339 réponses à ce sujet

[TcheQ]

It's not "Dragon Age Origins 2" (in other words it soesn't superceded DAO in every aspect)
It's also not what BGII was to BG.
It is Diablo-esque in item stats and classes.
Dilaogue options greatly reduced.

These are probably the main points you will find that people think is "wrong" with Da2, instead of taking it for the game it is.

My plusses:
Fantastic GRaphics
Fast Loading times.
No graphics lag, even on a 4 yr old comp (with only one GTX460 in it)
Memorable scores.
Unique Bosses
Savage and unforgiving difficulty mode.
SOme truly fantastic voicing (Male Hawke, Fenris, Varric, Mother Hawke)
Less reliance on potions, better battle flow.
Not necessary to pause the game all the time.
Some very pleasing enemy strategies.

Negatives from me:
Riddled with Bugs
Higher difficulty modes weren't balanced properly.
Repetitive envirnoments, battles and strategies.
Too few classes.
Not enough dialogue, too much fighting. Not diplomatic options

[Phaelducan]

As the demographic for Bioware Fans slowly ages, there will be more of a gap between the reality of the game itself and the expectations of those who play it.

DA:2 is a good game, make no mistake, but the hate stems from players not having their expectations met.

My expections have been met, so I don't have the hate. It's a simple formula.

The only real argument of merit on this (now very tired) issue, is how realistic are players expections? Having played and loved DA:O, it was VERY dated when it came out, and visually and stylistically it looked borderline last-gen on consoles. Bioware received a tremendous amount of feedback on that issue, so it is natural for them to work extensively on addressing the look and style of the sequel.

Home run on that, no one with anything vaguely resembling real credibility can question that DA:2 looks and plays smarter and faster than Origins (barring the PC purist who laments the loss of something that the MAJORITY of the people who actually played DA:Origins didn't have, and I agree that if you played on PC then Origins was a better game, but more people didn't than did).

So, people are complaining that the game isn't as epic in scope or as compelling as the original. Congratulations, welcome to the entertainment business. Sometimes sequels lose some of the magic of the original, and make up for it in different ways. I would love to live in a world with 100% guarantees that every single sequel in a movie, book, game or whatever would be superior in every way to it's predecessor, but we don't.

Sometimes sequels are better, often they aren't. Truth is, DA:2 is a good game, and I'm happy with the product. Will I play it as much as Origins? No. Do I need to play it as much as Origins to make it worthy of purchase? No. Is it the only RPG that I will ever play again because of the overwhelming disappointment that it wasn't better in every way than Origins? No.

Expectations are everything. People are complaining because they wanted Filet Mignon again, and instead got a really great burger.

[Persephone]

randName wrote...

For me its due to DA2 not only being a rushed, fairly shoddy product on its own, its also that BW decided that they could ignore what happened in DA:O; and suddenly DA2 is also destroying what you did in DA:O; ruining both games for me.

How is it "destroying" what you did in DAO? All my imports worked like a charm.

[StingingVelvet]

FedericoV wrote...

DA2 combat system has more depth than DA:O. It's more accessible but that has nothing to do with depth. People saying that the game is an hack and slash button masher, have not learned to play it how is meant to be played (or are playing the game on consolle wich forces you to push for each attack wich for me would be a tragedy).

I don't really have a problem with the combat in DA2, other than the waves of enemies.  My post about losing depth and complextiy had more to do with other aspects of the game.

My biggest issue, by far, is the repeated content.  Hightown, Lowtown and Darktown over and over and over again, along with the game literally having 3 dungeons repeated 10+ times each.  That is my main issue with the game.  Second to that would be the terrible dialogue system.  Not just not knowing what I am going to say, but also the very simplistic good/funny/bad response system.  I do not think DA:O or Baldurs Gate were that simplistic hidden in dialogue trees, I think DA2 is heavily simplified in the dialogue department.

If it were not for those two issues I would give DA2 an 8.5 or 9 probably.  Because of those two issues I consider it more of a 7 or even 6.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 19 mars 2011 - 02:28 .

[TJSolo]

I will defend this one -- this was on purpose. Self combos aren't supposed to exist, they're not a part of DA's philosophy. Dragon Age is about party based combat, and forcing all combos to be party related supports this design choice and pushes Dragon Age's most unique feature compared to other games out there. Eliminating self combos was the point.

