184 réponses à ce sujet

[Larry L]

I didn't say he actually said it. My reading comprehension is fine. All the OP did was put that slant on it in the first paragraph and that slant stuck with it the whole piece. And over the internet as a whole, that's what everyone for some reason is pointing to, always with that term consolised or "made casual for console audience", and it aggrivates me. On a well written piece like the OP why did that have to be thrown in there to add the sour taste?

It's just an over-all feeling that comes from the majority fo people who talk RPGs on the web, like most of us here, that console gamers can't possibly handle a hardcore RPG. I'm just saying Origins fit console players just fine, and btw we wanted an isometric view as well. We didn't need it made any more casual at all. Bioware just decided to take too many ques from what they did with Mass Effect 2. They crammed ME2 into the DA universe in places where it had no place, like not being able to equip my party with armor. Mass Effect went to their head, not console gamers.

[RenownedRyan]

An excellent post friend. Constructive criticism is always good! You hit on everything I liked, and disliked, about the game.

[Lord_Saulot]

Larry L wrote...

I didn't say he actually said it. My reading comprehension is fine. All the OP did was put that slant on it in the first paragraph and that slant stuck with it the whole piece. And over the internet as a whole, that's what everyone for some reason is pointing to, always with that term consolised or "made casual for console audience", and it aggrivates me. On a well written piece like the OP why did that have to be thrown in there to add the sour taste?

It's just an over-all feeling that comes from the majority fo people who talk RPGs on the web, like most of us here, that console gamers can't possibly handle a hardcore RPG. I'm just saying Origins fit console players just fine, and btw we wanted an isometric view as well. We didn't need it made any more casual at all. Bioware just decided to take too many ques from what they did with Mass Effect 2. They crammed ME2 into the DA universe in places where it had no place, like not being able to equip my party with armor. Mass Effect went to their head, not console gamers.

What he said was that the two dominant schools were one that appreciated simplicity and one that blamed console players.  But he himself was a console player, and considers himself to be hardcore.  Personally, I am a PC player, but I don't blame console players for anything that went wrong with this game - I do appreciate what you are saying.

[Chrysalde]

Nice, well written post, OP. I enjoyed the read, and it's refreshing to see criticism (whether I agree with it or not) without needless vitriol.

[ReavousX]

Larry L wrote...

I appreciate the thought in this letter. And I understand the thoughts that went into it. But something about it really puts me off, and makes you (the OP and other people using the same terms) come off as pompous and a real elitist jerk who looks down your nose at other fellow gamers. It's the way you say all the bad things about the game were done to make the game more casual and accessible and all around easier for console gamers. That is utter BS.

I'm a console gamer and always have been for the most part. I've always enjoyed this kind/genre of game, like Baulder's Gate, Champions of Norrath, Sacred 2, Diablo, Origins....all these kinds of games, and many other console gamers are the same. You think we WANTED or in any way NEEDED BioWare to take out equipping armor on our party? Or reuse the same caves, dungeons and areas over and over? Or take out isometric view, or speed up the gameplay. Although on that one, to be honest, I'm actually starting to enjoy the combat and combo system more than Origins. But regardless BW DID speed it up and made tactical play less as a result, but you blame that on console gamers? WTF if up with that? In case you didn't notice, console players loved Origins to the point of considering it one of the best RPGs this gen. And none of us were asking for the game to be made casual, or easier in any way. We like deep RPGs too you know........ the only difference between us is you like telling you toon where to go and what to hit by pointing and clicking, and we like to do it with a left analog stick and a X button.

You PC elitist types need to stop with the "consolised" BS. NO ONE is happy about some of the choices made in DA2, some are just upset about more things......and smaller things, than others.

Too bad I played DA 2 on Xbox 360.  You can put your head in the sand all you want, but it's quite obvious that changes were made to make the Dragon Age series more accessible to console gamers.  And nowhere do I ever say that's a bad thing.  I have, in fact, seen those who fit the description you belted out here, and I agree, it's rediculous...but if you're referring to me I think you missed the mark big time.

