167 réponses à ce sujet

[MJRick]

Asazal wrote...

Whether you agree with the OP or not, liked the game or not; we all paid $60 dollars for less content, less features, and less polish than DAO.

Buuuut i got more fun so, I win

[bigrob08]

Dragon Age 2 is a hollow shell of a videogame. One of the worst efforts by a videogame studio that I have yet scene. This kind of game belongs on the Wii. Even then I'm not sure if it could outdo the Rayman franchise.

Let's face it: all games should be graded on a 10 point scale. With 10 features each counting for one point. If these features are not included, poorly executed, or do not match with my vision for said feature, then the game loses a point. For example, an RPG absolutely must allow me to play dress-up with my NPCs. Here, Dragon Age 2 loses one of its 10 points.

Another example: I have to like the story. Not only must I like it, but it must be epic. If I don't like the story, then it's a bad story. Again, subtract a point from Dragon Age 2.

I'm going to spoil you with a third example, even if it subtracts from time I should spend playing REAL roleplaying games. Dragon Age 2 doesn't have an isometric camera angle. What an effing joke. Another point lost.

I've wasted enough time already talking about how awful this game is. So all you stupid console gamers can cramp your hands trying to type out your defenses and make claims that Dragon Age 2 is a worthwhile game. When you're ready to put down your superbly made shooters and action/adventure masterplieces and play a real game, just ask your parents. If you're *lucky*, they might still have those old floppy disks hanging around somewhere.

... this was typed with my tongue firmly in-cheek. Grow up, people. Opinions are not facts. If you don't like DA2, that doesn't mean it's bad. It just means... you didn't like it. Move on. Play games you like. Go to the movies. Do something you *enjoy*.

[Il Divo]

bigrob08 wrote...

Dragon Age 2 is a hollow shell of a videogame. One of the worst efforts by a videogame studio that I have yet scene. This kind of game belongs on the Wii. Even then I'm not sure if it could outdo the Rayman franchise.

Let's face it: all games should be graded on a 10 point scale. With 10 features each counting for one point. If these features are not included, poorly executed, or do not match with my vision for said feature, then the game loses a point. For example, an RPG absolutely must allow me to play dress-up with my NPCs. Here, Dragon Age 2 loses one of its 10 points.

Another example: I have to like the story. Not only must I like it, but it must be epic. If I don't like the story, then it's a bad story. Again, subtract a point from Dragon Age 2.

I'm going to spoil you with a third example, even if it subtracts from time I should spend playing REAL roleplaying games. Dragon Age 2 doesn't have an isometric camera angle. What an effing joke. Another point lost.

I've wasted enough time already talking about how awful this game is. So all you stupid console gamers can cramp your hands trying to type out your defenses and make claims that Dragon Age 2 is a worthwhile game. When you're ready to put down your superbly made shooters and action/adventure masterplieces and play a real game, just ask your parents. If you're *lucky*, they might still have those old floppy disks hanging around somewhere.

... this was typed with my tongue firmly in-cheek. Grow up, people. Opinions are not facts. If you don't like DA2, that doesn't mean it's bad. It just means... you didn't like it. Move on. Play games you like. Go to the movies. Do something you *enjoy*.

I was half-way into typing a scathing reply when I read your final paragraph and prompty smashed my head onto the keyboard for my stupidity.

[enemyofrome]

personally I found dragon age 2 to be the best game I ever played. the only thing that wasnt an improvement in my opinion was the less funny banter (though still funny) and maybe fenris. But to me it was the most visually incredible, with awesome story, rpg. the combat was a ton of fun also. also female hawke is haawwwt. Ill buy anything they make just for this game.

[JaegerBane]

bigrob08 wrote...
... this was typed with my tongue firmly in-cheek. Grow up, people. Opinions are not facts. If you don't like DA2, that doesn't mean it's bad. It just means... you didn't like it. Move on. Play games you like. Go to the movies. Do something you *enjoy*.

Point well made. I don't honestly understand why, of all genres, RPGs have all this baggage attached to them with a menagerie of self-appointed 'experts' taking it upon themselves to tell everyone else what constitutes an RPG. I don't recall and army of old farts declaring Supreme Commander to be a 'weak RTS' for shifting the emphasis from small scale combat to large scale strategy or screaming their heads off about how HL2 shifted emphasis from blasting hordes of goons to using innovative tricks and strategies via the physics system, so why on earth RPGs have the same group I don't know.

