2797 réponses à ce sujet

[Kissing the pink]

oooh! tetchy arnt we??

[Kissing the pink]

You live in cloud cuckoo land Realmzmaster if you seriously think the powers that be really give a flyingxxxx what we say in here, its all down to greenbacks.

[Siduri]

I am with the camp that loved the DA2 overall. The map reuse to me was the game's most glaring problem, but the devs are surely well, well aware of how the fans feel about this by now.

I do have a very small, targeted piece of constructive criticism that I haven't seen elsewhere. I was thinking about how a lot of people complain about Leliana's resurrection ("Choices have no meaning if characters you killed in the first game can come back!!!"), but there's almost nobody complaining about Flemeth's return, even though the players that chose to kill Flemeth vastly outnumber the players who chose to kill Leliana. I think this is for two reasons: first, we were given a story to explain Flemeth's return, and second, the player was directly involved in her "resurrection."

The sad thing is, it would have been easy enough to acknowledge games in which Leliana was supposed to be dead. Similar to how she's supposed to give a special line if she was romanced by the Warden, Leliana could have easily delivered a short aside if she was killed. Something like "Oh, I see it will be harder to maintain my anonymity this close to the Ferelden border. Yes, I am the same Leliana who the Hero of Ferelden stabbed and left for dead. Fortunately, I have some skill in deception, and as you can see my wounds were not so grave after all."

Players, I think, can be mollified pretty easily just so long as it seems their choices haven't *vanished* into thin air. It only takes a line or two to keep the suspension of disbelief going. That's my suggestion.

[Leanansidhe]

Siduri wrote...


I do have a very small, targeted piece of constructive criticism that I haven't seen elsewhere. I was thinking about how a lot of people complain about Leliana's resurrection ("Choices have no meaning if characters you killed in the first game can come back!!!"), but there's almost nobody complaining about Flemeth's return, even though the players that chose to kill Flemeth vastly outnumber the players who chose to kill Leliana. I think this is for two reasons: first, we were given a story to explain Flemeth's return, and second, the player was directly involved in her "resurrection."

Actually, YOU (Hawke) were the one to save Flemeth from dying.  Taking her amulet (with her essence inside of it) up to Sundermount and having Merrill do the rite is what saves her from death.  That takes place after the events of Origins.

[dreepa]

Is this thread still being read by Bioware?


-Hawks Voide being schizophrenic: When you took a good and an evil answer in the same dialogue it didnt really fit. Voice acting for the main character might be a good idea, but I dont see how it can be done so well, that it wont ruin my immersion.

-The dialogue wheel giving me the feeling have no clue what he is going to say. Okay, in DAO I had to read loooong sentences... but the whole game is full of text... so it doesnt really matter, does it?
I would prefer a mix of DAO and DA2. The wheel fits to Mass Effect, but DA is an RPG not a cinematic shooter

-Combat animations were cool, BUT the "skip a frame to make it look modern" part I totally disliked.

-I really missed the top down view, I had problems coordinating my party and in the end I turned down difficulty to casual, just cause I was so annoyed with controls and thought to myself: ah what the heck, at least enjoy the story... With that top down view everything was so comfortable... I didnt had to turn the camera around all the time, just point and click. I really dont understand why it was removed.

-Act 2 was great, petrice was great, voice acting was great atmosphere was great (dark and involving)

-But Act 3 was boring, no choices, too arcadish, no feeling of involvement.

Modifié par dreepa, 07 mai 2011 - 09:44 .

[Lumikki]

Siduri wrote...

I do have a very small, targeted piece of constructive criticism that I haven't seen elsewhere. I was thinking about how a lot of people complain about Leliana's resurrection ("Choices have no meaning if characters you killed in the first game can come back!!!"), but there's almost nobody complaining about Flemeth's return, even though the players that chose to kill Flemeth vastly outnumber the players who chose to kill Leliana. I think this is for two reasons: first, we were given a story to explain Flemeth's return, and second, the player was directly involved in her "resurrection."

Yeah, it was little odd for those who did not kill Flemeth in DAO, to be part of her resurection.

[mdigs150]

really enjoyed the game up to a point, I know its been said a million times before but DUNGEONS! Skyrim is going to have over a hundred and DA2 had about 2. Really?

