2797 réponses à ce sujet

[Turran]

The one thing that just gets me is:
Story:
You sold Dragon Age: Origins as a new darker fantasy game and by the love of god it was! The areas, the feel to every move just felt so dark and emotional. The characters and races were all realistic to a certain degree which added to the darkness of the game.

Dragon Age 2 kind of took that and threw it out of the window, you tried to make the game dark, but lacked the emotional depth to actually successfully pull it off. The begining of the game is a great example, I don't know these people.. Why should I care that (Avoiding spoilers) happened to them?
Family was touched on in Dragon Age: Origins, in the origin stories, nearly every story touched on the family subject, one of the most powerful being the Human Noble! You did get a connection to the family around you and the ending was tragic but in DA2 it just seemed hollow.

Now finally, my biggest moan and grumble about this game.. Why did you change (Retcon or whatever) the races? I thought the Qunari and Elves looked amazing in the first game! It all looked so realistic and fitting, Sten didn't need horns and to be purple to look good and an angry guy! He was a bloody giant that stood out from the crowd, you wouldn't mess with them. The Elves resembled Humans with pointy ears, with smaller bodies and such, but that also made the game seem so much darker. It was racism against something that looked nearly perfectly the same as them, it was dark and deep. (And Flemeth! What did you do with her!? Why does she look so.. Disney Evil Witch instead of Dragon Age All-Powerful Hag?!). I just feel like changing the races in the 'second' game was a HUGE mistake.

To me personally in DA2 it looks rather cartoonified RPG. In trailers and dev commentary things you had said you wanted to take the game off in a new direction, as you were successful so didn't want to just keep selling the same thing over and over. Which is fine! But it honestly felt like you took the game and instead of tweaking it. You just blew up the Dragon Age Universe and completly changed it, which I don't think is the right way of going about it.

Moan over!
P.S. Don't get me wrong, you did some things right in the game! You really did, but unfortunatly for me the bad-outweigh the good.

[atheelogos]

Hey David I loved the game and all, but one thing that stands out and bugs me is the fact your brother/sister has to die in the beginning. I'm not sure why you guys went this route. Hawke has known this person for 18 years, but I haven't no them for more than 10 minutes. Why should I care that they died?

The only way this death has any meaning is if you get to know the Character that died by replaying the game with a class where they live. Only then will you miss them.

What would have been much better is if they both lived but where still taken away from you. For example your mother only lets you take 1 sibling with you on the deep roads expedition. For me lets say I choose to leave Bethany and bring Carver. Carver becomes and Grey Warden and leaves for most of the game, and Bethany is taken to the Circle upon your return. That would hurt a lot more than some silly death at the beginning that didn't mean anything.

And then at the end of the game Hawke and Carver make peace and they run across Bethany on there way to stop the Templars. The three children of Hawke marching on the Gallows would have been a much better story imo. Still love the game though. : )

[The_11thDoctor]

Packofpickledpeppers wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

WOW! LOL! That sums up combat perfectly for me too for the most part.

[Grissium]

atheelogos wrote...

Hey David I loved the game and all, but one thing that stands out and bugs me is the fact your brother/sister has to die in the beginning. I'm not sure why you guys went this route. Hawke has known this person for 18 years, but I haven't no them for more than 10 minutes. Why should I care that they died?

The only way this death has any meaning is if you get to know the Character that died by replaying the game with a class where they live. Only then will you miss them.

What would have been much better is if they both lived but where still taken away from you. For example your mother only lets you take 1 sibling with you on the deep roads expedition. For me lets say I choose to leave Bethany and bring Carver. Carver becomes and Grey Warden and leaves for most of the game, and Bethany is taken to the Circle upon your return. That would hurt a lot more than some silly death at the beginning that didn't mean anything.

