301 réponses à ce sujet

[Everwarden]

ashwind wrote...

1. Bring back fully scripted dialogue.
2. Bring back mature, developed, adult personalities.
3. Bring back diverse dungeons and not copy-pasted level design.
4. Bring back party itemisation.
5. Bring back Dragon Age. 

#1 - This is all down to preference. I like to click on "You must be joking" and be suprised by what the character might actually say. I can understand some do not like it but with the icons that shows - Good, Humor, Aggressive, Flirt - I say Bioware has made some improvement since ME1. While I will not mind having it - I doubt it will affect the overall score too much.

No. This isn't down to preference. This is down to having control of your character so you can roleplay more effectively. If you want to be surprised by what the character (note that you don't call him 'your' character) says, why even have an option to select what is said at all? Play Halo, what Master Chief says will always surprise you without the burden of clicking a dialogue wheel. What it sounds like is you don't want a role-playing game, you want to play a movie with interactive combat. If so, God of War does a much, much better job of that than DA2. 

#2 - I.. fail to see how DA2 is lacking in this... 

I love the characters, but they all feel underdeveloped due to how little time you get to spend with them. The effect is made far worse by the fact that apparently years pass without any relationship changes. 

#3 - Agreed and I think Bioware knows it too. Think Mike just admitted that it turned out pretty bad in his interview.

Did he? I must have missed that. All I saw was him blaming the customers for not liking change. 

#4 - Again, personal preference. If anything, it is hard to "role-play" while I am constantly dressing up my companions like dolls. Just to clarify - I prefer to play the role of Hawke (roleplay) - not the invisible hand behind the party. I cant imagine Averline not wearing her uniform to work... what I can imagine is her fist in my face if I (Hawke) tries to dress her up - the same is true for Morrigan and Leliana.

Eh, this didn't bother me as much. Though it does leave a pesky problem of lots and lots of useless loot. 

#5 - Dragon Age? Why stop there? Lets bring back BG2, BG, Ultima Serpents Isle. No DA2 is not perfect, overall DAO did better but that is no reason to linger on to the pass. 

It's not a matter of lingering in the past. DA2, compared to the original that came out only a year and a half before it, was a complete failure. Worse than that fact is that there were lots of people calling the problems that would arise in DA2 a year beforehand, and Bioware ignored the objections of fans and let  focus groups and a time crunch dictate how their final product would turn out. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 19 mars 2011 - 02:20 .

[Tirigon]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Reviewers ought to do the exact same thing. They have to make a list about what a specific game wants to accomplish and then review how good or bad that game scores on all the criteria. A reviewer who gives the DA2 combat system 10/10 is a moron, but so is a reviewer who rates the system 1/10. DA2 combat is pretty good, it has its flaws but the core system is solid. A proper review would rate it 6-8/10 and explains the pros and cons.

But these numbers don´t mean sh!t.

See, even if TECHNICALLY combat in DA2 may deserve a 6-8 (just gonna believe you here for the sake of avoiding arguments that don´t lead to anythingB)) - if you want DAO combat and don´t enjoy it as all the rating is moot. For me it´s just not better than 1 because that´s how much i enjoyed it - not at all.


To make it more clear: No matter how good the newest FIFA world cup game is, if I think sports game are retarded (which i do:P) FOR ME the game will suck.

On the other hand, even a game that is techincally not that good can be a source of joy if it´s exactly what you want. For me, for example, I would count Vampire - The Masquerade here. It has a horrible combat and, on account of being from 2004 or so, bad graphics but you could play a VAMPIRE and I found the story AWESOME so it was one of the best games I played since a long time..

So, why should one give either of the games a x/10. Just describe what they´re like as objectively as possible and let people decide on their own wether or not they´ll enjoy.

[Abispa]

Money talks, and in the end, it's the only poll that truly matters. If people don't buy it and refuse to support the DA2 DLCs, then this game will be considered a failure, no matter how much I liked it. If it sells well and the DLCs are successful, then this game is a success no matter how much you didn't like it.

