184 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord_Saulot]

Sidney wrote...

Lord_Saulot wrote...

@Sidney: You are correct about armor runes - I was thinking of Awakening and I concede my mistake. However, set bonuses were not always better than individual items in all circumstances, and in an RPG, player choice is usually not considered an invalid purpose. In any case, you still get tons of armor dumped on you in DA2 - the only difference is that not only won't you use the bulk of it, but you can't even give it to companions.

As for item descriptions and images, we will have to disagree. But, I have to take issue with your final paragraph. Just because you consider an issue minor or meaningless does not mean that others have to rate it the same way. The elements of game that impact people's enjoyment are different for different players, and for some of us, the inventory experience is a substantial element of gameplay.

Choice isn't invalid but it is part of a panoply of options. Choice about armor set against visual style, ease of recognitrion on the battlefield and immersion all weight against what is really not a terribly useful game mechanic not to mention one that, especially in DAO, is silly since armor is generic and not even race specific - I can swap LoD armor from Sten to Oghren w/ no issues. Other than you being able to choose for the sake of choice there's not much gain for a player in doing so. As for the tons of stuff, I hate the mony haul aspects of all the Bioware games because there's just way, way too much good stuff floating about in most of their games.

I get that people like the inventory and lore stuff. Some of us hate it with a passion. I'd rather play a 1920's RPG with no magic items and only a .45 pistol rather than having to loot and play mix n' match with dress up game play and vendor trash. That's my preference but dear god as much as I hate the broken worthless inventory system of BG2, DAO and ME1 those weren't crushing OMG they're ruined RPG's issues either. Why does it seem like the RPG's "hardcore" are the gaming equivilent of the Southern Baptists where any slight deviation from the same old, same old is a damnation type issue and not mere;y one of a variety of types of gameplay?

Well, I can't speak for others, but this was hardly an end of the world issue for me.  I played and enjoyed the game despite it.  But, if it comes up, in a forum where the game developers read and consider people's opinions, I am going to take the opportunity to let them know which way I like better.  I realize, of course, that you aren't necessarily talking about me in that regard. 

And I am fully aware that there are multiple factors and that player choice is the only one.  But I don't find the other issues as compelling as being able to equip my companions as I see fit.  I can appreciate that you don't feel that way, but once again, I enjoyed the game despite the way the inventory was implemented.

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

You miss the point. You are trying to state that it is never ok to reduce complexity (like in the case of taking away the ability to equip armor on NPC).

I never said that.  I never claimed compexity was good.  I claimed player choice was good.  I claimed that cimpexity wasn't the problem the developers were trying tio fix.

Where did you see me say that complexity, on its own, was a good thing?

Reducing complexity (taking away options, in this case) will improve the enjoyment of the game for a large number of players (as is clearly the case by the number of positive reviews from folks that didn't like DAO).

And I'm pointing out that redcuing complexity reduces enjoyment of many players.  Which is why I'm pointing out that those other players can be aided without reducing complexity, but instead just making that complexity either optional or more accessible and less overwhelming.

You're arguing against a position that doesn't exist.

[skylr616]

Sidney wrote...

I get that people like the inventory and lore stuff. Some of us hate it with a passion. I'd rather play a 1920's RPG with no magic items and only a .45 pistol rather than having to loot and play mix n' match with dress up game play and vendor trash. That's my preference but dear god as much as I hate the broken worthless inventory system of BG2, DAO and ME1 those weren't crushing OMG they're ruined RPG's issues either. Why does it seem like the RPG's "hardcore" are the gaming equivilent of the Southern Baptists where any slight deviation from the same old, same old is a damnation type issue and not mere;y one of a variety of types of gameplay?

A lot of folks were expecting Origins 2 (contrary to all the warnings from Bioware). DA2 has a completely different narrative style and the plot is on a very different scale from what we saw in DAO so a lot of folks were shellshocked and seem to be clinging fiercely to every complaint they can find.

All that I can really say about it is that there has not been a single negative professional review of DA2 (out of 100+ crossplatform) and even in the cases where it was obvious the author was disappointed they ultimately admitted the game was fun to play. I call that a win in my book (they can't all be home runs).

I actually enjoy DA2 considerably more than DAO (both great games) but I recognize that is a matter of taste.

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 09:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

There is no arguing with the fact that the equipment and NPC customization has been somewhat simplified in DA2 when compaired to DAO... whether that is good or bad is the part that is entirely subjective.