And then at the end of the game Hawke and Carver make peace and they run across Bethany on there way to stop the Templars. The three children of Hawke marching on the Gallows would have been a much better story imo. Still love the game though. : )

I don't know if I completely agree with this, but I do agree that the intro of your family was a little odd.  I liked having them around and it was really new and interesting to me.  The problem was I think, to get the sense of who they were and Hawke's relationship to them I had to read the codex entry on them.  But in the end I did become very fiercely loyal to Bethany more because I read that in the codex than anything else.  I'm glad I did, it made the game more interesting (If the big bad had said "we will kill all the mages, except for Bethany and her apprentences of course the Hawkes are a strong family and no corruption runs through them, what say you champion" I wiould have sided with the Templars right then.  My only concern at the end of the game was Bethany, I only turned against the Templars because Bethany would have been killed to).

I dunno, on one hand you do need to get the plot moving and what not, so a long intro with the family may have been a bad idea.  But on the other having a little more of the family dynamic come out somehow may have been a good idea.  I didn't read the codex about Carver on my second play through, so I was really confused why he was being such a DB to me when I was trying to be nice to him.  Maybe a little bit of a soft open in Lothering, where you and your bro (if you played a Warrior like I did) march off to Ostigar and the Hawke ladies say goodbye to you, cut to you fleeing back into town all bloody just ahead of the horde would have been a good idea.  /shrug

[Systera]

Really nice pictures bEVEsthda. How comes that I get such a familiar feeling:P
Alhtough I think there still too less blood included.

Modifié par Systera, 02 avril 2011 - 03:08 .

[Bizantura]

I played as a roque and mage, started the warrior but already sucked back to ME 1 an 2 because of the arrival dlc. I would give DA2 a rating of 7/10. For me it feels like a hack and slash with a desperate tagging on of RPG features to it to try to appease the DAO fan base. The game couldn't even speak to my emotions or immerse me into the story if you could call it that. I couldn't care for my caracter nor my compagnions much. Since I only paid half the price for my signature edition to the original DAO, I don't feel all that bad about it, but this is defenetly not a BIOWARE quality product.
BIOWARE has defenetly the right to make casual games without my consent because I do understand that not every game should be deep and difficult to be enjoyable and there are a lot of casual gamers out there. On the other hand I do expect them to be honest about it. I hope ME3 will have the same quality as ME1 and 2 to end the trilogy in an BIOWARE known fashion and not 3 or 4 hours single gameplay and the rest an online fragfest. If you must do it after ME3 please. Concerning DA3 I will wait for a review first because I do think the choise is made to go casual route from now on, becoming shorter gameplay, action packed and story shallower. The common denominater of success rules!!!! Sad but true.

[Frumyfrenzy]

Some remarks concerning the UI, codex, questlog etc.:
 
I always thought that a good UI should resemble the game's world, in terms of colors, art and fonts. Dragon Age 2's UI could be improved on in these regards. For instance, I'd like to see a note/letter looking like an actual note/letter. The questlog/journal and codex should be something we see our main character interact with. If we'd like to read the codex/journal/letter/notes our main character should be shown holding it in his/her hands and reading it, possibly even voiced. I'd like Bioware to put as many of those things as possible into the game's world for our main character to interact with. From a immersion point of view this would make a huge difference.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

One more thing to add. Hawke's dialog.

Anders: I need a place to stay.
Hawke: (Non-committal response reads something to the effect of "Ok I guess") We'll live together until we die!

Was Stephanie Meyer on your writing team? Really it seemed a lot of things Hawke said were just, grating from a players standpoint. I'm not even going to get into the endgame conversation with Anders if you take the diplomatic(see teenage girl) approach. It's like Hawke has the memory of a goldfish.

[Jenova65]

Those blood pictures are one of my biggest issues with the game.. Why have a button to turn off persistent gore when ^ THAT still happens the only difference as far as I can see is no blood on the face......
Far, far too much blood in the game, it's daft.. you aren't Sam Peckinpah..
If you want that much blood fine, just have a button to turn it off that works for those of us who think it is silly and ruins immersion by being literally a blood bath.

[HawXV2]

Packofpickledpeppers wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Idiot. If you have nothing productive to say, get out and don't come back.

[stwu]

BarroomHero555 wrote...