[Wozearly]

Skyrim, as with the entire Elder Scrolls series, is a freeform RPG where part of the attraction is a large world you can just wander round in and do stuff. So the number of places you can go is practically guaranteed to be higher.

...not that this excuses the notable lack of locations in DA2 by any stretch, but they are different types of game.

[PSUHammer]

Wozearly wrote...

Skyrim, as with the entire Elder Scrolls series, is a freeform RPG where part of the attraction is a large world you can just wander round in and do stuff. So the number of places you can go is practically guaranteed to be higher.

...not that this excuses the notable lack of locations in DA2 by any stretch, but they are different types of game.

I think you countered your own point.  Regardless of the game mechanics, it shouldn't be so blaringly obvious that they used the same dungeons over and over.  In fact, since there is a more limited setting, Bioware SHOULD have used more varied dungeons.

I would half expect an open world game like Elder Scrolls to reuse dungeons more often because of the sheer size of the game world.

I mean, for DA2, at least just change the scenery a bit.  Dungeon "A" in the Wounded Coast had the same shrubs, steps, caverns, doors, crates, sacks, chests, bones, rocks, lighting, etc. as dungeon "B" on Sundermount or the Bone Pit.

Modifié par Hammer6767, 07 mai 2011 - 11:06 .

[Dubya75]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Wozearly wrote...

Skyrim, as with the entire Elder Scrolls series, is a freeform RPG where part of the attraction is a large world you can just wander round in and do stuff. So the number of places you can go is practically guaranteed to be higher.

...not that this excuses the notable lack of locations in DA2 by any stretch, but they are different types of game.

I think you countered your own point.  Regardless of the game mechanics, it shouldn't be so blaringly obvious that they used the same dungeons over and over.  In fact, since there is a more limited setting, Bioware SHOULD have used more varied dungeons.

I would half expect an open world game like Elder Scrolls to reuse dungeons more often because of the sheer size of the game world.

I mean, for DA2, at least just change the scenery a bit.  Dungeon "A" in the Wounded Coast had the same shrubs, steps, caverns, doors, crates, sacks, chests, bones, rocks, lighting, etc. as dungeon "B" on Sundermount or the Bone Pit.

I'd agree with this statement. There is NO excuse for re-used dungeons in a game such as DA2.
(this is going to be a thorn in my side until they fix it - if ever...)

[DoggyDaddyX]

I really liked DA2 though I certainly recognize its issues, namely: recycled environments, tons of useless loot, less real choices, storyline problems (mostly in Act III) and just generally less epic than DA:O.

The conversations and some of the story is still very, very good...way better than 99.9% of the games out there. I really think it would have been better received if it was called Dragon Age 1.5, or with all the ties to Awakenings, it could have been Awakenings 2. That would have made more sense, because frankly its no sequel to the story in Origins.

I'm still annoyed by the Metacritic user score. I understand its not what we really wanted, but because of so many people complaining with zero ratings...its now at 4 out of 10...which puts it solidly in the range of E.T., Big Rigs, Superman, etc. Is it really worse than Alpha Protcol, Two Worlds or Final Fantasy 14?

Modifié par DoggyDaddyX, 08 mai 2011 - 01:42 .

[Realmzmaster]

Kissing the pink wrote...

You live in cloud cuckoo land Realmzmaster if you seriously think the powers that be really give a flyingxxxx what we say in here, its all down to greenbacks.

Whether they do or do not is not the issue. This a thread on constructive criticism. And if you read any of my other posts I know full well that it all comes down to profit. Touchy? not in the least bit. I just try to stay on topic!

[DoggyDaddyX]

I saw some comparisons and discussion about Skyrim too...and this is what I have to say about comparison of the two series...besides the fact they both have lots of walking. Why is it that NPCs don't ever notice in DA that you are entirely looting their store or house...while in Elder Scrolls series if you accidentally pick up a rusty knife you could be chased by 10s of guards bent on your destruction? I've also opened a closet before and had a guard jump out. Yes, it was a sting operation I guess...protecting people's closets is important.

So why can't we find a happy medium between these two ridiculous extremes?