I agree.  Which is why I don't think removing complexity is the best way to fix a problem that has nothing to do with complexity.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 mars 2011 - 09:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Chadthesad wrote...

Yes, if you use the correct cross class combo's you can actually one shot Lieutentant ranked enemies on Hard difficulty. After level 12 you'll be able to. Critical chance/damage also becomes a factor.

Then to be fair they should also be able to one-shot me.

And yes, that might make for a poor game, but the solution is to limit everyone's abilities to one-shot opponent, not just my enemies' abilities.

Baldur's Gate is a great game, do not get me wrong, but it follows the D&D system. There's no wiggle room in that system for not allowing enemies to follow your characters same abilities, statistics and spells.

All RPGs shoudl do this.

Seeing how DA II & Origins are not traditional cRPG's with a d20 system, they can't allow npcs/mobs equal ground to the heroes.

Why not?  You say they can't do this, but why not?  There are other RPG systems that do this.  Why in Dragon Age somehow different in that this isn't possible?

Bioware gave the NPC's enough punch to challenge the player, without causing them frustation.

Thats a question of encounter design.  That has little to do with the ruleset.  Any ruleset can featuer encoutners like this - it will simply change what those encoutners look like.

Anyway, I can understand your points of view. The direction mainstream cRPG's are going, d20 based games are a relic. However, games like Drakensang give a reformed approach, The Dark Eye pnp system is a nice alternative to the D&D system.

d20 was never that good a system.  No one here is calling for d20.  I'm just asking for a ruleset that makes sense within a coherent setting.

[skylr616]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Which is why I don't think removing complexity is the best way to fix a problem that has nothing to do with complexity.

They had multiple options to make the game accessible to a wider audience and they chose the one that (only somewhat) limits the options of the few that prefer micro-managing all the NPC equipment. I do understand your point I just don't see it as a very big deal...

It seems to mostly be an aesthetic change (as stats can still be upgraded, in a way that actually ties nicely in with plot elements) but I can understand why you feel the way you do about the situation. I don't agree but that doesn't necessarily make you wrong.

It is infinitely more simple than you are trying to make it... either you liked the game or you didn't. If you liked it you will forgive the "faults" and if you didn't you will not. This is true of all games (even the "greats").

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 09:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

As for the tons of stuff, I hate the mony haul aspects of all the Bioware games because there's just way, way too much good stuff floating about in most of their games.

I agree with this.  But that's not a good reason to abandon character equipment.

I get that people like the inventory and lore stuff. Some of us hate it with a passion. I'd rather play a 1920's RPG with no magic items and only a .45 pistol rather than having to loot and play mix n' match with dress up game play and vendor trash. That's my preference but dear god as much as I hate the broken worthless inventory system of BG2, DAO and ME1 those weren't crushing OMG they're ruined RPG's issues either.

I didn't mind BG2's inventory system, but DAO and ME1 were pretty bad, I'll agree.

BioWare's best inventory system was NWN.  Hands down.

skylr616 wrote...

A lot of folks were expecting Origins 2 (contrary to all the warnings from Bioware). DA2 has a completely different narrative style and the plot is on a very different scale from what we saw in DAO so a lot of folks were shellshocked and seem to be clinging fiercely to every complaint they can find.

I happen to like DA2's narrative style (I think it could be better implemented, but I like the structure), and I think the plot is generally superior to DAO's.

It's the gameplay that fails.

All that I can really say about it is that there has not been a single negative professional review of DA2 (out of 100+ crossplatform) and even in the cases where it was obvious the author was disappointed they ultimately admitted the game was fun to play. I call that a win in my book (they can't all be home runs).

There were professional reviews out of France that gave the game scores of 12/20 (or something close to that).  But they appeared to have issued with the localisation.

Still, there have been poor professional reviews.

I actually enjoy DA2 considerably more than DAO (both great games) but I recognize that is a matter of taste.

Of course it is.  My point is just that the things you like in DA2 relative to DAO didn't need to be done in this exact way that broke parts of the game for the rest of us.

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

It seems to mostly be an aesthetic change (as stats can still be upgraded,

The stats can't be upgraded in anything like the same way they could in DAO.  The two systems are entirely dissimilar in this way. 

If it were just an aesthetic change, I wouldn't mind nearly as much (after all, I can always mod the appearances - I do that quite a bit in DAO).