It self combos do indeed exist, DA2 would the the outlier by not allowing this.

The difference being that you have to spec into it, you have to set it up, you have to have certain characters present. Still overpowered, but the effort to return ratio is much more balanced than the CoC/Stonefist tomfoolery from DA:O

The only extra effort that is needed but not present in some of DAO combos would be needing a particular character, but in a party game having more than one class is a trivial matter.

Choosing between better gear and more health isn't depth and complexity in the old school sense?

This bit was concerning synergy and how blood mages stats work better with magic/con and not magic/wp and how magic/con restricts a blood mages selection of mage gear.

There's normal mage, blood mage, assassin, rage demons (**** THOSE GUYS I HATE THEM SO MUCH), numerous others. There are definitely more enemy archetypes in DA2, man, this is just a objective fact.

Enemy NPCs are just clones of the archtypes available to the player so no the TPing Assassin rogue in DA2 is not in DAO, because those powers were not even thought of yet. There has been power gain and power loss like Desire Demons and mages but the basics of being either a melee, archer, or mage enemy is still how the majority of fights breakdown in both games.

Hey, I didn't say they were brilliant!

No you said they were more complex. You can call them whatever you like but the game's quest log clearly separates Companion quests from Side quests. If it is going to be a battle of semantics I am going to go by what is setup in the game to make the matter less subjective.
Picking up a random piece of **** out of a box and bringing that to a NPC that just happens to popup out of nowhere because you happened to find that piece of **** is the worst way a quest can be structured. Repeating the same exact questing structure 20+ times in the game does not help it any either.

Whenever someone calls the sidequests in DAO bad in response to a complaint about the fetching in DA2  I can't help but lol. Every time it is just a person trying to go ****** for tat and the reasons(if any) are arbitrary at best or complete bull**** at worst.

Modifié par TJSolo, 19 mars 2011 - 02:35 .

[Phaelducan]

A 6? Really. Dragon Age 2 is a 6...

Go play 10 or so of a random sampling of games ranging from 61-69% on Metacritic. If you do that then with a straight face say that DA2 isn't a better game that those, I would call that delusional thinking.

Fallout 3 had repetitive dialog and re-used the same terrain and textures over and over (same with any Bethesda game really). JRPG's often don't give any dialog choice and are incredibly linear.

What is this mythical RPG that somehow everyone compares Bioware games to that doesn't have most of the same complaints at some level that are getting shot at DA:2?

[randName]

Phaelducan wrote...

A 6? Really. Dragon Age 2 is a 6...

Go play 10 or so of a random sampling of games ranging from 61-69% on Metacritic. If you do that then with a straight face say that DA2 isn't a better game that those, I would call that delusional thinking.

Fallout 3 had repetitive dialog and re-used the same terrain and textures over and over (same with any Bethesda game really). JRPG's often don't give any dialog choice and are incredibly linear.

What is this mythical RPG that somehow everyone compares Bioware games to that doesn't have most of the same complaints at some level that are getting shot at DA:2?

I'd give it a 6-7 my self; and there are many games on metacritic that have gotten 6s and 7s that I've enjoyed more than DA2.

There are also many games on metacritic that have gotten scores that are far too high; I worked on two games that got 7s that only deserved 3-4.

Modifié par randName, 19 mars 2011 - 02:39 .

[Phaelducan]

People are entitled to like whatever, that isn't the issue. I loved Too Human, and it was crucified in the ratings department.

What I'm talking about is objectively labeling DA2 a 60% product, based in relative comparisons to other 60% products.

If you honestly believe that this only deserves a 60%, then your judgment is grossly and seriously biased (hence my delusional thinking comment). 80% I'd buy, fair enough (still low I think, but fair). 60% though? Not a chance.

[Ronin2006]

Phaelducan wrote...

People are entitled to like whatever, that isn't the issue. I loved Too Human, and it was crucified in the ratings department.

What I'm talking about is objectively labeling DA2 a 60% product, based in relative comparisons to other 60% products.