 I finished the game several days ago and have taken the last few days to attempt to compose my thoughts into something besides spewing vitriol or blind praise and instead coming up with some constructive criticism.  I am glad to see that the OP and many others on this thread have done just that and I am even happier that one of the devs chose to acknowledge this.  Now as to my complaints/suggestions:

1.The Lack of Meningful Choices- In my opinion the most important part of an RPG game is being able to make choices that have a real impact upon the story as well as the enviroment that the story takes place in.  Both of these are lacking in Dragon Age 2.  The story is largely linear in nature, beyond being able to spare/kill a few random npc's that really have no bearing upon the way the major plotline plays out , you are really restricted as to how the story is told.  Even which party members live or die really does little to affect the overall narative.  I was under the impression that the entire purpose of having a game that takes place over 10 years(really 7) was that you would be able to make important decisions and see how they affect the city of kirkwall over the years.  This really is not the case, kirkwall's zones remain static over the years and leave you feeling like you really aren't accomplishing much.  Another thing i found strange is that despite supposedly charting your "rise to power" the story really didn't give you any power.  Despite becoming Champion and supposedly the most influential man in the city you are still left basically being an errand boy for the 2 major factions.  When you decide to support one of the 2 factions at the end it really is just giving them the support of a powerful combatant and a few of his friends, not the broad based political support you would expect to bring to the table as the city's most influential noble.  I feel like it would have made the game much more compelling if rather than simply choosing one side or the other at the end, you instead were able to create your own powerbase through contacts with individual mages, templars, nobles,merchants, mercenaries, guards, mages, thieves, commoners, elves and immigrants and every other party I have forgotten that is interested in the fate of kirkwall.  Depending on how you interacted and invested your gold among all of these different groups of people you could build a unique power base and thus a unique position from which to make that final decision and that decision would have a different impact, and thus cause the game to end in subtly different ways in the same manner that origins did.  It would set up a number of fascinating either/or type missions that I think would be much better than many of the go here kill this type quests the game contains.  I feel like all of that could have been accomplished without forcing the writers to drastically change the narrative that they want to carry over into future games, namely that Hawke was at the heart of how the world came to the brink of war.  I apologize if that all seems unnecessarily vague im trying to avoid any spoilers. 

2. Combat-  I do not have the overarching concerns that many people seem to have about the increased pace and more action packed nature of combat.  I actually found the sped up combat rather enjoyable .  The lack of a top down camera was somewhat irritating but certainly not game breaking.  I do have a problem with the waves of enemies "droping" in.  It just seems like a somewhat inelegant solution to increasing the difficulty and length of encounters.  I'm not saying I am against the idea of waves as a whole(really im indifferent to it) just how they are implemented.  I think it would be much better if the new spawns always came through a doorway or archway, that way you could have respawns but for those that like tactical battle play you would at least know that enemies were going to spawn in a specific location and be able to take that into account as you laid your plans.

3. The inability to resolve the vast majority of quests without violence- This is meant to be a violent game and obviously combat is going to be an enormous part of conflict resolution.  I understand and even enjoy that.  That being said i was disapointed how rare being able to choose another option was.  A specific quest comes to mind near the end of the game that I have seen other people reference as well.  You are tasked to investigate a conspiracy, a conspiracy that I involves people that I in fact wanted to support, but rather than being able to show up and choose to aid them or at least let them go, I am forced to slaughter all of them without even being able to explain myself.  This struck me as very disjointed.  I had made my preferences quite clear prior to this quest yet the conspirators reactions to my presence were immediately hostile.