No matter how much some may state that this game sucks as "fact," the truth is that it is subjective. I liked it, save for the limited -- though better looking -- environments. I also feel the dialog is GREATLY improved over the original, as is the combat. I have friends that hated it, but I don't believe I have the right to say they're stupid because they didn't enjoy it.

[moilami]

Abispa wrote...

Money talks, and in the end, it's the only poll that truly matters. If people don't buy it and refuse to support the DA2 DLCs, then this game will be considered a failure, no matter how much I liked it. If it sells well and the DLCs are successful, then this game is a success no matter how much you didn't like it.

No matter how much some may state that this game sucks as "fact," the truth is that it is subjective. I liked it, save for the limited -- though better looking -- environments. I also feel the dialog is GREATLY improved over the original, as is the combat. I have friends that hated it, but I don't believe I have the right to say they're stupid because they didn't enjoy it.

After week or two of heavy heated arguing someone finally realised that whether a game is good or bad is subjective in the end.

[djackson75]

al4mir wrote...

They should forget about console players. Why (insert-things-here) they had to make a RPG for a stupid, useless controller? Why? i know the answer, but it's frustrating...
Only at hard-nightmare i can have my tactical combat.

How i hate console players and newbies...

I'm a PC player, but I hate PC elitists who act like pricks thinking that just because they use a mouse and a keyboard instead of a controller, that somehow they're a more advanced form of civilization.

IF IT WASN'T FOR THE CONSOLES, THERE WOULDN'T *BE* A DRAGON AGE TO BEGIN WITH!!!

[moilami]

djackson75 wrote...

al4mir wrote...

They should forget about console players. Why (insert-things-here) they had to make a RPG for a stupid, useless controller? Why? i know the answer, but it's frustrating...
Only at hard-nightmare i can have my tactical combat.

How i hate console players and newbies...

I'm a PC player, but I hate PC elitists who act like pricks thinking that just because they use a mouse and a keyboard instead of a controller, that somehow they're a more advanced form of civilization.

IF IT WASN'T FOR THE CONSOLES, THERE WOULDN'T *BE* A DRAGON AGE TO BEGIN WITH!!!

Who has done so? 

[Bozorgmehr]

Tirigon wrote...

So, why should one give either of the games a x/10. Just describe what they´re like as objectively as possible and let people decide on their own wether or not they´ll enjoy.

When only looking at numbers you have to put things into perspective. If other games have received score x, you have to use that as a benchmark for new games. But I agree that numbers don't say much without a proper explanation.

My point is, you cannot rate games on feelings or specific details alone. I'll use the combat system to make it clear. Let's assume DA:O is a perfect game. Would it be worthless if it used the DA2 combat system? Or would DA2 become a great game when it uses the DA:O combat system?

[harazal]

Its funny. Ask a gamer what he thinks of metacritic, and if he disagrees with it, its a terrible thing.

Ask a gamer what he thinks of metacritic, when he agrees with it, and its the voice of God.

Metacritic is a giant melting point of opinion. Thats as much as its worth

[JamieCOTC]

DA2 is a good game, but it could have been a legendary game. It could have been the game by which all other RPGs are judged, ala KOTOR. I like the wheel. I like the player controlled character development of Hawke. I even like the story. The cut and paste maps, the lack of substantial character convos, the over streamlining of the inventory, all paint the illusion that the game was rushed. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it sure as hell feels like it.

[Tirigon]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

When only looking at numbers you have to put things into perspective. If other games have received score x, you have to use that as a benchmark for new games. But I agree that numbers don't say much without a proper explanation.

My point is, you cannot rate games on feelings or specific details alone. I'll use the combat system to make it clear. Let's assume DA:O is a perfect game. Would it be worthless if it used the DA2 combat system? Or would DA2 become a great game when it uses the DA:O combat system?