But in DAO, I could get Leliana's armour value just as high as Alistairs.  Tell me how to do that in DA2 with Isabela.

See?  There's a huge difference.

[OmegaBlue0231]

Great post, nice work.

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Aesthetics? Really? That's not really an issue of complexity then either.

Stop thinking like a player.  Start making in-character decisions about armour and see where that takes you.

People here does not know what means in-character much less how it could be extended to other chars than your, hmm, what, "canon" char?

If they would understand what is IC they would not complain so much of graphics or turn based combat.

[skylr616]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

skylr616 wrote...

It seems to mostly be an aesthetic change (as stats can still be upgraded,

The stats can't be upgraded in anything like the same way they could in DAO.  The two systems are entirely dissimilar in this way. 

If it were just an aesthetic change, I wouldn't mind nearly as much (after all, I can always mod the appearances - I do that quite a bit in DAO).

But in DAO, I could get Leliana's armour value just as high as Alistairs.  Tell me how to do that in DA2 with Isabela.

See?  There's a huge difference.

Ah... now that really does seem to be a narrative choice. It seems to me that it wasn't just about simplifying equipment managmeent but also about keeping the focus on the protagonist of the story.

It might even be seen as a boon to combat as it affords Bioware the ability reign in the strengths/weaknesses of each NPC and ensures they fit their part in the story (can only get some much armor on that rogue, for example).

There were professional reviews out of France that gave the game scores of 12/20 (or something close to that). But they appeared to have issued with the localisation.

Still, there have been poor professional reviews.

There have been some reviews that were not glowing... but zero "negative" reviews. Here is a link to the metacritic summary for PC... you will find it is the same case across all of the platforms. ZERO negative reviews.

http://www.metacriti...c/dragon-age-ii

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 10:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

moilami wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Aesthetics? Really? That's not really an issue of complexity then either.

Stop thinking like a player.  Start making in-character decisions about armour and see where that takes you.

People here does not know what means in-character much less how it could be extended to other chars than your, hmm, what, "canon" char?

If they would understand what is IC they would not complain so much of graphics or turn based combat.

If they can't make in-character decisions then we can't have an intelligent discussion about gameplay.

RPG gameplay is nothing but in-character decision-making.  That's the whole game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

Ah... now that really does seem to be a narrative choice. It seems to me that it wasn't just about simplifying equipment managmeent but also about keeping the focus on the protagonist of the story.

It might even be seen as a boon to combat as it affords Bioware the ability reign in the strengths/weaknesses of each NPC (can only get some much armor on that rogue, for example).

Most probably, yes.

And I think it's a terrible design choice.  If we build a party that breaks the game for good or ill, they should let us do that.  It is not the job of the designers to protect us from ourselves.

There have been some reviews that weren't not glowing... but zero "negative" reviews. Here is a link to the metacritic summary for PC... you will find it is the same case across all of the platforms. ZERO negative reviews.

I see that.  But that alone doesn't tell me anything.  Now common is a "negative" review from a professional reviewer generally?  Do games ever get those?  How bad does a game need to be to get those?  If only games as bad as Big Rigs Over the Road Racing get negative reviews, then this ceases to be a useful metric.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I also see that Metacritic is missing some of those international reviewers I mentioned.

[skylr616]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And I think it's a terrible design choice.  If we build a party that breaks the game for good or ill, they should let us do that.  It is not the job of the designers to protect us from ourselves..

Opinion noted ;P

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Aesthetics? Really? That's not really an issue of complexity then either.

Stop thinking like a player.  Start making in-character decisions about armour and see where that takes you.

People here does not know what means in-character much less how it could be extended to other chars than your, hmm, what, "canon" char?

If they would understand what is IC they would not complain so much of graphics or turn based combat.

If they can't make in-character decisions then we can't have an intelligent discussion about gameplay.

RPG gameplay is nothing but in-character decision-making.  That's the whole game.

Well yeah, that's why 95% of the time I am just chatting here. Not discussing.

[Legbiter]

ReavousX wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

Neckbeard's post is too long.

Executive summary?

Game good, not perfect, appeals to both the hardcore and casual RPG gamer, but has glaring faults in a few areas.  

Ah ok, thanks for bothering to write that up.

You're ok Neckbeard.