Edit:  I see where you're getting this from, the opening where I talk about the "two schools of thought".  I'm not referring to myself, but the stereotypical sorts that you've bashed in your post.  I think it's ridiculous as well, thus is why I gave a relatively balanced view.  If you got hung up on that first part, I apologize, it was certainly not my intent.

Modifié par ReavousX, 18 mars 2011 - 04:43 .

[ReavousX]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

I thought it was an articulate and thought-out post, and while I agree with some of it, I strongly disagree with about half of it. What do you define as "hardcore"? Given the tone a lot of people have taken on here regarding RPG "traditionalists", I would probably be considered "hardcore" and I don't see my views reflected a bit in your hardcore sections. I hated the stages (or waves) of the battles -- they removed any importance for finding strategic positions for a fight. The overhead camera: "times they are a changin'"? So, what, you agree there is a place for it, but times are changing, so... what does that mean?

Pick a personality at the beginning and have that reflected in cinematics? This is your "hardcore" preference? What!? Completely ripping out the ability to choose dialogue based on the situation in order to more precisely articulate the personality you envision your character having is... hardcore?  The dialogue wheel made "conversations less of a burden"!? Again, what!? This is your hardcore perspective?  Now, to be clear, I actually don't mind the dialogue wheel. Occasionally Hawke said things I didn't think he would say and that irked me a little, but it was generally on target enough. My one complaint, and it's a big one for me as a "hardcore" RPG player, was the simplistic way it reduced the romances to a predictable and easy outcome. So much for the mystery of love. 

"Dragon Age 2 was a solid RPG experience, without a doubt...  The game certainly felt different, and different freaks people out sometimes...that whole "change" thing has odd effects on people." Thank you, Mr. Laidlaw.  That's right. Even though I actually enjoyed the overall experience, the complaints I have are simply because I can't deal with change. Sorry, but this line of argument is beginning to really tick me off. My objections to the game actually have little to do with "change". In fact, overall, I like the changes to combat and dialogue and the way in which the story was told. My complaints have to do with what I see as a weaker story and a rushed production schedule resulting in recycled environments, less fleshed out characters, and fewer RPG-staples such as character customization (e.g., armor, specialisations, etc.).

"...as there's room for improvement even on games that make millions of dollars." That much I will agree with you on. Anyway, sorry for the rant OP, as I actually really do appreciate the thoughtful tone and articulate presentation of your position. I just really strongly disagree with some of your conclusions and the way it felt to me you were trying to represent my views.

I think it's completely possible to be "hardcore" and not get my panties in a wad over changes that don't bother me as it would someone else.  It's a matter of taste.

[Mooh Bear]

AllThatJazz wrote...

Mooh Bear wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Mooh Bear wrote...

ReavousX wrote...

A long articulate post

Frankly, I disagree with you on most points. There is no way you can consider the gameplay of DA2 superior to Origins, if you are actually interested in playing the game. Sure, if you just want to see a little action, the fights are fine, they're "something to do" until you reach the next quest marker. But they're not interesting to play. Aside from a couple a bosses, there is nothing to do, you just watch (playing on PC). The cooldowns last forever. I play a Mage. The fight starts, I cast my 4 spells and then... I wait, picking a new target when the last one exploded in a puddle of blood. My companions are jumping all over the place, more baddies appear out of nowhere... Once in a while, I switch to healing. Cool fights...  Not. And no, I haven't tried Nightmare, because I want to fight the enemies, not the atrocious camera and the megadumb companion AI, notwithstanding the unending life bars of certain elites and bosses. The boss at the end of Act 2 already took forever to die in normal (but I was never in danger).

Regarding conversation, the wheel doesn't make much of a difference in the end. Whether there are full sentences or just a "stance", the convo are still 100% scripted. However, it can be frustrating to see your character say or do something you completely didn't expect (nor want). The same problem exist in ME1/2. And it could easily be fixed if Bioware would simply give players the choice...