4. Companions- I actually quite liked a lot of the interactions with my companions.  I found the banter between the different party members particularly strong.  Having said that there were some things that I felt were of the mark.  For one i missed being able to talk with my party members any time I wanted as was possible in DA:O.  I think a combination method might have been better where I could still talk to my companions whenever I wanted but they would get a quest marker whenever they had a quest or unique conversation option.  I found it really irritating to not be able to adjust my companions equipment when i was in my mansion as was possible at the camp in DA:O .  It seemed clunky that I would have to leave the mansion and select the party member whose gear I wanted to swap out.  In terms of the lack of being able to customize my companions armor I am divided.  On the one hand I appreciate each companion having a unique style, but on the other I miss having the choices that Origins gave us.  I feel it might have been better if you could customize your characters but each character would apear differently wearing the different armor pieces you gave them thus maintaining their unique style.  The only other complaints I have were making the only healer the most controversial character in the game to keep in your party.  And the inexplicable fact that after you finish Merril's quest chain she never talks to you about it despite the horrible things that may have happened.   I would also like more control over how the companions quest chains play out, but as you have seen I am pretty much always a proponent for more player choice rather than less.

5. Repitition of enviroments-Not much I can say on this other than has already been said by others.  I would be more forgiving of this fault if the quests were a bit more unique and consequential and we were able to, by our actions, change those enviroments. I have already addressed that though so I won't rehash the same arguments again.

That about sums up my feelings about how the game could be improved.  I would like to say that DA 2 is not a terrible game by any means.  Admittedly my first reaction upon finishing the game was disappointment but that was more because of a feeling of lost potential than that it was an unmitigated failure.  It is an ok game probably 7.5/10.  The reason Bioware is seeing such a backlash on these forums is that we as gamers  hold them to a higher standard given what they have done before.  We have a feeling that O.K. is just not good enough for them.  No one is complains when a C student makes a C effort but when the valedictorian does people are disapointed.  That should not shock anyone.  I just hope that the developers read some of these posts that level legitamate criticism in the so that they might consider it for in future games and DLC and that they don't get bogged down among all of the hyperbole and rage that many other posts contain.

You Ser are a genius. I agree wholeheartedly with your thorough review.


My other beef is the fact that they made everyone bi. The fact of the matter is that was a cheap, character demeaning thing to do. Bioware needs to relook at Origins and start there for DA3.

[Dormiglione]

Please excuse my bad english, its not my native language.
Here my 2 cents to the discussion. DAO is a real RPG, its pure magic. I think i made 10 playthroughs, bought every DLC and enjoyed it. Im not saying that DAO is a perfect game, it has its bugs and story flaws aswell. But it has alot of major and minor decisions that i can make:
- Tower of the mages: Annulment or Save the first enchanter
- Brezilian Forest: Kill all elves or free witherfang
- Quest for the andrastes ashes: side with the fanatics or kill them

DAO2 has no real choices. Example: Shepherding wolves
Do you have a choice to escort the qunari mage? No, it doesnt matter what you choose. You have to escort the qunari to the coast.

In DAO you had 6 different openings. Ok, as i saw that there were 6 different openings i thought by myself "an absolute overkill, how can Bioware make DA2? How can a sequel handle this 6 different characters and stories?"
So we see the result in DA2, they put the warden aside and started with a new hero. I understand this decision, but im not happy about that.

I mean, what had happened if Mass Effect 2 started with a complete new Hero and a complete new crew. Old shepard's story were just imported and affected the story like it is in Dragon Age 2. What do you say, acceptable? And dont come along to tell me that this is a complete other thing. No, its absolute the same.

So there is no wonder that alot player of DAO are disappointed that the story of her/his warden was thrown away.
Dragon Age 2 is not a mediocre game, its a good game. I mean, close the eyes, forget DAO for a moment and compare it with other RPG that you have played. You have to admit, that Dragon Age 2 is a good game. The problem is, that Dragon Age 2 is in the shadow of DAO.

In Dragon Age 2 you have only the choice between human male/female and 3 classes warrior, rouge, mage. Focusing on this restriction Bioware could have made much more with these characters, but they decided to give an odd opening for all three classes.
Just imagine this opening. Carver stated that they were fleeing from Ostagar. You started the story in Ostagar in the middle of the fight, you were there realizing that Logain betrayed the Cailan. You fight your way from Ostagar back to Lothering, to meet your sister and your mother. At least this scenario would have give a proper introduction for all DAO player.

