339 réponses à ce sujet

[Ronin2006]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

"But but but.... this isn't a BG clone anymore? WAAAAAAAAAAH!"

Hi,

I hated Dragon Age 2, preferred DA O, and actually wrote a thread on this issue exactly.

http://social.biowar...5/index/6630511

I can't say that I speak for everyone that "hates" this game, but I think you'll find that it comes down to a lot more than simply that the game isn't a BG clone anymore.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Ronin2006 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

"But but but.... this isn't a BG clone anymore? WAAAAAAAAAAH!"

Hi,

I hated Dragon Age 2, preferred DA O, and actually wrote a thread on this issue exactly.

http://social.biowar...5/index/6630511

I can't say that I speak for everyone that "hates" this game, but I think you'll find that it comes down to a lot more than simply that the game isn't a BG clone anymore.

I just distilled the argument so no one has to go to a TLDR thread.

[randName]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

"But but but.... this isn't a BG clone anymore? WAAAAAAAAAAH!"

Hi,

I hated Dragon Age 2, preferred DA O, and actually wrote a thread on this issue exactly.

http://social.biowar...5/index/6630511

I can't say that I speak for everyone that "hates" this game, but I think you'll find that it comes down to a lot more than simply that the game isn't a BG clone anymore.

I just distilled the argument so no one has to go to a TLDR thread.

Too bad you did it soo poorly then.

[Brawne]

 Just finished my first playthrough, 60 hours. Only thing bad about this game is that it's over.
The game is simply great and all you haters can go sulk in the corner and hate.

[Ahisgewaya]

Ajspeed wrote...

Im having trouble comprehending so many peoples deep seeded hate for this game many of whom were judging it before they even played it. Honestly what is wrong with its?
Its like Mass Effect and the changes made to Mass Effect 2 its refined the gameplay making things alot neater and easier to manage and id say it better for it Mass Effect and DAO both had similar problems of somewhat clunky interface but they both have been refined in there sequels due to what the fans complained was wrong with the first game, Bioware Cant Satisfy everyone but they do there best.

Building blocks are easy to manage. You know, the kind that toddlers use to spell out words. 
The big kids like legos better. 

Bioware made a complex game called Dragon Age. It appealed to people who like complex games. Then they made the sequel less complex. The people who bought the first one assumed the second one would be as complex or more complex than the first one. They did this to get our money while getting the money of people who like things overly simplified. 

To put it another way, it's like there was a best selling book that I liked. I then ordered the sequel the author had written. Upon getting it in the mail, I found that the author had not written another book, but a magazine.

[Phaelducan]

Ronin, I never said you used those terms, I was paraphrasing the responses to the argument. The "my opinion is my opinion so it's valid" argument is tired and illogical anyway. Opinions can and often are based on erroneous information and perception. In this case, that is exactly what I am referencing. The premise of rating a game, as stated by you, me, and others, is to give an honest opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of the product. If the review is inherently dishonest, then it's a problem with the reviewer as well as the review.

Simple truth, if you are crucifying a product using invalid means of comparison and criteria, or almost as bad COMPLETELY subjective criteria such as how a character/plot point was written, then you are ignoring established and utilized tenets of the industry.

That is not to say, as you put it, that of course reviews do that because the standards aren't uniform. Even with a rigid standard, there are still guidelines which professionals in the reviewing business utilize on a daily basis.

In order for a game to receive a 1 or a 10, there has to be such obvious flaws or positive traits that it almost needs no discussion (other than for lolz or back-patting). Even at 2-3 or a 9, there isn't a ton of room for discourse (some, but generally opinions will be fairly similar).

What you aren't admitting, is that by showcasing DA2 here, we are seeing professionals, whose job it is to rate games, play games, compare games, etc... those people are giving an average score of 80%. If you look at the same site, you see the user reviews instead failing to hit even 50%.

Of the possibilities, the far more likely one for that difference is that the reviewers don't know how to use a fracking ratings system. DA2 is not 1 sub-5 rating game. Period. The production values, quality in art direction, gameplay, graphics, dialog, writing, etc etc. You might like various parts more or less than others, more or less than it's predecessor, more or less than others in the genre... but there is no conceivable way that you can look at all of those factors and make a rational and logical argument that the game itself is uniformly deserving of consistent ratings below 5/10. That's garbage, and the people making those reviews are missing the point.

Liking is not the same thing as rating accurately.

[FedericoV]

StingingVelvet wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Imho, Bioware have allways used a simplistic "3 personality" system + interrogations with choices at the end restricted by your personality. Maybe, the simplicity of the dialogue system was hidden by the old wall of text system. But it's more or less the same.