Well DA2 would severely be improved by DAO style comba imo, since the combat is its worst fault. Not the only one, mind you, butby far the worst.

As for the other way, that´s hard to tell since I didn´t know DAO style combat before DAO, so I wouldn´t know about it.....

[exskeeny]

Spuudle wrote...

exskeeny wrote...

oldmansavage wrote...

Grovermancer wrote...

Wivvix wrote...


Bring back fully scripted dialogue.
Bring back mature, developed, adult personalities.
Bring back diverse dungeons and not copy-pasted level design.
Bring back party itemisation.
Bring back Dragon Age.

Bring back the hard, effortful, believable combat that looked like it came from actual human beings, (instead of the spastic, ADD, anime, console hack n slash, weightless-weapons, exploding-bodies everywhere, 'God of War' nonsense that is DA2's melee combat.)

I'm with you bud the only people that like this new system are little kids and tapout shirt wearing tards who think call of duty was the best game ever.

I'm not a little kid, Call of Duty was good as was Call of Duty 2, however the rest were utter pooh. I actually don't mind any of those point (I don't see how the you can compare the different genre's though,)s. I loved Dragon Age: Origins but I was plagued by random crashes and bugs so I will probably never play it again.

I think DA2 is great game and I know I will play this time and time again I just wish I could do the same with DA:O with confidence that I won't crash every 20 mins.

I take your point here, but crashing every 20mins? Thats a bit exaggerated mate! I know Origins is buggy, and does indeed crash. Hoever, if every 20mins, maybe you should improve your hardware. I suffer maybe two crashes per entire playthru. This is both on Xbox 360 and pc. Lets keep it real dude

yeah maybe a little bit of hyperbole, but there was a point when it was every twenty minutes in denerim before the landsmeet. I once logged into the game played 2 and a half hours, with regular saves. the game crashed and I lost all my saves from that session and 2 1/2 hours of my life.  I suppose i can look on the bright side I guess I did get to play DA:0 more than once! just not in the way I would like!

[lillegraa]

I tend to think of those kinds of user review thingies where they're asked to give out points from 1-10 as kind of like those "hot or not" voting websites where you rate the person in question from 1-10.
If the person is like, say, a 5, then the voter will give them a 1.
If the person is an 8, then they get a 10.

So in other words, unreliable :b

[ashwind]

Tirigon wrote...

Ashwind wrote...

If we bring back the old DAO itemization - That option would mean those who do not want to do it are force to do it as well right? Else those characters will die later in game and become totally ineffective.

No. Never changed Morrigan´s robes except for those you gain at Flemeth´s who look the same, and she still was my second best party member (after main char) on Nightmare, soooo....

She is a blood mage?  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie] 

Wivvix wrote...
Allow me to clarify yet again, so you know what is being associated with which statistic....

The numbers to me means that DA2 has a lot of room for improvement not DAO is great, must follow same formula to be successful. Besides, if DA2 kept too much of DAO, I am sure there will be critics who give it a low score becuase Bioware is getting lazy and not trying new things, etc etc. My biggest disagreement is still the line that reads: Statistics dont lie.

Everwarden wrote...
No. This isn't down to preference. This is down to having control of your character so you can roleplay more effectively...

It is voiced... even if the exact words were shown, the tone and the attitude of how the words are spoken is still unknown until you hear it. How am I having less control over my character? I can still choose what I want to say and associate and emotion to it - I simply do not know how it will be spoken. It is not like I click on the aggressive button and Hawke goes flirting...

I love the characters, but they all feel underdeveloped due to how little time you get to spend with them. The effect is made far worse by the fact that apparently years pass without any relationship changes.

True, Bioware should have spent more time polishing it. Not saying it is all that bad but the conversations are just a little short and a little too few.