[mdigs150]

agree with the metacritic thing its just trolling gone too far id give the game probably 7.5 to show i did really enjoy some bits (animations, really liked qunari storyline etc.). longer dev cycle would surely have helped

[Wozearly]

Hammer6767 wrote...

I think you countered your own point.  Regardless of the game mechanics, it shouldn't be so blaringly obvious that they used the same dungeons over and over.  In fact, since there is a more limited setting, Bioware SHOULD have used more varied dungeons.

I would half expect an open world game like Elder Scrolls to reuse dungeons more often because of the sheer size of the game world.

I mean, for DA2, at least just change the scenery a bit.  Dungeon "A" in the Wounded Coast had the same shrubs, steps, caverns, doors, crates, sacks, chests, bones, rocks, lighting, etc. as dungeon "B" on Sundermount or the Bone Pit.

You completely misinterpreted or misread my post. I was only commenting on the number of dungeons and visitable locations, not the level of re-use seen in the game despite the low number- which I agree is bad.


On the note of the metacritic user score, DA2 has had lots of angst thrown at it from existing players of the franchise - that's clear on a skim-read.

The professional review side is more interesting, because even in the favourable reviews there is a consistent stream of highlighting "...although yeah, there are going to be existing fans who HATE this". I've included a string of those and other QFT examples below, along with the reviewer's overall review score just to show I'm not cherry-picking from the malconents...

"Unfortunately Bioware has kicked some classic RPG-elements, that made Origins that kind of great." (88)

"If you were expecting a game on par or even better than Origins, you'll probably be a bit disappointed by this second chapter." (86)

"Most of the time you create bloodbaths by running through the same dull dungeons. There are some  improvements like a talking main character, but it's not a new Dragon Age, it's rather a hack'n'slay with a touch of roleplaying... if you loved [Origins'] atmosphere, the story and the freedom of choice, then you should expect something different." (86)

"In their reimagining of Dragon Age II, Bioware has transferred one too many points from storytelling and exploration to combat." (83)

"Dragon Age II is a great game, but it could have been better had it kept more of Origins' strong points." (83)

"...in more than one way it is inferior to its great predecessor." (81)

"...a handful of the features it boasts come accompanied by disappointing sacrifices that are particularly painful to those who have come to love and expect so much from the series." (80)

"Ultimately, Dragon Age 2 still manages to be a good game, but it will also be a VERY divisive title among RPG fans" (80)

"...its game mechanics being streamlined to cater the console-audience with a high tempo and a smaller set of statistics..." (80)

"...hardcore fans of PC RPGs may feel slighted" (80)

"Dragon Age II caters to an audience that didn't connect with Origins, while alienating those who did. This may result in a better console experience, but considering that Dragon Age: Origins was a love letter to old-school PC RPGs, BioWare's neglect of the sequel's PC release is tragic." (76)

"Dragon Age II will be judged depending on the player camp: RPG veterans will throw it away, while casual gamers will find themselves at home in this simplified world." (75)

"...anyone hoping for something that feels and plays like Origins might want to adjust their expectations accordingly" (72)

"If you were in love with Dragon Age Origins, I'd strongly recommend testing the demo before purchasing Dragon Age II." (70)

Modifié par Wozearly, 08 mai 2011 - 02:57 .

[Riknas]

Alright, so I've been putting this off long enough. I've read enough forum posts and played the game thoroughly enough to give some constructive criticism. I will do my best for this to be reasonable, polite and fair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, I will say that overall I enjoyed the game, I found the combat to be faster and far more entertaining. The voice acting was of excellent quality and I found this dialogue wheel to be more attractive than the one in Mass Effect.

The Friendship/Rivalry system was a major step above the approval system, and I found this story to be far more unique compared to saving the world.

However, there is certainly room for improvement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- The first one I feel is something of a given, as its been said time and time again. The number of reused maps is absurd, sure, you can tweak a few and remove some portions of a cave and move the entrances, and we may not pick up on it. But leaving the maps unchanged and putting a stone wall INSIDE of a door frame is sloppy and a bit too obvious, honestly it would be more preferable if there were less quests, if only to avoid so much recycling.