Fast forward, we arrived in Kirkwall. Now there, Bioware had the Opportunity to give each of this three classes a own story, specific missions, another story board for the warrior, rogue and mage. Sure, in the end all three stories joint together to same end. Instead, it doesnt matter if you are a warrior, rogue or mage. Its allways the same story. Why should i replay the game once i finished it?
I could continue for hours writing down my ideas, what i like and what i dislike.

Bioware, i really hope that you read all the player reviews. We wouldnt post, if we didnt care about this game.

Modifié par Dormiglione, 02 avril 2011 - 06:56 .

[glibmongo]

Dormiglione wrote...

Please excuse my bad english, its not my native language.
Here my 2 cents to the discussion. DAO is a real RPG, its pure magic. I think i made 10 playthroughs, bought every DLC and enjoyed it. Im not saying that DAO is a perfect game, it has its bugs and story flaws aswell. But it has alot of major and minor decisions that i can make:
- Tower of the mages: Annulment or Save the first enchanter
- Brezilian Forest: Kill all elves or free witherfang
- Quest for the andrastes ashes: side with the fanatics or kill them

DAO2 has no real choices. Example: Shepherding wolves
Do you have a choice to escort the qunari mage? No, it doesnt matter what you choose. You have to escort the qunari to the coast.

In DAO you had 6 different openings. Ok, as i saw that there were 6 different openings i thought by myself "an absolute overkill, how can Bioware make DA2? How can a sequel handle this 6 different characters and stories?"
So we see the result in DA2, they put the warden aside and started with a new hero. I understand this decision, but im not happy about that.

I mean, what had happened if Mass Effect 2 started with a complete new Hero and a complete new crew. Old shepard's story were just imported and affected the story like it is in Dragon Age 2. What do you say, acceptable? And dont come along to tell me that this is a complete other thing. No, its absolute the same.

So there is no wonder that alot player of DAO are disappointed that the story of her/his warden was thrown away.
Dragon Age 2 is not a mediocre game, its a good game. I mean, close the eyes, forget DAO for a moment and compare it with other RPG that you have played. You have to admit, that Dragon Age 2 is a good game. The problem is, that Dragon Age 2 is in the shadow of DAO.

In Dragon Age 2 you have only the choice between human male/female and 3 classes warrior, rouge, mage. Focusing on this restriction Bioware could have made much more with these characters, but they decided to give an odd opening for all three classes.
Just imagine this opening. Carver stated that they were fleeing from Ostagar. You started the story in Ostagar in the middle of the fight, you were there realizing that Logain betrayed the Cailan. You fight your way from Ostagar back to Lothering, to meet your sister and your mother. At least this scenario would have give a proper introduction for all DAO player.

Fast forward, we arrived in Kirkwall. Now there, Bioware had the Opportunity to give each of this three classes a own story, specific missions, another story board for the warrior, rogue and mage. Sure, in the end all three stories joint together to same end. Instead, it doesnt matter if you are a warrior, rogue or mage. Its allways the same story. Why should i replay the game once i finished it?
I could continue for hours writing down my ideas, what i like and what i dislike.

Bioware, i really hope that you read all the player reviews. We wouldnt post, if we didnt care about this game.

Yeah what he said! 

[Get Magna Carter]

finally got an HDMI cable to link my Xbox360 to my recently purchased HD TV and was finally able to read the red text. Many people still do not have this and dark coloured text is not clear against a black background.  Bioware already had complaints over Mass effect 2 so should have been ready for this.

The QA process needs to be tightened up to prevent problems like Merril's act 3 sequencing making the final release.  (This was the only error I spotted that was this big others intermitent, subtle or needing a guide to realise something different should have happen, or just minor presentation)..though the credits blacking out halfway through was not good even though it did not affect the gameplay)

Generally team-based RPGs need a 'save the "world" ' plot (where "world" can be anything from a small country to the entirity of creation) as motivation. Dragon Age 2 seems to be on the border of this and the solo-RPG but for those you either need player freedom or some clear motivation.
Personally, I see it about Hawke losing one home to the blight and trying to find a replacement in grandad's home in Kirkwall and then trying to protect this new home from destruction in 2 crisis but without any alternative course of action available this should be spelt out rather than left to the players' immaginations and speculations.

