490 réponses à ce sujet

[88mphSlayer]

Lotto wrote...

What's with these threads telling me how much I owe bioware?

apparently money is not enough

[Curlain]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Lotto wrote...

What's with these threads telling me how much I owe bioware?

apparently money is not enough

Agreed, I'm not posting hate at BioWare anywhere (I've just added in places some feedback on where I felt the game was a disappointment to me personally which was in the feedback thread anyhow).  But I don't owe BioWare anything, I paid them for DA2, neither they nor EA gave me the game, so I don't really see how I owe them anything as such, apart from general courtesy and respect that is due any forum users

[supertouch]

i play console and pc games, and i can tell you console gamers are generally unfamiliar with quality rpgs because they're not well versed in pc gaming. that's why the console versions of dragon age 2 have garnered more favorable reviews than their pc counterpart.

this game has its moments but they don't compensate for the shortcomings. any rational human being can see the developers were either rushed or lacked pride in the project. when a company secures financial success from trusting, loyal customers, it's time to stop reinforcing these practices.

[Marixus99.9]

Lotto wrote...

What's with these threads telling me how much I owe bioware?

[abaris]

If that's not the case, what is it that actually separates a game 'designed for console' against a game 'designed for pc'? I'm being serious here, I'm curious as to the opinions.
 

You obviously will get very different answers to that, since everyone has their own opinion.

Here's mine:

The PC allows for more depth, hardware specs and realism. I don't think, I have to go to any depths when it comes to hardware differences between the PC and the console.

I like quite a bunch of different genres. Strategy games, RPGs, and last but not least Flight Simulators and Racing games.

And in these last two lies one of the reasons why I don't like games developed for the console. When it comes to racers, I want it as realistic as possible. I want that close to life feeling and only ever played those coming close to my real life driving experience. There are (or rather were) quite a few games out there, fulfilling these criterias. Were because the industry started to rape these first to make them console fit. From there on, you had arcade racers with a great big yawn factor.

Flight Simulators came second: Again, instead of real life physics, you got aerial shooters with the extra Kaboom factor.

So, again, its not the controller, its the game and the demographic its catered to. The console is young when it comes to demographics. Yound people usually like action, so games for console usually take the action path instead of offering much in the depth department.

[Pwillig]

kevin cousland wrote...
its pc gamers who find fault but thats coz they have too many buttons and not much brains.

I nearly choked on my coffee.

[Dr. Impossible]

Il Divo wrote...

If that's not the case, what is it that actually separates a game 'designed for console' against a game 'designed for pc'? I'm being serious here, I'm curious as to the opinions.

Saints Row 2 would be an example of a game designed for consoles. On the PC it's very awkward to control with a keyboard and the engine was not written with the PC in mind (the performance can be bad and it runs too fast for a lot of people, requiring a user-made tool to correct the speed).

Shogun 2 is designed for the PC. You couldn't control it effectively with a gamepad, and I'm not sure if consoles could even run it well.

Modifié par Dr. Impossible, 21 mars 2011 - 03:33 .

[LightningSamus]

Lol CoD games are milked every year, they are so simular to CoD4 and not as good.

I still prefer Origins than DA II.

[Undead Union]

After replying to a similar thread like this, I'm changing my attitude. So before you read this post, realize that I do not downplay any opinion of this game. 

I prefer Dragon Age 2 over Dragon Age. I think that Dragon Age 2 is just much more interesting, and while it divided those who loved Dragon Age (which was, in no way, a bad game), it opened up more people to the world. In my opinion, Dragon Age 2 is more of a Dragon Age game than Origins. It not only expands and refines every aspect of the world, but enhances the experience so that more people can play it.

*minor spoilers below*

Elves are not just slaves, but multifaceted creatures that can be prostitutes or, in Fenrir's case, badass companions. The Qunari are not just the "Wookies" of Dragon Age...they aren't just Native Americans from a tropical island. In one city, Kirkwall, we see two sides of the Qunari: those who follow the Qun, and those who don't. And you can't predict the Qun, you can't distinguish their religion from "good" and "bad". Humans can be corrupt, also. We have a prince that favors the Qunari, and a king that dismisses them. We have a corrupt aristocracy, an underbelly that supports them, and thousands of poor and hungry in Darktown and Lowtown. We have a war between templars and mages, a war that challenges the player's views on morality and independence. We have companions that reflect all of these issues: Anders, for example, is facing his own inner demons (albeit "demon"), and he is challenged by his notions of what mages have the power to "do" in society. Origins touched on this, but it did so in a way that could not attract me. Being an American, I see this battle strikingly similar to the Women's Suffrage movement. 

