get it out sooner... sad :/

[kingjamesjr1]

Ramtaku wrote...

I'm in complete agreement with the OPs points regarding issues with DA2.

What I haven't seen in the responses is any reference to the reality that this is all about corporate culture and not game development.

The game was "streamlined" for mass launch on all popular game platforms in order to maximize profits and reduce costs (Development time = costs, restructuring a PC game for consoles = time).

Corporate entities (EA - Laidlaw) don't care about the quality of your experience, whether or not this is a worthy successor to DAO or whether or not you can put armor on your companions. EA cares about profit and Bioware is now a wholly owned subsidiary of EA.

Laidlaw's interview wasn't "Laidlaw" - it was his communication of the corporate talking points developed by a staff in response to reported issues with DA2.

There are bar charts at EA tracking sales by platform and that's all they care about.

Nothing said here is going to change the development cycle timeline that they're now forcing the Bioware staff to follow.

EA: We've got to get the revenue for DA2 into the books for the first Quarter, when can you have it done?
BW: "Ummm, we've finished a lot of the dialog sequences and the character models are awesome, but we've only finished 10% of the content.
EA: Are you saying you need more time *disgust*, we need to get it out there NOW and if you can't do it I'll find someone else who can!!!
BW: I guess we could use the content we have over and over again and limit armor modifications to the main character...
EA: Perfect!


If you reduce development costs to a great enough extent you can release crap and still make a profit.

I always liked Bioware, but that's just a name now and obviously has no relationship to the quality of the product. Bioware = EA.

It would be false to say I'll never buy an EA game again; however, I will never buy one at launch again and without reading a lot of consumer reviews. I also will tell people that haven't bought DA2 yet not to buy it because it's way not worth the money.

EA got me this time because of my previous experiences with Bioware, they won't get me again because I don't and will never again trust their products or their statements about their products. Only time will tell whether or not losing that trust was worth getting the $60 out of us.

That was the best response i heard on this forum beside the creator of this issue i give Two thumbs up because I feel the exact same way as u feel   That got me this time but i will never buy another title until i read on it from the consumers point of view i never trust the editor reviews Because have of them are biased when it comes to certain games. which dragon age doesn't deserve a 8.5 game rating more like 7.0-7.5 tops

[Gorescream]

Timeskipping leaves no room for emotional entanglement.

Modifié par Gorescream, 14 mars 2011 - 02:21 .

[FlyingWalrus]

I hate the lost and found side quests. For sure, I wouldn't mind them AT ALL if you were ASKED to look out for these lost objects and didn't just "happen" upon them AND the owners as well. A little preliminary dialogue goes a long way you know.

On the other hand, I've enjoyed most of the "real" side quests so far.

Most of the OP's grievances are based on opinions and nothing more; your mileage may vary. I agree with some points, but I disagree with most. I don't even know how you can complain about the UI. Now you can comparatively gauge your group's toughness at a glance, it still shows their current action, and it still has a portrait. They made it less cumbersome by making it so that it didn't take up the whole left side of your screen. Complaining about the UI is just reaching.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 14 mars 2011 - 02:27 .

[Fafner_Ni]

I agree. While i really enjoyed parts of the game, i couldn't get the "What if?s" out of my head. It could of been so much more.

[kingjamesjr1]

Bebbe777 wrote...

So based on what we've seen and if BW continues on the same path, DA3 and ME3 is gonna be crap

Nods

[Apechild]

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.

Environments are re-used, true, but Kirkwall itself did not feel or look lifeless.  The ambient chatter and noise was more varied, there were small creative details that Origins lacked.

Compare Kirkwall, which is apparently a busy city, to the city in the Witcher ...well the difference is enormous. There are crowds who act & react to each other, random pedestrians, guards patrolling...Kirkwall feels lifeless in comparison. The merchants stand behind their stalls and wave at thin air, gesturing to the silence to examine their wears. Guards stand at their posts... no patrols, nothing. Pedestrians don't exist, just static NPCs crouched in groups or standing by a wall not even moving! You can't interact with them, they don't run if a fight erupts...they just stand there, unmoving.

Side quests not meaning anything- well that's why they're called side quests.  Feel free to skip them.  They fill in color of the environment and roleplay possibilities.

I tried to skip a side quest. I had some rumour and I was asked indialogue if I would go and do something. I clicked on the 'No' option, the one with the big red cross next to it. Next thing I know I'm not allowed to carry on with the main quest because I have to tie up the lose ends before I go... this side quest. I didn't accept it on purpose but suddenly I have to go and do it! I checked to see if it was under my main quests...nope, definitely a side quest. Whether that was a bug or not I don't know but I did not enjoy wasting 30 minutes on a quest I did not want to do when I wanted to continue with the main storyline.

Modifié par Apechild, 14 mars 2011 - 02:26 .