I'm not certain whether it's just me not being very good or is there a balance problem for a player rogue against the ogre (I had Bethany specced as a healer and Carver as my main damage-dealer) or solo-ing against the Arishok.  (there were only 3 fights I gave up on normal and went casual on - the other being the end of forbidden knowledge)

On Varric's narration, the bit at the beginning  to give players a taste of what they would be able to do later was a good idea (and the crossbow scene was enjoyable too) but other than that the only purposes it served was to set up the ending and as an excuse for continuity errors and time jumps (the suggestion of instantly showing the consequences of player's choices first requires choices significant enough that aren't at the climax).

I will add that I am personally annoyed at people who object to games being too similar and complain if games are significantly different.  Partially, because of the resulting no-win situation but also that I do not think there is anything wrong with either.
A sequel is expected to be more of the same and there is nothing wrong to that.  If you have a good process for design don't let yourself be put off by fools accusing you of being cliched by doing it.
And don't be afraid to experiment with something different.  Sure, it won't always work but when it does it is worth it and nobody should criticise you for trying.

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 02 avril 2011 - 10:04 .

[Woodstock-TC]

one thing to add which i forgot in my last post:

+++ male Hawk model : looks fantastic .. remembers me of a "300" spartan. very forceful presence !
+++ female Hawk model : terrific, gorgeous, feminine but dangerous.. ! Voice over fits perfectly.
First time i didnt customized the appearance ever in a game, neither fro female nor malehawk. Kudos to the designer.

br,
wood

Modifié par Woodstock-TC, 02 avril 2011 - 10:22 .

[MoneyDeluxe]

A take on companion customization


The abililty to equip and design your companions within the constraint the game can offer, and be expanded upon by mods, is paramount to any roleplaying experience.
It empowers the player to draft and customize entire scenes and character interaction through the subtle alteration of armor/clothes and weapons each able to convey a narrative that wasn't originally offered but nonetheless it allows the player to draft it anyway.
It thereby greatly encourages multiple playthroughs, just as any customization can.
This coupled with a strong narrative, a given by bioware, enhances the "fantasy" aspect of the genre, just like people would imagine a character in a book in multiple ways each having their own idea of him, even though the orginal narratvie does not differ.
Just think about the hundreds of ways Tolkiens "Lord of the rings" and characters therein were imagined, customization works similiarly only on a much smaller scale.

Also it ties in with the original RPG gameplay of finding better gear and more appealing armor/weapons and the reward in seeing your character as well as your companions evolve through their struggle to come out as hardened veterans with great gear that convey this.

Constraining the companions on one or less then a handful ot outfits may give the idea of them being more independent from the player, living their "own" lifes so to speak but frankly that's not the point.
Never ones did I feel that the great characters from Sten to Alistair,Morrigan and so forth were somehow diminished by my abililty to alter their appearance, quite the opposite in fact.
In this case I have to admit I look at it from the visual narrative standpoint and I hold the firm stance that taking this empowerment to make subtle,personal alterations to the narrative away from the player reduces the replay value of the game and its unique offer that no other genre can provide.

I'd like to demonstrate this through ME2:

First we have the orignal composition:


And the alteration:


Doesn't say much by just looking at it but in gameplay this change affects tonality of dialog, atmosphere of scenes and even intent that's displayed. It's quite effective within the constraint the narrative allows.
In this case it is the affiliation that Shepard has with Cerberus that allows the customization to take effect.
The same is true for Dragon Age.


In conclusion I would love to see the return of customization in the next Dragon Age, since it offers a unique take on narrative and player participation in it that is often overlooked.


                                                                                                  
Just to show that people go to great lengths for this:
DA2:
http://www.dragonage.../categories.php
http://social.biowar...-6717097-1.html
http://social.biowar...index/6523705/3
ME2:
http://social.biowar.../1547/#comments

Modifié par MoneyDeluxe, 02 avril 2011 - 10:55 .

[GraciousCat]

Modifié par GraciousCat, 02 avril 2011 - 11:47 .