And this is just the tip of the iceburg. Did I mention that, for the first time in a fantasy RPG, especially a bioware game, we have a character that must rise from poverty to champion status without muttering an excess of "Darkspawn" or "Archdemon"? Yeah, I'll take this game, thank you very much. Why do people complain about the story? I think it has to do with the intimacy of Dragon Age 2. Some hoped for a game that was as epic as Origins...spanning across many different landscapes.

Dragon Age 2 changes this notion. It is really set in one city, Kirkwall, but in this city are personalities and locations that Origins could not have hoped to portray. Corruption, poverty, and crime all come into play.

I'm not saying that the "fans" should be silenced, and those who dislike Dragon Age 2 should be able to voice their opinions. However, if one were to listen to the fans about what they would want in a sequel, the game would not only be less interesting to those who are introduced to it but less engaging to those who are familiar of it (in due time).  Whenever you change something, there's going to be an outcry...we're humans, this is who we are. I suggest to anyone viewing this thread, however, to not take these opinions with heart. These replies, those in favor and disgust, are made by fans of Bioware's games...we are not the majority. In fact, we constitute only a small portion of the greater consumer base. And while we still have an opinion, we cannot avoid the inevitable reality of what RPGs will have to become in this market. They need to connect to people...and people are people.

So what about the changes made in Dragon Age 2? Combat is much more intense, in my view. While less pause and play, the combat is still indeed strategical. 

Hawke can now talk. Hawke is now a personality, which means YOU, the player, can hear their your voice boom through Kirkwall...rather than a silent echo. Where Origins gave you your past and drove you away from it, DA2 constantly reminds you of who you are, what your purpose is, and what effect you have on allies and locations.

Graphically, Bioware lent much more vibrancy and style to the world of Dragon Age. Where Origins was fairly dull in presentation, the second installment offers the consumer with a revision of the universe...one that I REALLY hope to see in the next game.

I'm not a Bioware developer. I'm not a troll. I'm not a fan that defends Bioware because I love the company...I embrace criticism, I embrace criticizing companies for their mistakes. But by the voice of critics and consumers that bought this game...the majority...Dragon Age 2 is financially and strategically the most successful game Bioware has released in quite some time. And I like it, I really do. I'm a fan that is pleased.

But to those who disagree, to those who are not satisfied with their product, fight away. Just remember that, in the grand scheme of things, you are just another brick in the consumer wall. Santa isn't real. The Easter bunny doesn't exist. And, hate to break it to you, but you don't get to direct a company. You can only advise it.

Modifié par Undead Union, 21 mars 2011 - 03:37 .

[Dr. Impossible]

Undead Union wrote...

It not only expands and refines every aspect of the world, but enhances the experience so that more people can play it.

And why couldn't they play it before?

And this is just the tip of the iceburg. Did I mention that, for the first time in a fantasy RPG, especially a bioware game, we have a character that must rise from poverty to champion status without muttering an excess of "Darkspawn" or "Archdemon"?

Even if that were true (there have been a lot of RPGs released during the past three decades), so what? Saving the world is exciting, and a cliched but well told story is better than an uncommon but poorly told one.

Why do people complain about the story? I think it has to do with the intimacy of Dragon Age 2.

I find this unlikely.

However, if one were to listen to the fans about what they would want in a sequel, the game would not only be less interesting to those who are introduced to it but less engaging to those who are familiar of it (in due time).

"We need to radically alter the game because nobody would want to play the same game with a new story and new content, and improved mechanics! Sequels like that have never worked!"

Nice try.

And while we still have an opinion, we cannot avoid the inevitable reality of what RPGs will have to become in this market. They need to connect to people...and people are people.

If RPGs have to become non-RPGs then there is no point in pretending you're making an RPG. Making a "classic" RPG is still profitable, but just not equally profitable as Black Ops. And there's the real problem...