Companions are fine, although you can regret that they're even more pigeon-holed in a particular tactical role, the fights as they are makes it moot. And their background could be more developed. We don't learn much about them during the game.

As for the plot, well, the overarching story is not bad. It's refreshing to not be the sole hope of mankind for once. However, if Hawke is not here to save the world, the Champion doesn't seem to be interested in doing anything else really. The PC has no goals. The PC just roams around, picking errands from various people. The main story quests feel like a bunch of sidequests, disconnected from the PC and between them. Why is Hawke helping all those people? Why is Hawke even getting involved? What does Hawke want? There is no drive, just a necessity to move the plot forward by checking the next quest marker... I think that's a major failure for a RPG which wants to focus so much on the main character's story itself.

Overall, Just setting aside the super-cheap ten dungeons for the price of one recycling, the game doesn't feel like a step forward. Most of the changes do not bring more enjoyment, they make the game simpler to play: less to do in fights, less to read, less to manage with leveling and equipment. Sure you could argue it flows better, but you know what flows even better? A movie: nothing to do at all. Just seat down and enjoy. <_<

I don't agree with this. How is trying to get your family out of the slums not a goal? It's just a more personal goal than 'kill this big thing that's trying to destroy the world'. When I play through Origins, the only Origin story I really connect with is the Human Noble. Why? Because the end of the HN origin gives me a personal aspiration - to kill Howe. I prefer a goal that has me trying to better the lot of the people I care about, than fighting some great evil. I love Hawke because she earns every scrap of what she has, and I thoroughly enjoy playing her as she does it.

No argument about the recycling of areas, though.

Crikey, with all these disparate opinions about almost every aspect of the game, it's no wonder the reviews have been all over the place. This game is like Marmite! 

The whole Act 1 subplot ends with...  Act 1. Plus, there aren't any plot to speak of in Act 1. You're just picking up odd jobs to rake those 50 sovereign in. And what are your goals in Act 2 and 3? Chilling out at the Hanged Man with your pals?

Act 2 - trying to get rid of the Qunari.
Act 3 - playing Kingmaker (or equivalent) - being the deciding factor in who wields the power in Kirkwall.

Subplots gradually increasing in importance/significance as Hawke's influence grows.

The only reason I didn't point that out in my previous post is because I kind of thought the Act 2 & 3 goals were more obvious. And gathering the 50 sovereigns so that a Deep Roads expedition could make you rich enough to restore your family's wealth was the plot of Act one. And it was really not that hard to get the 50 sovereigns (I had more than 150 by the time I left Kirkwall) . You don't have to do the tons of 'odd jobs', just the major sidequests, most of which I thought were pretty interesting. It was kind of the same thing as in Baldur's Gate 2, albeit for a different reason.

The Act 2 subplot is interesting, no doubt. But why is the PC even involved? The Chantry, the Templars, the Qunaris are calling him out of the blue to fix their problems. At no point the PC has any stake in any of the big intrigues going on. Why should the PC risk his neck for any of them? That's what I mean. As the main character, you're not concerned by the drama going on.

[SnowHeart1]

ReavousX wrote...

I think it's completely possible to be "hardcore" and not get my panties in a wad over changes that don't bother me as it would someone else.  It's a matter of taste.

Absolutely, but I fail to see how proposing cutting out ("streamlining"?) the entire dialogue system in favor of simply picking a personality trait at the beginning is "hardcore". If you do, fine, but it is a point that as a "hardcore" RPG enthusiast I disagree with you and, yes, it's a matter of taste. And, again, please stop suggesting that people with criticisms are getting upset (or having their "panties in a wad") over "changes". It's not the changes that have me upset with DA2; it's the rushed production and, IMO, relatively poor story development. Those are not changes to the game's mechanics; rather, they are characteristics unique to each title.