If you honestly believe that this only deserves a 60%, then your judgment is grossly and seriously biased (hence my delusional thinking comment). 80% I'd buy, fair enough (still low I think, but fair). 60% though? Not a chance.

I would rate it a 60%.  It does a few things right, but it does a lot more wrong.  The biggest bias is having your own opinion and questioning the judgment of anyone who doesn't share that opinion. 

Modifié par Ronin2006, 19 mars 2011 - 02:48 .

[Speakeasy13]

I don't really hate it, I just wished it were so much better you know? I think Bioware has a great concept here and deviating from the DA:O formula didn't necessarily take away from DA2's potential. But for whatever reason DA2 ended up poorly executed. In the end I don't know if the new improvements really outweigh the new flaws.

[Phaelducan]

No, the biggest bias is killing a game unfairly for things it isn't actually doing. 60% is a crap score, it's horrid. Keep in mind that a 50% is a quantifiable AWFUL game (true broken mechanics, story doesn't make sense, periodic game-breaking glitches/crashes).

It's a flat-out faulty comparison. Again, liking it is different. A game can get a 10 and it's fair to say you don't like it, but it's not fair to say that GTA-IV only deserves a 60% rating just because it wasn't your cup of tea.

[Speakeasy13]

Phaelducan wrote...

People are entitled to like whatever, that isn't the issue. I loved Too Human, and it was crucified in the ratings department.

What I'm talking about is objectively labeling DA2 a 60% product, based in relative comparisons to other 60% products.

If you honestly believe that this only deserves a 60%, then your judgment is grossly and seriously biased (hence my delusional thinking comment). 80% I'd buy, fair enough (still low I think, but fair). 60% though? Not a chance.

Too Human didn't even get a 60%. No ratings are 'objective' you know. Criticis are people too. They are entitled to their opinions just as much as we and you are. I simply don't see why you must force it onto others.

That said, I wouldn't give it a 60%. Like Too Human I'd give it a 80% in concept; but 40% in execution. (Too Human was in development for YEARS tho. DA2 was for 1.5. So a bit more justified for its flaws)

[Speakeasy13]

Phaelducan wrote...

No, the biggest bias is killing a game unfairly for things it isn't actually doing. 60% is a crap score, it's horrid. Keep in mind that a 50% is a quantifiable AWFUL game (true broken mechanics, story doesn't make sense, periodic game-breaking glitches/crashes).

It's a flat-out faulty comparison. Again, liking it is different. A game can get a 10 and it's fair to say you don't like it, but it's not fair to say that GTA-IV only deserves a 60% rating just because it wasn't your cup of tea.

I dunno... DA2 is pretty broken in my opinion. Not horrid by design, but the bugs it has... there are numerous bugs that can render the entire game saves unplayable. If that's not broken then what is? There's no point in praising how good a game COULD'VE BEEN if it simply isn't playable now.

[randName]

Phaelducan wrote...

People are entitled to like whatever, that isn't the issue. I loved Too Human, and it was crucified in the ratings department.

What I'm talking about is objectively labeling DA2 a 60% product, based in relative comparisons to other 60% products.

If you honestly believe that this only deserves a 60%, then your judgment is grossly and seriously biased (hence my delusional thinking comment). 80% I'd buy, fair enough (still low I think, but fair). 60% though? Not a chance.

If I wanted to be totally objective, I'd do math.

Take the graphics; I work as a texture/concept artist, and as mentioned obviously for so-so games, with some freelance for AAA titles ~ but nothing special. At work our opinions on what is visually nice are always different, almost always divided. A friend of mine that does rendering would hate the double shadows DA2 still uses (shadows in shadows) and would be unable to give DA2 a high rating for the graphics, while I as a texture artist would give it a good score (8-9) especially since I have a preference for painted textures.

For me the core game of DA2 is better than DA:O, or the combat, the character abilites, the general systems underlying the game. These for me are a 8-9, were I'd give DA:O 7-8 for these.

But several large story bugs, like Merrill giving you the death of the keeper dialogue before the keeper dies, or the end game Isabela bug, bugs with the Aveline quest, and other quests like these - all drag this down. Further if a book would start to suddenly change what happend in previous books, with old characters suddenly coming alive again, with changed personalites, I'd give that book a really low rating, since for me that's a criminal offence to the reader of the book, and so here with DA2.