Did he? I must have missed that. All I saw was him blaming the customers for not liking change

You can read it here. His reply to the excessive reuse of area ends with:
ML: ...And the end result is something I look at and go, "Okay, I think that is a shame, and that is a fair critique, and something we can easily address in the future."

It's not a matter of lingering in the past. DA2, compared to the original that came out only a year and a half before it, was a complete failure. Worse than that fact is that there were lots of people calling the problems that would arise in DA2 a year beforehand, and Bioware ignored the objections of fans and let  focus groups and a time crunch dictate how their final product would turn out.

Well... DA2 sold over 200,000 copies if I recall right and lets say there are 10,000 whom has openly said that they think it worse than DAO or the worst ever Bioware game - still only represent less than 5% of the total customers. So I will not call it a complete failure. I agree that it is not as good as it should be, not as refine as DAO but far from a complete failure many claim it to be.

Modifié par ashwind, 19 mars 2011 - 05:37 .

[HK-90210]

Abispa wrote...

Money talks, and in the end, it's the only poll that truly matters. If people don't buy it and refuse to support the DA2 DLCs, then this game will be considered a failure, no matter how much I liked it. If it sells well and the DLCs are successful, then this game is a success no matter how much you didn't like it.

No matter how much some may state that this game sucks as "fact," the truth is that it is subjective. I liked it, save for the limited -- though better looking -- environments. I also feel the dialog is GREATLY improved over the original, as is the combat. I have friends that hated it, but I don't believe I have the right to say they're stupid because they didn't enjoy it.

Amen.

[Tirigon]

ashwind wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
No. Never changed Morrigan´s robes except for those you gain at Flemeth´s who look the same, and she still was my second best party member (after main char) on Nightmare, soooo....

She is a blood mage?  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

Naa that was when I DID change robe and spec to make her AW  / BM. that time she was Spirit healer.

[Tirigon]

lillegraa wrote...

I tend to think of those kinds of user review thingies where they're asked to give out points from 1-10 as kind of like those "hot or not" voting websites where you rate the person in question from 1-10.
If the person is like, say, a 5, then the voter will give them a 1.
If the person is an 8, then they get a 10.

So in other words, unreliable :b

It´s easy to test though, I post a pic of me. If they vote me 10, they´re right. Otherwise they´re ****s and have sh!tty taste:P:innocent:

[Sable Phoenix]

As much as I might agree with the Metacritic user scores in this case, I always think of Mark Twain's popularization of the quote, "There are three kinds of falsehood: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The only judge of the success of the game will be the sales figures. There are plenty of bad or unoriginal games that have sold well and sometimes spawn entire franchises, just as there are plenty of well-regarded and fantastically designed games that will never see a followup title because they sold poorly.

I actually think it could be a good thing if DA2 sells more poorly than DA (which had great sales that, ironically enough, were probably the downfall of its sequel since EA cut the production time to rush out a sequel to try and cash in on its predecessor's popularity... typical bass-ackwards coporate think), just to send a message that the departures taken from the original were not for the better. The risk there is that we might not ever see another Dragon Age title at all, since the braindead corporate suits tend to think of the sales of a single title as a trend, and will jump to the conclusion that all RPGs are falling out of favor with gamers.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 19 mars 2011 - 06:51 .

[moilami]

JamieCOTC wrote...

DA2 is a good game, but it could have been a legendary game. It could have been the game by which all other RPGs are judged, ala KOTOR. I like the wheel. I like the player controlled character development of Hawke. I even like the story. The cut and paste maps, the lack of substantial character convos, the over streamlining of the inventory, all paint the illusion that the game was rushed. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it sure as hell feels like it.

Gief moar cut & paste games?


Edit: ROFL I simply knew I would see that.

Edit: And BW listens her for sure.

Edit: I would had rated DA2 5/10 but because of copy  & paste I rate it 10/10 perfect 

Modifié par moilami, 19 mars 2011 - 07:09 .