[savealot]

Thank you Bioware.  As a longtime fan I own and have played  nearly all of your games. One of my favorites has clearly been DAO. It took an investment in time and some patience before i became completely engrossed  in  the game world. Maybe this is what Mike Laidlaw recently called "the barrior to entry" of Orgins that  turned off many  casual or would be players. DA2 was a no-brainer for me... i pre-ordered as soon as was possible. I cleared my schedule and prepared for another epic experience from the finest maker of games on the planet..There was no
'barrior to entry" into DA2. it was responsive,flashy, different than Orgins in many ways.  Orgins felt like a full meal to me... DA2 felt like a sugary sweet snack. I was deeply disapointed in DA2, many of the flaws i see in it are mentioned in this thread along with many suggestions for improvement of both DA2 And for the next Dragon Age game so i will not mention them again, however, i love constructive threads such as this one because experience has shown that you do listen to your fans.

[Nemis-Roidsavelt]

 

angry joe describes the game well.

[TEWR]

another thing I miss. Random encounters.

In DA:O you're traveling across the country and you can be attacked by bandits, werewolves, angry dwarves, darkspawn. This gave the sense that you were in a real, lifelike, and vivid world where any moment the unexpected can occur.

Here, the only "random" encounters you face are scripted. a confrontation with Slavers bent on bringing Fenris back to Danarius, mercenaries hired to impede your progress to get Saemus back from the Qunari Compound.

If I'm going to be traveling between 4 main areas (which is too little a number. An island, another city and a dense forest would've been welcome to travel to) then it only makes sense to have some random encounters that I will have to face.

[Ginkasa]

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but I wanted to throw my two cents in about it also.  My biggest issue with DAII were the moments where we skipped drastically forward in time.  It was very jarring and, in a couple instances, made me feel that I was actually missing something semi-important.  Obviously, the game was designed to have that section be skipped, but I play Bioware games for the immersion and skipping three years ahead ruined that.

I do, however, really like the idea of a game that spans a long period of time.  I also understand that it can be somewhat difficult to convey the passage of time without having to actually pass that time.  I was thinking about this the other day and thought of a possibly solution.  My problem was that everything that was apparently important enough for me to see all happened, in my mind, within a few days and then we'd jump forward three years and then I'd see another day or two, etc.  I think the story missions should be spread out more across the span of time and also be designated by how much time passes after or whatnot.

The best I can think to this is to create a "quest timeline."  The main story missions would be clearly labelled and given a specific date on this timeline.  They would be immobile as story quests.  Everything else, though (character quests, side quests, etc.), would be a little more flexible.  I can see two options depending on how flexible you would want to be with these quests.  Really minor quests could be completely timeline free.  You could do them at any point and they wouldn't be given a date or anything.  The larger quests (but not story quests) could have a time span attached to them.  One quest could last a day or another a week.  They may also have restrictions into which section of the timeline they could be done.  Each time the player completes one of these quests, the timeline moves a little closer to the next story mission (which could be days or months or years in advance) until they reach it.  Or, if the player chose, they could also skip the sidequests and jump straight to that story mission (thereby jumping forward in time).

Simple as a visual technique I think this would do really well at creating the perception of time passing.  It would lessen the impact of seeing "three years later."  I also think, however, that it could be used as an effective gameplay tool to insert a little more realism into the game in terms of time.  Rather than having enough time to do absolutely everything in the world at his liesure, the player could have to carefully choose and schedule his adventures according to the time he has.  Example, he wouldn't want to embark on a 6 month excavation if he needs to run off an slay the archdemon next week or something.  Character quests could be time dependent.  They won't wait on you to fit them into tour schedule sort of thing

Anyway, if DAIII's (or any other future game's) story is supposed to span a great amount of time I hope the passage of time is  handled a little more gracefully than just skipping a few years in one ago.  I would love to see something resembling the above in a game, but I'd also love to see something better if someone thinks of one.

