SupR G wrote...
It's pretty common for gamers to so easily and aggressively turn against a popular developer when something doesn't go their way. You might call them names, hell I can think of a few, but really what's the point. Lemmings come and go.
Honestly, Dragon Age 2 is no innovation, it's really just implementing many of the streamlining changes that Mass Effect 2 improved on it's predecessor. So we can hardly call it revolutionary. But is it an improvement on DA:O? Absolutely. DA:O had a great story, almost too great, and barely left any room at all for a proper sequel. At least Mass Effect was written to be a trilogy.
A story doesn't need to end with the slaying of an Archdemon to be great. Dragon Age 2 isn't about saving the world, it's about Hawke and the events that surrounded his rise to become the Champion. Bioware has spoiled you QQbears into believing the only good story is one that involves some seemingly unstoppable supervillain, and now you can't settle for anything less.
This is an oft-repeated assumption, and one that inevitably gets thrown up any time someone mentions they enjoyed a more epic storyline.
It's absolutely true that story doesn;t need a big bad to be great. What it does need, however, is reason to be interested. If you're not going to have a world-threatening menace that the player needs to handle for the good of all, another reason justifying the epic tale needs to be put forward. DA2, in this case, lacked such a reason. Hawke has no real motivation for what he's doing, beyond the fact that he sits at the bottom of the food chain and he has nowt better to be doing. The simple lack of an epic evil destorying the world doesn't somehow make the story 'better', and I'm tired of hearing people imply this.
Make no mistake, an RPG can do away with such epic threats and still have a cracking story. Just look at NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer. No giant world-ending evils there. As you say, it doesn't need to end with killing the big bad guy to be a great story. What it does need, however, is
motivation, and one long yarn banging on about how a nobody occupied his time constructively over 10 years listening to the exact same thing we heard in the first game doesn't cut it.
So story aside, Dragon Age 2 redesigned Thedas with far more imagination then it's predecessor. Qunari and Elves have a defined look, Flemeth looks spectacular, armor and clothing looks amazing and more detailed. Companions feels like actual people instead of tools for Hawke to use. They have their own unique armors and you can't force them to be something outside their character. For example, making Wynne into a Blood Mage Arcane Warrior with plate armor in DA:O. It made no sense. Complain about freedom of control all you want, but then don't complain the character's don't add up. You can't have it both ways.
This is fundementally flawed, for several reasons. For one thing, stated one has been designed with more imagination is a little difficult to justify. What do you think needed the more imagination - the design of an epic quest into the bowls of the earth to find what happened to a huge dwarven expedition, or the fact that the qunari have all sprouted horns? Setting the entirety of the game in a city that is about as distinct as slice of bread isn't an example of 'imagination', it's an example of overlooking what made the first game great.
The point about the freedom to make Wynne a armour-plated malifecar doesn't really make sense. I don't recall anyone honestly saying that the freedom to craft characters into whatever you wanted was a 'bad' thing. If someone chose to do daft stuff like this then it's their own fault.
The simple fact of the matter here is, there is very little wrong with DA:2. It is a worthy successor, and fixes many of the issues DA:O had. Cherry picking little problems and annoyances, stating obvious changes you knew about for months, and then claiming all the fans hate DA:2 and that it failed is a great way to sound like an ignorant lemming. And before you continue your senseless ranting, keep in mind if they had made DA:O Part 2, there would be just as many, if not more people QQing.
Changes were made. Many, many of us love them. Deal with it and move on. DA:O is over and done with.
This is no more a fact than claiming that one platform is better than another. Purely opinion. The actual *fact* of the matter is that DA2 is a very different game to it's predecessor. Change isn't inherently a bad thing and I certainly don't mean to say that DA2 is an awful game, it certainly isn't. The point is, however, DA:O pulled in a lot of fans because of how it presented the fictional world. DA2 has gone down a totally different path for apparently no more reason than for the lolz. A lot of what people enjoyed about the first game was modified and changed for apparently no other reason than the developers felt like doing it. To assume that everyone will be perfectly accepting of such major changes is foolish at best and downright idiotic at worst.
As I say, I enjoyed DA2. But I enjoyed it in spite of a lot of the changes, not because of them. Aside from combat and mass effect style dialogue, the rest of the modifications bioware made were essentially a waste of time. I found it difficult to care about Hawke since I had no idea who he is, I found it difficult to care about the story since it seemed to just rehash everything already mentioned about the Chantry/Mage conflict I'd already heard, and I found it difficult to care about my team as, instead of a crazy bunch of assassins, ornithophobic golems, wisecracking princes, emo witches and stoic qunari badasses, I had a team half the size, with one half being quite interesting and the other about as interesting as a glass of water.
DA2 is no disaster. But please don't act as if it's masterpiece simply for being different to Origins.
Guest_Fandango_*
Retour en haut