- This game is riddled with bugs, I'm not sure if its to do with budget or development time, but there's just too many to have on release, without even a hotfix on release day.

- Personally, I like fighting waves of enemies, I find it keeps me on my toes as opposed to just seeing a handful of enemies and knowing that's all I have to deal with; however, it was a little bit overused, and could use a bit of tweaking. There is an excellent use of entrances to have enemies hop through windows and the like, and some rogues hopping in from various locations. But there needs to be more entrances, its really quite odd seeing guardsmen in plate armor leaping from rooftops and landing safely on the ground. Indeed, seeing see that there are at least two waves to EVERY encounter, is a bit much.

- I know its a travel through time, ten years is kind of cool, but to some extent it seems like a bit of an excuse. A few posters had good points in saying that there might be some more development amongst characters and their relationships, even our own relationships with them, over three or so years. Similarly, a few more changes to the city would be nice. I noticed there were a few subtle changes, like Ferelden Imports changing placement, and Vincentio leaving his store, but there could have been a bit more.  

Could the alienage have changed a bit? Renovations, new buildings, maybe another part of the city opening up? A large city, especially over ten years is not so static in development. You'd think someone would have cleaned up Vincentio's stall since he left so long ago.

- Other than that, any other "tweaks" are up to you. Tightening the system, placing more people in the city, etc etc, additions to the dialogue wheel or ambient dialogue would be a nice aside, but not an actual "criticism".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's it, thanks. I love the game, and I don't like all the hate being sent to Bioware or the game. However, while the sheer amount of vitriol is unnecessary, they do have reason to be upset,  and there's always room for improvement anyway.

[John Epler]

dreepa wrote...

Is this thread still being read by Bioware?

It is! However, I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'm checking the forums only sporadically But we are still looking at all the feedback and figuring out common trends, reasons for common complaints and the like. It's still great feedback, and it's still being read and analyzed by the appropriate people.

[MorrigansLove]

JohnEpler wrote...

dreepa wrote...

Is this thread still being read by Bioware?

It is! However, I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'm checking the forums only sporadically But we are still looking at all the feedback and figuring out common trends, reasons for common complaints and the like. It's still great feedback, and it's still being read and analyzed by the appropriate people.

How do you feel about all this hate towards Dragon Age 2?

[billy the squid]

JohnEpler wrote...

dreepa wrote...

Is this thread still being read by Bioware?

It is! However, I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'm checking the forums only sporadically But we are still looking at all the feedback and figuring out common trends, reasons for common complaints and the like. It's still great feedback, and it's still being read and analyzed by the appropriate people.

It's nice to know at least you are taking a look. Yet, I worry as whether the development team will actually address the problems to any satisfactory degree is another matter entirely. Particularly when it seems that the design direction of DA2 took is opposed by at least a sizeable proportion of the players.

At least in part, the game seems to have taken a great deal of inspiration from Mass Effect. This is not necessarily bad, but considering the concept behind each one from their very inception is different ME-Hybrid RPG and DA more of a tradditional RPG, DA2 feels very much like a bastardization of genres with no sense of self. DA O appealled to me despite being new to the RPG scene because it didn't try to be something it wasn't, it just did a very good job of being an RPG, and people liked it and if they didn't the development team didn't compromise the game's appeal by stripping out everything which was percieved as tedious. Either it appeald to you or it didn't.

ME by comparison has tip toed a very thin line between RPG and shooter, with ME2 I think it strayed too much into the realms of FPS/TPS and lost alot of what it had in the original, although I still think it was a fantastic game, despite this I just enjoyed it more as a shooter than RPG, even if the story was somewhat lacking compared to the original.

Now DA2, well it does not clearly define itself in terms of appeal, and simply confuses or alienates some players. I won't get into the discussion of what is and RPG, as no one will agree. But,  many of the features of the original are removed or streamlined, I will get round to making a proper citique of the game, I just have been rather busy as of late. For instance pigeon holing classes regarding attributes, I don't need to have the game hold my hand, as a warrior strength and constitution were the only things I needed to place points into, everything else became irrelevant. why was it done?