Is this biased? well its taste if anything, and I can't stand a story driven game doing something as awful as what DA2 decided to do with resurrections and personality changes to characters you cared for in DA:O.


So for the side quests and companions quests, if you ignore the bugs I'd give the game a 8, maybe even a 9.

For the companions alone, and since I like all but Fenris, and this is taste again, I'd give it 8, maybe even a 9.

Due to the bugs I'll lower it, since it ruined the Merrill quest completely, spoilt it half way through by giving you the end, and this was probably the best companion quest we were given, and to me probably the best quest save the one involving your mother.

& due to the story ignoring the events of DA:O, and thus spoiling both games, I'll lower it.

& I found the last part of the game to ruin the DA world further, or possessions and blood magic isn't a dime a dozen, and suddenly every mage in Kirkwall are blood mages or abominations. So for this I'll lower it again.

And the story for me is key to any RPG game, and they should never diminish your actions later on; and this they did in DA2.

So the story I'll give a 4-5 due to this, despite that parts of the story was up at 10s and 9s.

And thus a 6-7.

Is it biased? every review is.

EDIT: & I'm not saying that DA2 is a 6-7 for everybody, rather for people who like decent looking, fairly tactical romps, that doesn't mind sidequests, but doesn't really care as much as I about decisions and character building it might be a 8-9. For the render friend of mine it would be a 3-4, since he dislikes anything but linear storylines and any sort of decision making within games; so I'd never recommend DA2 or DA:O to him. DA2 would also be a better game for my brother than DA:O, but not good enough and I wouldn't recommend it.

& the meta score is simply based upon what the general reviewer like; I would be tool if I'd given DA2 a 8-9 only because this is the normal score that's on meta critic, or I think it should be the normal score. It would defeat the purpose of the review. & if Gamespot like sites give games mostly 7-9s, why should I follow that opposed to Edge? (Edge gave some ME game a 6 I think, and I largely agreed with the article, all while I enjoyed the game, and would give it an 8).

Modifié par randName, 19 mars 2011 - 03:09 .

[Phaelducan]

That's just my point Speakeasy, I loved Too Human, but it had a ton of problems and it definitely didn't deserve an 80% aggregate score. 60% could accurately reflect that game, given it's development time and the major gameplay flaws (chain juggles from the enemy, unblockable insta-kills, tons of glitches, etc).

My point is NOT that we aren't allowed to like crappy games, in fact part of the fun in a gamer subculture is liking crappy games... but what isn't fair is to lampoon a product unfairly based on things it doesn't actually do.

In that sense, what I take issue with is that the majority of the complaints are with impressions and satisfaction based on their expections, and not actual components of the game. There IS an objective set of criteria for rating a game, no it isn't perfect, but if you look at any ratings site from Game Informer to IGN they will list the criteria for what earns certain scores.

Giving a product a 6/10, then if you look at the criteria for 6/10 and they don't match... then that means either you don't/didn't understand how to use the rating system in the first place or you subjectively ignored that criteria just to harsh the product based on your own biases.

That is garbage, but even worse is looking at the yahoos on Metacritic user reviews that gave DA2 a 0-4/10 with no justification at all. You can't objectively give a game scores that are only reserved for unplayable, broken products if the game isn't unplayable or broken.

Big Rigs, E.T. (Atari 2600), Superman (N64)... THOSE are broken games and if anyone could possibly compare those to DA2 they are fools and have no business contributing to an aggregate ratings system.

Granted, that's the extreme and a 60% rating isn't to that extent, but there still are objective criteria for what gives a game that many black marks... and that criteria is not being expressed in DA2.

Don't like it? Fine. Bad Game? No.

(Also, I play on console, and have had not one single glitch or bug. Guessing you play on PC, so can't comment on your experience, but in general PC gaming tends to have more problems in that area than consoles do. Not negating your experience, just saying that the majority of DA2 players will probably not have your same experience).

[Skilled Seeker]

I don't give a damn what others say, to me this game is superior to Origins in just about every way. The combat was a total bore in Origins, in DA2 its the most fun combat I've ever had the pleasure of playing and is extremely tactically and satisfying on Nightmare while catering to those less able with the lower difficulties.