E: fixing a typo

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 18 mars 2011 - 05:16 .

[Lord_Saulot]

Mooh Bear wrote...

The Act 2 subplot is interesting, no doubt. But why is the PC even involved? The Chantry, the Templars, the Qunaris are calling him out of the blue to fix their problems. At no point the PC has any stake in any of the big intrigues going on. Why should the PC risk his neck for any of them? That's what I mean. As the main character, you're not concerned by the drama going on.

The impression I got is that by Act 2, you are an established name in Kirkwall, someone who has a reputation as something of a fixer, and someone with contacts among the major groups.  People know that you have had various interactions in the past (thanks to Act 1), and this leads them to think you can help with the major problems.  As for why the PC should risk his neck out for them?  Because the tensions boiling in the city will affect the PC, his adopted home, as well as his friends and what they hold dear.  The PC is one of the people with the strength and influence to do something about that, and has shown that he can get things done.

It worked for me, but I can understand that it may not work for everyone.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I still find the combat too fast for me to control all of the companions while still having time to watch the actual attacks I've ordered. Because everything happens so quickly, I need to move to another character as soon as I've issued an order.

The speed of DA2's combat is well-suited to controlling one character. The speed of DAO's combat is well-suited to controlling all four at once. Since I want to control all four, I prefer the slower combat.

Given that the game is designed to allow both, they really should have had a slower combat setting (not unlike Daggerfall's Slow Reaction setting).

[misterdde]

Pretty nice review. Well written and quite agreable to read. But there is one thing i can't understand... What is the difference between the causual and the hardcore ? The words are different but globaly, the opinion is quite the same. And for the plot ( by exemple ) their is just one side present.Witch one ? or maybe you both agreed on these part ^^. Still nice post :3

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I still find the combat too fast for me to control all of the companions while still having time to watch the actual attacks I've ordered. Because everything happens so quickly, I need to move to another character as soon as I've issued an order.

The speed of DA2's combat is well-suited to controlling one character. The speed of DAO's combat is well-suited to controlling all four at once. Since I want to control all four, I prefer the slower combat.

Given that the game is designed to allow both, they really should have had a slower combat setting (not unlike Daggerfall's Slow Reaction setting).

Agreed, because combat is frenetic most of the time I rarely see the nice moves or animations that are being displayed.  I'm far too worried about just surviving.

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I still find the combat too fast for me to control all of the companions while still having time to watch the actual attacks I've ordered. Because everything happens so quickly, I need to move to another character as soon as I've issued an order.

The speed of DA2's combat is well-suited to controlling one character. The speed of DAO's combat is well-suited to controlling all four at once. Since I want to control all four, I prefer the slower combat.

Given that the game is designed to allow both, they really should have had a slower combat setting (not unlike Daggerfall's Slow Reaction setting).

Personally, I think that the quickness of the combat adds some kind of challenge and that it's not "too" quick. I think that it's more a problem of camera, controls (iso view or aoe view, targetting, etc. etc.) and animations (I mean, sometime there are so many things happening and it's really hard to see what's happening).

Even NWN OC was not a party based game but many players played NWN in single player and multyplayer with great fun nonetheless. So, the two styles are not exlcusive and it's only a question of finding the "soft spot" (wich, imho, is not DA:O unresponsive, slow and chesslike combat).

[Lord_Saulot]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I still find the combat too fast for me to control all of the companions while still having time to watch the actual attacks I've ordered. Because everything happens so quickly, I need to move to another character as soon as I've issued an order.

The speed of DA2's combat is well-suited to controlling one character. The speed of DAO's combat is well-suited to controlling all four at once. Since I want to control all four, I prefer the slower combat.

Given that the game is designed to allow both, they really should have had a slower combat setting (not unlike Daggerfall's Slow Reaction setting).

Agreed.  This is something I tried to address in my review, but I do not think I ever fully thought through why I can't stand the fast combat.  I never found DA:O to be too slow, not even once.