If people had difficulty reading the explaination for each attribute in DAO, its unlikely the game was going to appeal to them anyway, whilst dumbing the attribute system down is only going to irritate every one who did understand and enjoy it (seriously you even had an auto level up button, if you couldn't be bothered to read through the explanations). This links into another gripe, coercion and persuasion being removed,  it simply illustrates the whole concept which runs through DA 2, make things simpler. Don't, just because a concept is more complicated, it doesn't mean it is inherently bad! Some will always be more complex, accesability can be achieved through better explaination or illustration not relegating everything to the level of 2+2=4.

The game to a certain extent appears to suffer from the misapprehension that everyone who plays shooters and action games is a drooling half wit and can't grasp the RPG mechanics. Most players will interchange genres for a different experience. eg. If I want to play an RPG I will pick up DAO etc. If I want action I'll go and play Halo/ COD, which has provided me with quite a bit of fun online. I don't pick up an RPG expecting explosions, ludicrously over done combat and massively simplified RPG elements which I have found in DA2. I expect something more complex or requires more thinking somewhat like origins (I will reserve judgement on the witcher 2 until I have played, but it does look promising as to how RPG do not have to devolve and appeal to the lowest common denominator which DA2 suffers from)

If people played origins without the understanding of what an RPG is then complained about it, you are never going to win them over in the first place, without turning the entire franchise into an action game such as Assassin's Creed, which trumped Dragon age2. If you realy want to compete in the action/casual market you are really going to have to pick up your game and consider what your competition is offering and why players enjoy it. Which I think DA2 suffered from by moving towards a casual crowd, but failed to appeal to them, whilst alienating a large proportion of its core market.   

Now regarding a certain number of interviews, which have tried to justify DA2's direction. I am unsure whether, this is just smoke to defend the product or it is genuinely believed that this was the right direction, but it makes me apprehensive and rather cynical of how much will truly be taken on board, rather than disregarded as haters, 4 chan trolls and those afraid of change who are a minority. Rather a point is being made, even if at times it comes across as excessive, as polite discorse will only go so far, particularly as some of the interviews have not gone down well at all.

"If you have an important point to make, dont try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. then hit it a third time, a tremendous whack."-  Winston Churchill

Gameinformer, Mr. Laidlaw

"I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this. I think, as a team, we're quite happy with what we've done with Dragon Age II, and this is establishing a solid foundation that keeps a lot, in fact almost everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to grow and, frankly, a more viable future for the franchise."

Now, when interviews like this come out it really does give the impression that there was a belief that DAO was essentially a dead end and required a complete overhaul. Did it really? It required some work, it wasn't perfect, but the vast majority of your consumer base seem to have been under the impression that the game was what they wanted or they wouldn't have bought it. And it implies that Mr. Laidlaw didn't really like the way DAO functioned as more of an old school RPG (even though it had been streamleind to a cetain degree) and his vision was inherently different to that of a lot of the core consumer base. Regarding issues of viability, considering sales trends and the general ill feeling regarding many of the changes I'd like to know how the future of the franchise is more viable when there seems to be a lot of opposition to the direction taken? Particularly from what can be seen the percieved audience which the changes were to appeal to hasn't materialised.

I come now to the crux of it, what you have said is that the criticism will be considered. But, what has been stated by your lead designer is that he and the rest of the team is happy with what was produced, you won't be going be returning to the concepts of older RPGs found in DAO, rather to stay with the simplified version which has proved to not be particularly well recieved. Although Mr. Laidlaw and other may be happy with what has been kept from origins and directions taken, there seems to be a large proportion of the consumer base which is either unhappy or indifferent to DA2. So will there actually be a serious attempt to rectify some of the major issues even if it requires a 170/160 degree reorientation, or is the overall belief that this is the path and it has been set in stone, no matter the reaction to DA2 and DA3?

Modifié par billy the squid, 08 mai 2011 - 11:01 .

[Wozearly]

JohnEpler wrote...

It is! However, I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'm checking the forums only sporadically But we are still looking at all the feedback and figuring out common trends, reasons for common complaints and the like. It's still great feedback, and it's still being read and analyzed by the appropriate people.

As always, really great to see you guys posting in threads like this to confirm that feedback (both positive and negative) is being looked at.