Hawke can now talk. Hawke is now a personality, which means YOU, the player, can hear their your voice boom through Kirkwall...rather than a silent echo.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Graphically, Bioware lent much more vibrancy and style to the world of Dragon Age. Where Origins was fairly dull in presentation, the second installment offers the consumer with a revision of the universe...one that I REALLY hope to see in the next game.

DA2 is one of the worst-looking games I've seen in a while. Just shades of brown and gray everywhere with repetitive, uninteresting environments.

[Altered Idol]

Well said. I agree with you on all points,

The point with Dragon Age 2 was that it wasnt just one event from history like Origins. It was about the rise to power of the champion and the different threats facing the city of Kirkwall over an extended period. We catch glimpses of conflict between mages and templars throughout the game, culminating in a final battle.

This is different to Origins which just gives you the enemy directly and tells you to go destroy it. Both styles have merit and neither of them are wrong. Just different.

I like the fact that rising to power doesnt always consist of a single defining moment but is earned and fought for over time against different challenges.

I'm not looking to tell people whose dislike the game that they are wrong and appreciate a similar courtesy being shown to those who happened to like the game.

[Altered Idol]

Dragon Age 2 was a bold step. Some would argue a wrong step and that is their opinion. Me I liked the game.

Graphically is was a vast improvement. Combat was improved. The story was engrossing. The characters were excellent. I for one would have been disappointed had they released a game also identical to Origins in everyway. It would have added nothing.

But each to their own. I will not say you are wrong, only that I disagree.

Modifié par Altered Idol, 21 mars 2011 - 04:04 .

[Johnsen1972]

Im waiting for Mr. Evils new CHALLENGE!!
Spam your facebook friends to buy the new companion armor DLC. If it sells 2 million times you will get a DA2 toolset.

[Servius the bear]

This aint an RPG That Bioware should have put there name to. This is a mash of games put together, That dose not deserve the Bioware name on it. GAAH they ruined it. Am totaly annoyed at what they have done. Call me a hater if you want I have all ther other great games done by bioware before there take over. I know what they can do and it rocked. 

[ElectricPhase]

One of the ideas being advanced is that the posters on forums and review sites are not a representative sample of the people buying/playing the game. I'm not convinced.

Specialty internet forums are actually the default, mainstream method for enthusiasts of all kinds to communicate these days. Furthermore, gamers have become a very sophisticated bunch. I watch my 10 and 13 year-olds talk about their beloved platform games, and they know the difference between good and bad game design. They know that the old SNES classics wipe the floor with anything new with splashy 3d graphics, few levels, and easy, repetitive gameplay. Why shouldn't RPG gamers be capable of the same discerning cognitive skills?

When you chase the least common denominator with the lowest possible budget, and lean on marketing hype to make up the difference, people will notice.

Modifié par ElectricPhase, 21 mars 2011 - 04:24 .

[Dr. Impossible]

Altered Idol wrote...

I for one would have been disappointed had they released a game also identical to Origins in everyway. It would have added nothing.

Change for the sake of change is stupid. A second Origins would have added a new story with new locations, quests, characters and items, and new and improved mechanics. And so on. Why do you call that "nothing"?

[Gatt9]

Il Divo wrote...

EmsaFallkin wrote...

Il Divo.... You do know that there are gamepads for PCs? I've got two of them even...

I do. It's what I used when playing Prince of Persia off Steam. But at that point, I'd say you removed one of the key aspects that people claim separates 'console gamers' from PC gamers. If you choose to play Prince of Persia with a game pad, you're basically playing on a console with better graphics.

I would disagree Il Divo.  Up until the death of the Space-sim(Wing Commander,  Descent Freespace,  Tie Fighter),  a flightstick was often a major component of a PC Rig.  Many of the old side-scrollers were designed with gamepad type accessories in mind,  even Wolfenstein 3d could be played well with one. 

Most gaming console technology was spawned on the PC.  Forcefeedback,  even the Wiimote is spawned from PC tech.  Microsoft had a motion sensing gamepad years before Nintendo released the Wii.

I would venture that a gamepad with a PC isn't so wrong,  and in fact likely to generate better technologies.  Look at Novint Falcon's 3D touch controller,  where the controller simulates different textures.