On the other hand, DA2 is a chapter in a very well-established RPG franchise. It's not really surprising that the sheer number of differences has attracted criticism, as you'd normally expect a second chapter in a franchise to be orientated towards it's established audience, and in that regard, I think Bioware didn't keep this in mind.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Origins couldn't count as an RPG, because the choices didn't matter to the plot. Mass Effect was never one, because the same things happened anyway.

Your choices in Origins matter.
Landsmeet? You practically get to choose he new king of Ferelden. Ok you can´t crown yourself, which sucks alot, but that´s at least justified storywise.
Orgrimmar? You decide the fate of the entire Dwarven Kingdom.
Brecilian Forest? Again....

[Il Divo]

Tirigon wrote...

Your choices in Origins matter.
Landsmeet? You practically get to choose he new king of Ferelden. Ok you can´t crown yourself, which sucks alot, but that´s at least justified storywise.
Orgrimmar? You decide the fate of the entire Dwarven Kingdom.
Brecilian Forest? Again....

Orzammar, not Orgrimmar.

But I stand by his point; your decisions never manifested themselves in a very real way. All the decisions led to was a different army unit for Denerim and a separate epilogue.

It's really not all that different from your typical Bioware game, ala Kotor.

[Tirigon]

JaegerBane wrote...

Point well made. I don't honestly understand why, of all genres, RPGs have all this baggage attached to them with a menagerie of self-appointed 'experts' taking it upon themselves to tell everyone else what constitutes an RPG. I don't recall and army of old farts declaring Supreme Commander to be a 'weak RTS' for shifting the emphasis from small scale combat to large scale strategy or screaming their heads off about how HL2 shifted emphasis from blasting hordes of goons to using innovative tricks and strategies via the physics system, so why on earth RPGs have the same group I don't know.

The changes made by Supreme Commander and (at least from what I hear, I didn´t play it so i´m not sure) Half Life 2 were good ones.
The changes made by DA2 were bad ones.

You see the difference?

[Gavinthelocust]

I love watching flame wars, it's like watching a republican debate. Everyone involved is horribly and hilariously wrong.

[Tirigon]

Il Divo wrote...


Orzammar, not Orgrimmar.

The one is practically a rip-off of the other sooooo:innocent:

But I stand by his point; your decisions never manifested themselves in a very real way. All the decisions led to was a different army unit for Denerim and a separate epilogue.

It's really not all that different from your typical Bioware game, ala Kotor.

Yes I agree they could have shown the outcomes of your decisions in the game rather than the epilogue, but
1) it was kind of justified. Take Orzammar as example: You got your king, you got your army, you don´t give a sh!t what happens there anymore, at least until the Blight is stopped.
and
2) you at least GET to make decisions. There are hardly any in DA2.....


I don´t know why you compare to KotoR like it was bad. I haven´t played it myself because I dislike StarWars, but I hear that it is supposed to be very good....

[Il Divo]

Tirigon wrote...

Yes I agree they could have shown the outcomes of your decisions in the game rather than the epilogue, but
1) it was kind of justified. Take Orzammar as example: You got your king, you got your army, you don´t give a sh!t what happens there anymore, at least until the Blight is stopped.
and
2) you at least GET to make decisions. There are hardly any in DA2.....

You get to make decisions in DA2. You simply aren't given an epilogue screen. Ex: Deciding the fate of Anders.

I don´t know why you compare to KotoR like it was bad. I haven´t played it myself because I dislike StarWars, but I hear that it is supposed to be very good....

Not really. It's actually my second favorite game of all time, right behind Ocarina of Time.

But that doesn't negate the lack of choices. The problem is that people regard Origins as the standard, forgetting that the game was in development for approximately 5 years, which itself is not necessarily standard for a Bioware game. Compare Dragon Age 2 against Mass Effect or Kotor, or even Baldur's Gate 1, and it holds up much better in terms of offering choice.   

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 mars 2011 - 03:34 .

[TheAugust]

Asazal wrote...

Whether you agree with the OP or not, liked the game or not; we all paid $60 dollars for less content, less features, and less polish than DAO.

This is essentially the OP's message.  Publishers are going to continue this trend as long as everyone is blindly praising the result, like so many people are doing here.  

As consumers, it's really our responsiblity to police the marketplace; we should always strive to get the most value (in this case, entertainment) from our dollar, and by praising this game DESPITE its shortcomings, you're giving EA every reason to give you less content at a higher price point.

This generation has somehow managed to become brainwashed into thinking it's okay for value to deteriorate.  Big companies are really just people who need to be loved, too... right?