[Felinu]

Given that I feel my attempt to express opinion turned into a rambling mess, and I recently found something that expresses my main issue much better, I'll just leave this here:

www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RobertBoyd/20110506/7575/Guiding_Gamer_Expectations.php

I honestly feel that this covers the vast majority of my issues.  Even the reused maps...

[Savber100]

A review written by a fellow PC gamer: (courtesy of PC Gamer)

The ones we love always hurt us the most, and the roleplaying genre has, over its many years, inflicted its rabid adherents with a few post-traumatic stress disorder-inducing moments. The most infamous occasion was the 1994 release of Ultima VIII: Pagan, the sequel to one of the most beloved RPGs. It completely abandoned the renowned features of its predecessor, and its reception prompted a written apology by series creator Richard Garriott. The simplified Deus Ex: Invisible War was another PTSD moment, as was Bethesda’s transformation of the Fallout franchise (for isometric perspective turn-based combat fans, at least).



Ultimately, whether or not you’re traumatized by changes to a beloved franchise depends upon how much you personally cared about those specific features that were most mutated. I actually love Fallout 3 as much as its predecessors, and wasn’t remotely turned off by Bethesda’s radical design changes, but other fans felt betrayed. Similarly, many RPG fans are enjoying Dragon Age 2, but for me, its release is very much a Pagan moment.



This is probably my most subjective point, but I really despise the graphical changes in DA2. I love the realistic, gritty artistic style of Dragon Age: Origins. It’s grounded, and doesn’t look like a cartoonish Final Fantasy game or an anime movie. It’s Tolkien, as opposed to World of Warcraft. Dragon Age 2 is the opposite: it’s characters are blindingly colorful, with absurdly disproportionate features, twirling fancifully-oversized and apparently weightless weapons that detonate their cartoonish enemies into fountains of gore. I find it embarrassing to play a game that looks so child-ish. The last thing Dragon Age needs is to look and feel more like God of War. Dragon Age 2’s environments are attractive, but even that’s offset by the fact that they’re also recycled more frequently than in any previous RPG I can name (maybe in any game since Halo), and they’re just as non-interactive and even more relentlessly linear than in Origins.



What annoys me most, though, are the changes to Dragon Age’s combat. The tactical, isometric perspective has been pointlessly removed, characters hop around the battlefield like spastic Spider-Men, and combat is so frenetically paced that it’s needlessly difficult to manage an entire party of characters. To compensate for the design (which seems primarily intended to allow gamers who don’t like messing with details to control a single character) the game has been made incredibly unchallenging. Friendly fire has essentially been removed, since it’s now relegated to an impractical option only available on the highest difficulty level—and it doesn’t even work there, since the game clearly wasn’t designed to accommodate it.



Also lost is Origins’ feeling that each battle is a carefully designed tactical set piece, with enemies sensibly placed to utilize terrain features or otherwise effectively organized. In the sequel, enemies are generally just jumbled together in meaningless masses, and each battle is indistinguishable from the last. Reinforcements haphazardly appear in virtually every fight, often behind your party, rendering tactical placement pointless. The lengthiest combat sequences are just arduous battles of attrition against enemies possessing massive hit point pools, rather than posing more tactical challenges.



At least Dragon Age 2, unlike Pagan, does have some significant strengths, particularly in its storytelling. Additionally, the UI is effectively streamlined, and the new skill trees are an interesting way to shape character development. The look and combat aren’t inherently poor, and would’ve been perfectly worthwhile in a sequel to BioWare’s other experimental action RPG, Jade Empire. As part of the Dragon Age saga, however, this is more like a spin-off than a sequel.

[Daveros]

Whilst improvements can be made to further games in the franchise I don't think taking the game too far away from what Dragon Age 2 was would be the best idea. In fact, I have more constructive criticism for Origins than I do for DA2. So, my constructive criticism today is about listening the many vocal posters whom didn't feel that Dragon Age 2 was for them.

Please do listen to all the complaints raised but please don't try to re-invent the wheel, or start back peddling, for future sequels. Dragon Age 2 was a great accomplishment, as was Origins, so we can all only benefit from building on what they both offered - not by throwing away half of it. There was much to love in DA2.