Now don't get me wrong,  mouse/keyboard is far superior for many gameplay types.  I'm just saying that as far as peripherals go,  nothing wrong with adding a gamepad to a PC rig.  Especially if you're into retro-gaming.

[bill4747bill]

I am the perfect representative gamer. really. Everyone shares my exact preferences.

[mundus66]

Brenus wrote...

Dr. Impossible wrote...
A fighting game can be complex too.

Yes, I do enjoy Street Fighter 4 on the PC.

Now then, wheres Super Street Fighter 4? Oh right, they arent releasing it on the PC because its developers are idiots.

If console games are so great, then how about releasing them on the PC? Oh, wait, thats right, then absolutely no one would buy a console ever again.

And developers would have trouble breaking one million sold whats your point? The problem with PC is that piracy is too broad, you basically need a online game to do well with a PC only release.

[AkiKishi]

mundus66 wrote...

Brenus wrote...

Dr. Impossible wrote...
A fighting game can be complex too.

Yes, I do enjoy Street Fighter 4 on the PC.

Now then, wheres Super Street Fighter 4? Oh right, they arent releasing it on the PC because its developers are idiots.

If console games are so great, then how about releasing them on the PC? Oh, wait, thats right, then absolutely no one would buy a console ever again.

And developers would have trouble breaking one million sold whats your point? The problem with PC is that piracy is too broad, you basically need a online game to do well with a PC only release.

That's not the only reason. A console with very modest hardware can run a game well, a PC with the same hardware....Not.

[Vollkeule]

That's not the only reason. A console with very modest hardware can run a game well, a PC with the same hardware....Not.

you are all so very wrong. it is completly the same

And developers would have trouble breaking one million sold whats your point? The problem with PC is that piracy is too broad, you basically need a online game to do well with a PC only release.

right

[Gatt9]

mundus66 wrote...

Brenus wrote...

Dr. Impossible wrote...
A fighting game can be complex too.

Yes, I do enjoy Street Fighter 4 on the PC.

Now then, wheres Super Street Fighter 4? Oh right, they arent releasing it on the PC because its developers are idiots.

If console games are so great, then how about releasing them on the PC? Oh, wait, thats right, then absolutely no one would buy a console ever again.

And developers would have trouble breaking one million sold whats your point? The problem with PC is that piracy is too broad, you basically need a online game to do well with a PC only release.

For reference...
http://en.wikipedia...._PC_video_games

The Sims 2: 13 million
Stacraft 2: 4.5 million
Battlefield 1942 4.3 million
The Sims 3:  3.7 million
Battlefield 2: 3.5 million

It compares favorably with the list of 360 games.  Piracy exists,  yes,  and it's definitely a problem.  But it's not anywhere near what you claim.  You also fail to observe it's also a problem on consoles,  which IIRC is why Microsoft banned a ton of X-boxes at Activision's request.

The PC platform is the future,  this is the final generation of consoles as they cannot overcome the issues of heat dissipation and power consumption in the tiny cases with the tiny power supplies.  In 5 years the big thing will be a wintel 16+ core server in your home pushing screens throughout the house,  most likely running Microsoft's Live service and Steam for VoD and on-demand gaming.

That is the future,  even EA's recognized it.

[Nynaeve]

It's ridiculous that OP is being called a troll for simply stating his opinion..chill folks

[Haexpane]

tulx wrote...

 There are too few developers who risk to evolve their biggest franchises - don't force Bioware to make cookie-cutter games like Activision does now.

YEAH we don't want Bioware to be like Activision and Microsoft and make every game a Halo/COD clone.

EA took a party based, Baldur's Gate inspired RPG and turned it into a Mass Effect / God of War clone.  Which is INNOVATION AWESOMENESS!  

Everytime I press a button SOMETHING AWESOME HAPPENS! and my Emo Hawke just gets more awesome and awesome!

Now I don't have to "worry" about equping gear on my party, deciding what class specializations they should be, or any of that RPG silliness.

The most important thing in RPGs is clearly LIFETIME NETWORK quality romace in diapers! Anyone who longs for the Baldur's Gate style of true RPG gaming is clearly a whiny hater who can not appreciate DC Andrews romance novels.