[SirGladiator]

The OP makes a valid point in regard to the fact that there are simply too many folks willing to be basicly defend everything good or bad, of course the same is true on the other side as well. Stuff like this always reminds me of a couple events that happened in the past, and how the fans 'forced' the company in question to do the right thing, the end result being an incredible success. The first of those was (and mercy this was a long time ago now) when the Star Trek folks ran out of good ideas, and decided to kill off Spock. This would've been the end of the Star Trek franchise, the response was overwhelmingly negative as you would naturally expect, but the writers listened, they brought him back to life in the next movie, everybody was happy, and we've gotten tons of Star Trek movies and TV shows since then. So that worked out well .

A more recent example, as well as one that probably even more relevant for most folks here, is BG2. Again the writers came up with a 'brilliant' idea....let's take your 'sister' from BG1, and kill her off in BG2, even better let's make you the player kill her! If the fans at the time hadn't vocally protested and convinced them to taike that out of the game, BG2 would quite possibly have been Bioware's last game, instead of the game that was widely praised by all, and launched them forward to tons of awesome titles over the years since then.

Its sad to see that with the current crop of mindlessly positive, and negative, comments out there, its much harder to let the folks in charge know when they're doing something wrong, because some folks will always say its great no matter how horrible it is, while others will always be negative even if it was great. Certainly if we had enough intelligent folks who were capable of speaking up, right when we first heard that they wanted to kill one of our siblings at the beginning of the game, we never would've gotten a game where ALL your family members 'can' die, and almost all of them 'do' die even in the best-case scenario, and if we would've gotten to play with whichever sibling(s) we wanted for as long as we wanted, no doubt the game would've been much better and happier as a result. Or how they decided to take away our freedom to customize our teammates, if more folks had just pointed out 'hey, this wasn't exactly ME's selling point, don't copy them on that' the game would've once again been better. Of course its reasonable to want to give a company like Bioware the 'benefit of the doubt', but even the most successful companies make incredible mistakes sometimes, if the fans don't help them to avoid them. In DA2 the fans simply didn't help, some did of course, but not enough, and as a result the game is still good in certain ways, but in other ways its simply not nearly as good as it could've been. Mindlessly being positive, or negative, does not help, nothing good comes of it. Its definitely something to keep in mind.

[Meltemph]

These topics always amuse me, It always requires someone to ignore the flaws of the game they prefer. DAO or DA2 take your pick, I could tear into any of them pointing out some of the most stupid design decisions. Hell you can do that with just about any RPG, because how they are built.

People just need to get off their high horse and realize people like different things and that defending/attacking a game means jack crap if the game sells like hotcakes/better. Also, the topic is so void of constructive criticism it just becomes a "preaching to the choir" topic that serves no purpose other then to say "my game is better then your game".

Instead of being overly dramatic queens, over the pros and cons of the state of the industry and consumer, how about just talking in specifics, about the games themselves? But that would be too hard for the majority of forum goers since they typically look at things in such a rose colored vacuum that it would require an act of God to actually talk about specifics.

Generalities an non specifics are easier to preach and pretend you have actual substance behind the opinion.

[Cobra The Mad]

I don't know about any of you guys, but I agree with the OP in the fact we should be demanding more for our buck. I want better quality, not perfection but not crap that you're trying to pass off as food. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy DA2. I really do, but even replaying the game is a total hassle, I mean just tracking through the story feels torturing at times (and not in the good way).

Also, does anyone else wish they would bring back the option to talk to your party members when you wanted? I sure as hell do.

Add: And can someone PLEASE tell me why you have to re-use dungeons and certain areas OVER and OVER when you're specifically in one place of the game? In DA:O's, you had an entire country to wander around they still had diverse places. Not tons of people, but still diverse. And Yet DA2 is set in one place with not that many things, yet they have to re-use the same map over and over?

Anyone?

Modifié par Cobra The Mad, 21 mars 2011 - 12:28 .

[Altered Idol]

Whilst I agree with the notion that developers shouldn't rest on their laurels and churn out any old rubbish, I don't agree with the insinuation that liking DA2 is wrong. I liked the game and enjoyed playing it as much as I did Origins.

Thats not to say I didn't notice areas that needed improvement. There were a few, much like there were with Origins and every other game I own. But I also look at the areas it had improved upon.  Graphically superior, a more action-orientated combat system which could still be used tactically if wanted.

There is always going  to be issues and points of contention as there is no such thing as a perfect game, not even with a pair of rose-tinted glasses. 


It has a story that felt more personal than Origins. Yes it had a narrower scope but Origins was about saving a country, this was about rising to power.  If they had churned out a story about how another Grey Warden needed to rise up to repulse a new threat or something along those lines, I would have been well disappointed as it would be simply rehashing the first game, which would have done little to advance the Universe beyond Origins.