[JaegerBane]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Reviewers ought to do the exact same thing. They have to make a list about what a specific game wants to accomplish and then review how good or bad that game scores on all the criteria. A reviewer who gives the DA2 combat system 10/10 is a moron, but so is a reviewer who rates the system 1/10. DA2 combat is pretty good, it has its flaws but the core system is solid. A proper review would rate it 6-8/10 and explains the pros and cons.

In theory, yes. However, in reality, if a game is a sequel to another, inevitably there are going to be comparisons drawn to the prequel, and in effect the game will be judged harshly if it is seen to ignore issues in the first game or do things less well than the first game.

'Less well' is in the eye of the beholder for the most part, but I think it's fair to say there are a number of changes DA2 made that were quite objectively poor choices - most visible of which was the situation with the recycled areas.

I think DA2 following what is regarded as being an all-time classic was always going to get harsh reviews for trying to do things differently. On some level I commend Bioware for having the balls to try something different from their first product, as they've done with the ME series, but I think they got a little carried away with a lot of the changes in DA2 and they started changing things for the lolz as opposed to changing stuff that didn't work or were points of contention in the first game. As I mentioned, I don't recall anyone actually complaining about DA:O's rich variety of environments, so it's anyone's guess why the devs felt that setting virtually the whole game in a area that is roughly 25% of the size of DA:O was in any way a good idea. Same goes for randomly sticking horns on qunari and all that nonsense.

[Agamo45]

Are you really going to use the user reviews to support your point? Everyone knows that the user scores are being raided by trolls. And even if they weren't, Dragon Age 2 isn't a 4.3 by any strech. A 4.3 constitutes a completely broken game.

[Lotion Soronarr]

If all "bad" user reviews are to be ignored, then we should also ignore all the "good" reviews. You can't just cherry pick.

Aside from that...commercial success of DA2 would be misleading. How many people bought the game on good faith/name, only to be dissapointed? Initial sales are not a good indicator of the state of the consumers.

[ExiledMimic]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If all "bad" user reviews are to be ignored, then we should also ignore all the "good" reviews. You can't just cherry pick.

Aside from that...commercial success of DA2 would be misleading. How many people bought the game on good faith/name, only to be dissapointed? Initial sales are not a good indicator of the state of the consumers.

I work at a game store.  So I have a fun job, to be sure.  However I'm also in a possition to affect sales because a lot of more mature gamers ask oppinions on titles.  Dragon Age 2 has come up a lot recently.  Both with those who do have it, and those considering getting it.  Sadly despite the fact I work at a store that needs to make $ by selling games, I've actively tried to talk people out of DA2 if they asked for an honest oppinion.

With this game I've already gone from the opening week of selling it like free money to having a surpluss that doesn't move.  Initial sales for this game, I'm not surprised, were huge.  However as the scores and reviews have flown out over the internet the sales took a nosedive.  So while I don't like the game, I'm fairly certain it will not reach to the heights Origins did in terms of sales.  Even despite the gigantic opening rush based on it being both a Dragon Age game and a piece of the Bioware franchise, sales have almost halted.  Mostly because even at my store I have 22 used copies of DA2 sitting on the shelf as of yesterday.

[Obro]

To bad OP because DragonAge 2 brought more money with less money put into it.Why would they consider that a failure?

I personally don't have any good expectations from DA3 if I consider in the way things are going now.

[AlanC9]

JaegerBane wrote...
 As I mentioned, I don't recall anyone actually complaining about DA:O's rich variety of environments, so it's anyone's guess why the devs felt that setting virtually the whole game in a area that is roughly 25% of the size of DA:O was in any way a good idea.

Profitability. They knew they'd take a ratings hit, but less areas = less expense. Whether it worked... depends on the sales hit, I guess.

Same goes for randomly sticking horns on qunari and all that nonsense.

Did anyone actually like the original qunari design? The one where they just looked like big humans?