And I agree with you, the game storywise is excellent (should Bioware even get points on that anymore?) and my only fault is the extreme map reusage but what I dislike even more than that is the arbritrary way map access is handled. On some levels half the map is off-limits because the doors are glued shut. I hate this hamster cage feel I get and I've a sneaking suspicion this wouldn't have been the case if Bioware had 2 months more to work on it.

Combat is vastly surperior to DA:O.

[Mooh Bear]

skylr616 wrote...

Sidney wrote...

I get that people like the inventory and lore stuff. Some of us hate it with a passion. I'd rather play a 1920's RPG with no magic items and only a .45 pistol rather than having to loot and play mix n' match with dress up game play and vendor trash. That's my preference but dear god as much as I hate the broken worthless inventory system of BG2, DAO and ME1 those weren't crushing OMG they're ruined RPG's issues either. Why does it seem like the RPG's "hardcore" are the gaming equivilent of the Southern Baptists where any slight deviation from the same old, same old is a damnation type issue and not mere;y one of a variety of types of gameplay?

A lot of folks were expecting Origins 2 (contrary to all the warnings from Bioware). DA2 has a completely different narrative style and the plot is on a very different scale from what we saw in DAO so a lot of folks were shellshocked and seem to be clinging fiercely to every complaint they can find.

All that I can really say about it is that there has not been a single negative professional review of DA2 (out of 100+ crossplatform) and even in the cases where it was obvious the author was disappointed they ultimately admitted the game was fun to play. I call that a win in my book (they can't all be home runs).

I actually enjoy DA2 considerably more than DAO (both great games) but I recognize that is a matter of taste.

Actually the game was panned by the 3 main French gaming websites. Gamekult.com gave it a 5/10, Jeuxvideo.com gave it a 12/20 and Jeuxvideo.fr gave it a 5/10. Localization was a problem, but they criticized the story and gameplay as well. Also, Canard PC, a well reputed PC video game magazine gave it a 5/10.

Modifié par Mooh Bear, 18 mars 2011 - 10:48 .

[skylr616]

Mooh Bear wrote...

Actually the game was panned by the 3 main French gaming websites. Gamekult.com gave it a 5/10, Jeuxvideo.com gave it a 12/20 and Jeuxvideo.fr gave it a 5/10. Localization was a problem, but they criticized the story and gameplay as well. Also, Canard PC, a well reputed PC video game magazine gave it a 5/10.

It is interesting that the very worst reviews seem to all come from the same region... that can't just be coincidence.

I am sure their complaints are accurate as even the 9/10 reviews I've read had plenty of negative points (even the very greatest games have room for improvement... there were several 6/10 or lower reviews of DAO). If the localization was bad then probably every negative was magnified many times and the positives were hard to recognize. Hard to say really... but it remains a bit telling that there are so many negative reviews from a particular region.

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 11:08 .

[misterdde]

What can we say, we love to complain .

But i'm surprising that we seem to be the only country where reviewer give such note.

I'll translate here the general overview of jeuxvideo.com, so you can tell me if it's as you think :

Overall 12/20
Dragon age 2 allow us to realise what could have done Mass Effect 2 if it was missed. The simplification of the game system was expected, but we thought it was motivated by an more epic adventure, with a passionious story and a spectacular staging witch is not the case. Between the little care given to the quest, made of unlimited fight into recycled environnment, the impossibility of negociate those fight with strategic and the bad french localisation, the overall is not as the same level as Awakening, but like a huge DLC lacking of inspiration. The amaters of tactic RPG will go without hesitation on the last Drakensang instead of supportthis missed sequel, in a serious competition with gothic 4 for the most mlanifest slaughterage of saga


Their is some approximation but it should look like this.

Modifié par misterdde, 18 mars 2011 - 11:17 .

[skylr616]

misterdde wrote...

What can we say, we love to complain .

But i'm surprising that we seem to be the only counrty where reviewer give such note.

It really could be as simple as cultural differences... deeply rooted fear of change or maybe to prideful to admit the game is better than expected based on early complaints...

...nah... probably just the bad localization... otherwise it sounds like bigotry.

I am have quite a lot of French blood actually... not that that excuses anything... *aghem*... nm... shutting up now... argh...

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 11:15 .

[misterdde]

i had translate a review and edit my last post to put it in. But all in all i agree with you, the game is better than the test say. But the reviewer meaned what alot of people said : we thought the change would be more origin oriented. So the review is not a review of da2, it's a comparaison between origin and it's sequel.

To link the subject and my previous post :french have an hardcore gamer point of view IMO ^^

Modifié par misterdde, 18 mars 2011 - 11:21 .