I love both this games and hopefully, the best aspects of them will go into making a superb DA3.

[Gatt9]

JaegerBane wrote...

bigrob08 wrote...
... this was typed with my tongue firmly in-cheek. Grow up, people. Opinions are not facts. If you don't like DA2, that doesn't mean it's bad. It just means... you didn't like it. Move on. Play games you like. Go to the movies. Do something you *enjoy*.

Point well made. I don't honestly understand why, of all genres, RPGs have all this baggage attached to them with a menagerie of self-appointed 'experts' taking it upon themselves to tell everyone else what constitutes an RPG. I don't recall and army of old farts declaring Supreme Commander to be a 'weak RTS' for shifting the emphasis from small scale combat to large scale strategy or screaming their heads off about how HL2 shifted emphasis from blasting hordes of goons to using innovative tricks and strategies via the physics system, so why on earth RPGs have the same group I don't know.

On the other hand, DA2 is a chapter in a very well-established RPG franchise. It's not really surprising that the sheer number of differences has attracted criticism, as you'd normally expect a second chapter in a franchise to be orientated towards it's established audience, and in that regard, I think Bioware didn't keep this in mind.

It isn't that there's alot of baggage.  It's that companies are mislabelling their games and making the statement that from this point forward,  this is what RPGs are.

ME2 is the perfect example.  Remove the whole leveling system and the entire game functions perfectly fine without a hitch,  because the leveling system doesn't actually do anything meaningfull.  The gameplay is that of a Shooter,  not at all related to any RPG mechanics,  and so those mechanics can be excised.  Doing so results in Gears of War with a task list.  Yet it's marketd as an RPG,  and people scream "This is what RPGs are now!".

Well no,  it isn't.  RPGs are still exactly what they were despite what the Developer slapped on the box.  Neither Bioware nor Bethseda can redefine what an RPG is,  nor do their claims change what an RPG is.  I don't care how many buzz words they used "Evolved!  Cinematic!  Realistic!".  Doesn't change what an RPG is.

Evolved is what happened when Bioware made an RPG with personalities for NPCs.  It's not making the game play like a Shooter,  that's making a Shooter,  not evolving. 

Nor is there some "self-appointed experts" thing,  those are RPG players.  In contrast to Adventure gamers and Shooter players.  What constitutes an RPG has been established for 40 years,  you cannot change that.  Anymore than you can decide Monopoly should be played in Real Time and it's now a Roleplaying game because you are now a shoe! 

The genres are clear cut and well defined.  The problem is developers like Bioware and Bethseda who keep releasing Adventure game and Shooters trying to grab players who hate RPGs,  and then claiming "This is the future of RPGs.".  It isn't.  It's Tomb Raider with swords.  It's Gears of War with a task list. 

These fights will stop when Developers start labelling their games correctly,  reflecting the actual gameplay type found in the box.

[KingDan97]

The_Eejit wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Oh, and I guess that means the vicious attacks are the only acceptable feedback in your worldview, or maybe the threads calling for people to be fired? Riiiiight. I've disagreed with people, but I don't insult them or curse at them or try to demean them or their intellect (I am certainly snarky and sarcastic at times but nobody's perfect). I generally respect people who at least post in a civil manner.

I'm not so sure you can say the same about many people in your camp (because your post clearly indicates that you don't like the game). I've never said the game was perfect at any time. In fact, what I've often said is that it's a good game with some flaws. If you view it as the end of the world that the game doesn't fulfill your requirements for RPG goodness, you're entitled to said view. However, those who disagree and feel the game was pretty solid are equally entitled to speak - just like you are. And as a previous poster pointed out, I find your thread rather hypocritical. You want only your voice and the voices of those who agree with you to be heard.

People who like the game have a right to speak their opinion and to enjoy the game. I'm glad you like it. I'm just not happy that you don't take offence at the business practice employed with this game. Will you agree with me that it needed way more development time, and that it was wrong for them not to give the game the time it deserves.

That's the flaw in your logic, the crux that breaks it all down. Every game needs more development time. Every single game on the face of this planet isn't the best it could have been and ALL have flaws. The fact of the matter is that the resources for such undertakings don't exist. I can't spend my entire life writing a novel, than proofreading and editing it till it's "perfect" because you need to be able to move on. Bioware had decided, maybe with some prodding from EA, maybe it was Mike Laidlaw maybe it was the playtesters or the entire team who decided they were done, because their budget ran out or because they got sick of the project that THIS was what they would ship.

As Paul Valery once said, in relation to poetry but I feel it rings quite true here. "A poem is never finished, only abandoned." and in that spirit, my post is abandoned and that's something you'll need to deal with.