[Mooh Bear]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

Mooh Bear wrote...

The Act 2 subplot is interesting, no doubt. But why is the PC even involved? The Chantry, the Templars, the Qunaris are calling him out of the blue to fix their problems. At no point the PC has any stake in any of the big intrigues going on. Why should the PC risk his neck for any of them? That's what I mean. As the main character, you're not concerned by the drama going on.

The impression I got is that by Act 2, you are an established name in Kirkwall, someone who has a reputation as something of a fixer, and someone with contacts among the major groups.  People know that you have had various interactions in the past (thanks to Act 1), and this leads them to think you can help with the major problems.  As for why the PC should risk his neck out for them?  Because the tensions boiling in the city will affect the PC, his adopted home, as well as his friends and what they hold dear.  The PC is one of the people with the strength and influence to do something about that, and has shown that he can get things done.

It worked for me, but I can understand that it may not work for everyone.

It didn't work for me, indeed. I kept wondering why in the 9 hells I am constantly running around to help those fools. And the fact that none of your actions seemed to make any difference didn't help. For example, in DA:O, you had to fix other's problem, but it was to further your cause. And your actions mattered. You could choose whose side you were on. In DA2, you try (and fail) to fix anybody's problem for no other reasons than being requested to 

Modifié par Mooh Bear, 18 mars 2011 - 05:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

Even NWN OC was not a party based game but many players played NWN in single player and multyplayer with great fun nonetheless.

I enjoy NWN.  I like that speed of combat, even for a single character.

 So, the two styles are not exlcusive and it's only a question of finding the "soft spot" (wich, imho, is not DA:O unresponsive, slow and chesslike combat).

I can see why some people might think DAO's combat was too slow (it probably was too slow for melee-combat - I do very little melee combat), but it was no less responsive than DA2.  DA2's combat is unresponsive in that the animations linger well past the action that triggered them, thus delaying subsequent action).

[misterdde]

I think that's missing in dao is the combat animation. I think that is somebody could import the fighting move from da2 to dao, it won't seem " slow " any more. Tha major thing is: in dao the mouvement are not connected you just swing your sword almost randomly. In da2 it seems much more natural and smooth.

[Satyricon331]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I still find the combat too fast for me to control all of the companions while still having time to watch the actual attacks I've ordered. Because everything happens so quickly, I need to move to another character as soon as I've issued an order.

The speed of DA2's combat is well-suited to controlling one character. The speed of DAO's combat is well-suited to controlling all four at once. Since I want to control all four, I prefer the slower combat.

Given that the game is designed to allow both, they really should have had a slower combat setting (not unlike Daggerfall's Slow Reaction setting).

Yes, that's exactly right.  And I think that issue compounded my annoyance with the tactics screen, which lacked the quick bar at the bottom that DAO had, meaning in DA2 I couldn't have an overview of the spells/talents I had to work with for a character, nor could I find out what those abilities actually did.  I had to go by memory or write them down on paper.  It's like no matter what you try, DA2 is out to punish you for trying to play tactically.


There were several points I disagreed with the OP on, although of course it was a good post.  All I have time to say atm is that I thought the character creation here was done terribly.  I thought it was extremely difficult to create a good-looking guy.  I'd agree it's easier to avoid ugliness, but the non-ugly looks are more homely than good-looking, imo.  

[Aumata]

Surprise me on your post. I figure it would be a **** storm of Hardcore vs Casual to PC vs Console. These are good view points. I for one is looking forward to DA3, as DA2 might have fell flat on its ass, it did brought some new ideas that can be mix with DA:O to create a masterpiece.

[Sidney]

Well you start with a mostly false premise: It's an undeniable fact that the game has been streamlined, with combat, armor, and dialog all seeing major changes - well assuming you mean "streamlined" when you wrote streamlined. Changed yes, streamlined no.