[Ronin2006]

Phaelducan wrote...

No, the biggest bias is killing a game unfairly for things it isn't actually doing. 60% is a crap score, it's horrid. Keep in mind that a 50% is a quantifiable AWFUL game (true broken mechanics, story doesn't make sense, periodic game-breaking glitches/crashes).

It's a flat-out faulty comparison. Again, liking it is different. A game can get a 10 and it's fair to say you don't like it, but it's not fair to say that GTA-IV only deserves a 60% rating just because it wasn't your cup of tea.

Again, that is your interpretation of a scoring system and the values you place on a game and what renders it good/bad.  You say 60% is a game that is awful.  I think 60% is a game that is bad, and not worth playing.  It's important to note that in many parts of society (school/university) 50% is considered a "pass" mark, while 80% can be the cutoff for an A/HD.  I personally wouldn't be that harsh a marker for videogames, but I also am sick of IGN giving every second game an 8 out of 10 despite devoting half a review to criticisms of that said game.

Lastly, if someone gives a game a "crap" score that isn't a problem so long as it's backed up by reason and logic.  Hell, it can be rated a 2% for all I care as long as somebody can provide a reasonable and rational argument for doing so.

[Phaelducan]

"Is this biased? well its taste if anything, and I can't stand a story driven game doing something as awful as what DA2 decided to do with resurrections and personality changes to characters you cared for in DA:O."

That says it all Rand, you are lowering the score of the game because you don't like the story (btw it's a spoiler-free forum, and they already edited this thread once, so might want to change your Merrill section).

That's fine to say you don't like something, but it doesn't make it a bad product. I didn't like Kafka's Metamorphosis. I also didn't like Sense and Sensibility. Does that mean they were crappy literature? Of course not, and it would be absurd for me to say so.

I get not liking DA:2 as much as other RPG's in recent memory, and I don't dispute anyone's right to their opinion. What I dispute is using unfair criteria to lambaste something to an extreme degree. If you list gameplay, graphics, music, user interface, etc. and give a game 8/10 or higher, then say you don't like the story and drop it to a 5 or 6, that doesn't generate an aggregate score of 60%.

I'm not a DA:2 loyalist, and it's not even in my top 10 this year for games I'm stoked about... but these scores/reviews are ABSURD. 60% is an absolute joke, and to even rate DA2 close to that suggests that the game is borderline unplayable.

That's flat-out untrue, which is why review sites (which btw have DA2 at 80%) use the aforementioned objective criteria to rate games. Some leeway? Sure, but not a full 20% worth.

[AkiKishi]

Phaelducan wrote...

"Is this biased? well its taste if anything, and I can't stand a story driven game doing something as awful as what DA2 decided to do with resurrections and personality changes to characters you cared for in DA:O."

That says it all Rand, you are lowering the score of the game because you don't like the story (btw it's a spoiler-free forum, and they already edited this thread once, so might want to change your Merrill section).

That's fine to say you don't like something, but it doesn't make it a bad product. I didn't like Kafka's Metamorphosis. I also didn't like Sense and Sensibility. Does that mean they were crappy literature? Of course not, and it would be absurd for me to say so.

I get not liking DA:2 as much as other RPG's in recent memory, and I don't dispute anyone's right to their opinion. What I dispute is using unfair criteria to lambaste something to an extreme degree. If you list gameplay, graphics, music, user interface, etc. and give a game 8/10 or higher, then say you don't like the story and drop it to a 5 or 6, that doesn't generate an aggregate score of 60%.

I'm not a DA:2 loyalist, and it's not even in my top 10 this year for games I'm stoked about... but these scores/reviews are ABSURD. 60% is an absolute joke, and to even rate DA2 close to that suggests that the game is borderline unplayable.

That's flat-out untrue, which is why review sites (which btw have DA2 at 80%) use the aforementioned objective criteria to rate games. Some leeway? Sure, but not a full 20% worth.

You have to look at the features in DA2 and then first consider if you find them positive of negative ,then see how much they impact on your enjoyment of the game.

Universal bad, re-used areas Most people agree on this. Faster combat, that splits people, as does the appearing out of thin air.

When I total all the postives and negatives I get a score of 4.