[skylr616]

misterdde wrote...

i had translate a review and edit my last post to put it in. But all in all i agree with you, the game is better than the test say. But the reviewer meaned what alot of people said : we thought the change would be more origin oriented. So the review is not a review of da2, it's a comparaison between origin and it's sequel.

To link the subject and my previous post :french have an hardcore gamer point of view IMO ^^

It sounds similar to many of the lower reviews from other sites outside of France...  the points are all correct for the most part but it comes down to how much weight you give each point based on your own personal preferences. (e.g. while the plot is certainly less "epic" than in DAO I was not really disappointed by this myself...).

It seems that those French reviewers gave some of the negatives much greater weight than a lot of other reviewers. They aren't wrong... they are entitled to their opinion. Its probably highly relevant to their readers in particular.

[AllThatJazz]

@ Mooh Bear

Because the PC is a person of increasing influence in Kirkwall who, unlike most other people of influence in Kirkwall, has already had dealings with the Qunari and for whom the Arishok has at least a marginal amount of respect (or lack of disgust)? They aren't calling her out of the blue. Did you not do the Seamus sidequest in Act One? Did you not meet the Arishok during that Gunpowder quest? Did you not meet the rogue Saarebas (sp?) or come up against the Tal Vashoth? Hawke is pretty much the only person in Kirkwall who it makes any sense to ask to help with the Qunari issue, if you're trying, as the Viscount is, to avoid a bloodbath. And there were a whole bunch of different reasons why my Hawke was concerned, or why any Hawke could be.

1) Kirkwall is now her home (or at least the place where she lives) - in my case, Hawke's sister belongs to the Kirkwall Circle, her best friend is captain of the city guard, and her mother is attempting to rebuild her life in the city of her ancestors. Family and friends are my Hawke's main motivation for everything throughout the game, and Hawke wants to protect them - allowing a potential Qunari invasion force to just sit there when Hawke can do something about it is dangerous and irresponsible.

2) Self interest. Solving the Qunari problem one way or the other will bring a huge amount of political power Hawke's way. As someone not native to Kirkwall, Hawke, like other former Fereldan refugees, faces prejudice, and one of the best ways to consolidate a still somewhat fragile position of influence in society is surely to make yourself indispensable to the people who matter.

3) History tells us that the Qunari have a reputation for particularly brutal conquest and occupation. How long did it take to get them to go away the last time? More than a hundred years? If they get a real foothold in the Free Marches then Ferelden is in terrible danger, as is the rest of Thedas. This on its own is reason enough for Hawke to have some concern about the situation, surely.

4) As it turns out (although of course this only becomes clear at the end of the chapter) it's one of Hawke's friends who's actually caused this entire mess. 

And as for the other big intrigues - again, you've been doing small bits and pieces for the various factions since the beginning of the game, building up an opinion of what's going on and who is in the right. You aren't just flung in to the centre of the storm.

In addition, your father was an apostate mage, your sister is/was a mage, your brother has anti-mage tendencies, your mother lost everything because she eloped with a mage. If you're romantically involved with any of your companions, there is a good chance that they are a mage, and a decent chance (Seb or Fenris) that they are anti-mage (or at least pro chantry/Templars). And even if you're not having sex with any of them, they are still your friends who, by this time, you've known for three years.

How can none of these things be giving you a vested interest in what's happening?   It seems to me that one kind of has to make a deliberate decision to not give a crap about anything that's going on, because there are personal stakes here, there and everywhere!

Edit: Eh, didn't mean to get so riled up :happy: It's just that I find this aspect of the game (personal motivation) to be far more convincing than Origins with it's 'look a big monster. Kill it before it destroys the world!'. I personally found it very easy to care about Hawke/the Hawke family/ all her friends and they were the driving force behind caring about the world, I'm sorry you didn't feel that way:(

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 19 mars 2011 - 11:55 .

[Morroian]

moilami wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Aesthetics? Really? That's not really an issue of complexity then either.

Stop thinking like a player.  Start making in-character decisions about armour and see where that takes you.

People here does not know what means in-character much less how it could be extended to other chars than your, hmm, what, "canon" char?

Bioware aren't making an rpg where you play and characterise your whole party. You role play 1 character and you interact with the other characters that are brought to life by the writing not whats in the players head. Yes you are the general in combat but thats what makes it a tactical rpg.