[Horus Blackheart]

Nothing wrong with the time progression as a concept. Where it falls flat is it seems to forget that while you are in that time fraime, it is the players actions and motavations that help shape it. Hawk for al his influnce was treated like a spectator for much of the game as far as i could see. (even when he was the champ)

But lets brake down the problem with the naritive progression a bit.

ACT 2 family poor aparently need money for somthing (which is not really explaned other than we want the big house back. Which your mother has clame to anyway, but poting that aside you find ther money for the expdition and are now wealthy and aparently important (yey)? does it really add to the world and affect much other than being the sleagehammer to drive the plot along? you are still very much draged along by others.

The results may come good but its not because you the player had anything other than token input in shaping those events.

That in a nutshell is whats wrong with how the time skips are implamented as i see it.

Edit fixed typos

Modifié par Horus Blackheart, 03 avril 2011 - 02:50 .

[HawXV2]

casa de morte wrote...

This is the ultimate constructive criticism: Bioware GET OUT FROM UNDER EA!! The youtube video that parodies a meeting with Laidlaw and an EA exec explains exactly why Bioware games are fallling apart. Though I don't really give Laidlaw a pass. Regurgitated maps, less customization, non-epic story, bugs, and ridiculous combat animations(sorry a massive explosion of blood does not make a good game) is a good start on what needs to be fixed in DA2. At first I felt DA2 was ok, but the more I played, the more I realized it was actually a steaming pile of crap covered in flowers. But unfortunately EA and now apparently Bioware knows that as long as there is action, blood, and big boobs any snot nosed kid will want the game. To those of us who actually want something more out of an RPG, we will sadly have to turn our hopes to Bethesda.

Here's some for you: GET OUT OF THIS THREAD!!

PS: Don't come back until you have something useful to say.

[MaesterSeymour]

I need to vent my frustrations and my opinion about this game, im not expecting everyone to agree but I do hope im not the only one that feels this way. This isnt trolling, im stating my concerns with the overall product.

1. Overused dungeons. Pretty much the worst example I have ever seen of reused dungeons and reused environments. Its terrible. You have taken a giant leap backwards on this one. How did this game end up like this, when even DOA had far more dungeon/environment variety?

2. Lack Of Content. Bioware you have charged us for the price of a full game, and given us half of one. The story in this game is not concluded, the game itself did not even run a 10 year span. All we got was a battle with mages and then "he disappeared" ending. And do you know what makes this worse? You are going to charge us extortionate amounts for DLC, just to play the rest of the game we already paid money for! With Dragon Age: Origins we at least had a completed story arc, and for the most part the DLC was mainly spin off quests. I feel cheated. A game should be a full one, completely the story Arc. Not half of a game, and the rest to be released in overly priced DLC.

3. Simplified Combat. You managed to take another huge step back. 

4. Bugs. While i realise this wont apply to everyone, I had a variety of bugs. From broken quests, repeated cut scenes, even my ending was bugged? I romanced Merrill and nobody else, and someone how I ran off with Anders.

5. Restricted World. Whilst DOA gave us a huge, sprawling and unique world to explore, in DA2 you are constantly stuck within the same city. Repeated textures and repeated mansions/houses make this even more boring. Denerim in DOA seemed far more varied and populated than Kirkwall did, and that is just one of many places in DOA.

6. Decisions make no true impact on the story. Yeah you get to make decisions, and yeah it does kinda have an impact. But the impact is barely noticeable. Hardly anything will change in the game based on your actions. In DOA the choices you made had a huge impact.

7. Companions/Romances.  While some companions are memorable, others are not at all. And whats with Anders being the only NPC able to act as healer? The romances are extremely simplified when compared to DOA and also why the need to travel to each persons home to interact with them? Especially when said person is already in your party?

Whats shocking is that besides this hefty list of flaws I did still get some enjoyment out of it.

So there it is. Ive said my piece, some I hope you can agree with. Its honestly no wonder the users are rating this game so poorly, and how you managed to get high scores from critics is astonishing. Im saddened to see Dragon Age turn out this way when Origins was so great. 

Copypasta from a thread a posted here over a week ago. I would go into a bit more detail with combat, but others have done that justice enough.