You may consider that grossly unfair, but I have reasons for reaching that conclusion.

Heres an interesting thing from PSM3. They gave Hyper Dimensional Neptunia a score of 37%. They also gave the same game an award for innovation. The reason it got 37% is because it was reviewed by someone who did not like anime, did not like girls with large breasts and did not like the how the scenes were presented.

[Phaelducan]

Ronin... no offense but that's ridiculous. 2%? You can't provide reason and logic for that. 2% is barely above not releasing a product at all. The whole point is that you can't honestly say that you are using reason and logic by giving a product egregiously low scores when there is a set criteria for ranking present and utilized by the industry.

Not to be trite, but give me a break man, that's way way out of the realm of fair and honest discourse.

[DragonRageGT]

TJSolo wrote...

Hey, I didn't say they were brilliant!

No you said they were more complex. You can call them whatever you like but the game's quest log clearly separates Companion quests from Side quests. If it is going to be a battle of semantics I am going to go by what is setup in the game to make the matter less subjective.
Picking up a random piece of **** out of a box and bringing that to a NPC that just happens to popup out of nowhere because you happened to find that piece of **** is the worst way a quest can be structured. Repeating the same exact questing structure 20+ times in the game does not help it any either.

Whenever someone calls the sidequests in DAO bad in response to a complaint about the fetching in DA2  I can't help but lol. Every time it is just a person trying to go ****** for tat and the reasons(if any) are arbitrary at best or complete bull**** at worst.

I'm with you in this. Apparently, some people missed Summoning Science class in DA:O! Just to mention one.

[Ronin2006]

Phaelducan wrote...

Ronin... no offense but that's ridiculous. 2%? You can't provide reason and logic for that. 2% is barely above not releasing a product at all. The whole point is that you can't honestly say that you are using reason and logic by giving a product egregiously low scores when there is a set criteria for ranking present and utilized by the industry.

Not to be trite, but give me a break man, that's way way out of the realm of fair and honest discourse.

I said that if someone can justify with reason and logic a 2% score then they should do so.  I personally can't, and hence I wouldn't give the game a 2%, rather a 6/10 or 60%.  You seem to have insinuated that even a score such as 60% is also outside the bounds of reason and logic, and while a fellow poster has pointed out exactly how they have come to that conclusion (while being quite fair and reasonable) you dismiss it by alluding to vague notions of common criteria that are set by the industry as though we are all assessing games according to the same template and must share the same values.

There is no set criteria utilized by the industry.  You will notice that gaming review sites will use different criteria's for their review of a game, and then each part of the criteria will be given a weighting from which an aggregate score is produced.  Depending on the weighting, and the logic behind the weighting you can justifiably come up with some of the scores you seem to perceive as being outside the bounds of reason.

For example, if you give each part of a game equal weighting and you said that graphics were a 9, music 9, story 9 and gameplay a 4, you would get an average of 7.75, or close to the 8 you have been referring to.  However, different aspects are given a different weight and somebody may argue that gameplay is the most important part of a game and hence this is given a greater weight and the game may score a 6 for that person.  (Note these are not my scores for Dragon Age 2, rather it is an illustrative example of how people come to reason and logic in scoring a review of a game)

Ultimately you need to realise that others have different opinions and just because you can't relate to them they are not wrong, so long as they are not unjustified.

Modifié par Ronin2006, 19 mars 2011 - 03:44 .

[Solo80]

Phaelducan wrote...

snippety

Expectations are everything. People are complaining because they wanted Filet Mignon again, and instead got a really great burger.

I totally agree, but if I went in to a restaurant and got a great filet mignon, then go back to the same restaurant and order the "Filet Mignon 2", I don't expect getting a burger.

[Solo80]

lazysuperstar wrote...

great movies, music, books, games.. you can always find a few who hate them Not every game can be for everyone

And in the same vein - horrible movies, music, books, games... you can always find a few who love them. Your point?

[Persephone]

Solo80 wrote...

lazysuperstar wrote...

great movies, music, books, games.. you can always find a few who hate them Not every game can be for everyone

And in the same vein - horrible movies, music, books, games... you can always find a few who love them. Your point?

Not everybody loves everything. Easy enough, no?