Combat hasn't been streamlined. There's nothing "streamlined" about it. It is the same mechanically. No matter what you think about the graphical golly-gee-wizz-bang it plays out exactly the same in terms of pause, target, select action, switch characters. I'll wait for the legions of isometric wonks to appear and tell that is streamlined but of course all they whine about is how things are harder for not having it so now streamlined means "harder but not to my tastes".

Armor I continue to be amazed people care about dressing up their companions but really given the limited number of suits of armor in DAO it wasn't like that was a deep meaningful part of the game. I can guess the armor everyone in your party was in by game's end. Did you have a warrior in Juggernaut and Legion of the Dead? Rogue in Wade's Superior? Really? You too, wow we're both deep thinkers on the issue. The ability to mix n' match runes gave that as much depth, and more customization with less "streamlining" than DAO.

Dialog is in no way streamlined. You actually have to make more choices - what am I going to say and how am I going to say it. DAO you sort of had to take a flier on the second half of that equation so if the game providing you more information to make better decision is "streamlined" so be it but it isn't like they too out any depth. With the range of tones you could really be a lot more intricate in your personality than DAO's Pick 1 for Good, 2 for Bad and 3 to ask more questions approach on so many things.

[Maelora]

I read your review, but dear gods, you were too soft on it by half.

There are some terrible glaring flaws in both concept and execution.

[skylr616]

Maelora wrote...

I read your review, but dear gods, you were too soft on it by half.

There are some terrible glaring flaws in both concept and execution.

The same could be said of every video game ever made (could probably list off dozens of serious issues in even the greatest of the RPG genre)... but sometimes a person enjoys a game regardless and so these issues become insignificant.

There really is no accounting for taste... I am just as baffled by all of the dislike for DA2 as you apparently are by all of the love for it. *shrug*

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 07:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

I can guess the armor everyone in your party was in by game's end. Did you have a warrior in Juggernaut and Legion of the Dead? Rogue in Wade's Superior?

No.  As it happens, you're wrong.  Golly.

Did most people do that?  Yes, because the traditional roles for those classes had obvious best choices.  But DAO didn't tie you to those traditional roles.  If you wanted to make Leliana both your Archer and your Tank, and put her in Heavy Armour, you could do that.  Try making Varric your tank in DA2.  How much armour can he wear?

Dialog is in no way streamlined. You actually have to make more choices - what am I going to say and how am I going to say it.

DA2 doesn't let you choose what to say, as the lines are hidden from you.  All you get to choose is the general direction.

DAO you sort of had to take a flier on the second half of that equation so if the game providing you more information to make better decision is "streamlined" so be it but it isn't like they too out any depth.

By forcing specific tones and deliveries on us, they took out miles of depth.  In DAO you could choose any line for any reason that made sense to you.  In DA2 you're told what your character means - that's the very definition of limited choice.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 mars 2011 - 07:19 .

[Meltemph]

The speed of DA2's combat is well-suited to controlling one character. The speed of DAO's combat is well-suited to controlling all four at once. Since I want to control all four, I prefer the slower combat.

If you really want to master the combat and status effects, specially on the harder difficulties, you definitely need to at least partially control everyone a lot. The manipulation on status effects is a major advantage in this game if you have the party work together.

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


By forcing specific tones and deliveries on us, they took out miles of depth.  In DAO you could choose any line for any reason that made sense to you.  In DA2 you're told what your character means - that's the very definition of limited choice.

But by not taking 'intent' into account by just choosing a list of options the developer can't use that tool later on in the game.  Once again I think you are blurring the lines of logic, reality and waht makes sense in your world.  When you talk to people in the real world they do use inflection and tone and often that tone means as much if not more than the actual words coming out of their mouths.  If every one talked like a tranquil you may have a point. 

For example in the game I'm playing I used the funny or joking dialogue responses a lot.  Later in the game members of my group were responding to the fact that I was light hearted or that I joked around too much.  I found that to be a nice feature in that they reacted long term to my intents.