Well like I said I don't agree with that.  I feel like DA:O and Baldurs Gate had much more nuance and avenues to persue.  Even if that is a placebo brought about by actual dialogue trees, well, that's a good placebo to have.

I played BG2 many times and DA:O just once and it's only illusion of "more" choice. 

Personally, I hope that they continue to work on the wheel system and try to give more nuances and choices to it instead that going back to the old written system. I agree that having only 3 choices most of the time seems a little bit limited. Having more personality options and making them sound less disjointed is really hard but that's the road to take. The personality system is a good start to mix roleplaying and voice over. It has potential and even if Bioware have not mastered it completely in DA2 they could improove with their next games.

Modifié par FedericoV, 19 mars 2011 - 06:12 .

[Phaelducan]

Ahisgewaya wrote...

Ajspeed wrote...

Im having trouble comprehending so many peoples deep seeded hate for this game many of whom were judging it before they even played it. Honestly what is wrong with its?
Its like Mass Effect and the changes made to Mass Effect 2 its refined the gameplay making things alot neater and easier to manage and id say it better for it Mass Effect and DAO both had similar problems of somewhat clunky interface but they both have been refined in there sequels due to what the fans complained was wrong with the first game, Bioware Cant Satisfy everyone but they do there best.

Building blocks are easy to manage. You know, the kind that toddlers use to spell out words. 
The big kids like legos better. 

Bioware made a complex game called Dragon Age. It appealed to people who like complex games. Then they made the sequel less complex. The people who bought the first one assumed the second one would be as complex or more complex than the first one. They did this to get our money while getting the money of people who like things overly simplified. 

To put it another way, it's like there was a best selling book that I liked. I then ordered the sequel the author had written. Upon getting it in the mail, I found that the author had not written another book, but a magazine.

Complex? Don't see that. Origins was easier to complete on Nightmare with less planning than DA:2. Grossly OP'd specs, cheesy CC combo's... not trying to get off-topic but if you want complexity I don't think a pause and play RPG is the right genre. 

Honestly the combat in DA2 is almost identical. The only difference is instead of a 1-action que, now you press the button and you do the action. It's still based on cooldowns, mana/stamina, leveling and unlocking abilities, etc. It's faster, but the core mechanics are basically unchanged.

[Well]

Ronin2006 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

"But but but.... this isn't a BG clone anymore? WAAAAAAAAAAH!"

Hi,

I hated Dragon Age 2, preferred DA O, and actually wrote a thread on this issue exactly.

http://social.biowar...5/index/6630511

I can't say that I speak for everyone that "hates" this game, but I think you'll find that it comes down to a lot more than simply that the game isn't a BG clone anymore.

I don't hate the game.It is a disappointment.It isnt a bad game just ok in my book.I agree with you that it isnt about being a BG clone.To me the player is taken out of the game to much.For the most part it was yes,no, or maybe.RPG's are more then just combat.It is your decision in interactions and the consequences.It is how the player's actions or response's to events.If I wanted a good combat game I would play Diablo 2.

[Kendaric Varkellen]

Ajspeed wrote...

Im having trouble comprehending so many peoples deep seeded hate for this game many of whom were judging it before they even played it. Honestly what is wrong with its?
Its like Mass Effect and the changes made to Mass Effect 2 its refined the gameplay making things alot neater and easier to manage and id say it better for it Mass Effect and DAO both had similar problems of somewhat clunky interface but they both have been refined in there sequels due to what the fans complained was wrong with the first game, Bioware Cant Satisfy everyone but they do there best.

You're missing something important here...
Mass Effect was more action oriented in it's game mechanics right from the start and always intended to be that way. ME 2 improved/refined the systems and was therefore a logical evolution.
Dragon Age was originally designed as a deep and complex, though modernized, old school RPG. DA 2 needlessly removed the systems that added complexity and depth rather than improving/refining them. It's not evolution, it's changing a game into something quite different.
It's not really hard to see why many fans of Origins are highly disappointed with how DA2 turned out.

[Ahisgewaya]

Phaelducan wrote...

Complex? Don't see that. Origins was easier to complete on Nightmare with less planning than DA:2. Grossly OP'd specs, cheesy CC combo's... not trying to get off-topic but if you want complexity I don't think a pause and play RPG is the right genre. 

Honestly the combat in DA2 is almost identical. The only difference is instead of a 1-action que, now you press the button and you do the action. It's still based on cooldowns, mana/stamina, leveling and unlocking abilities, etc. It's faster, but the core mechanics are basically unchanged.

I'm not talking about the combat. I'm talking about the choices, the things that make an RPG an RPG and not an action game. I can't be a non-human. I have to pick from a set of three to five canned responses. The items have no background history and have names like "amulet". I can't talk to my companions out of the blue, and therefore know less about them (and therefore care less about them).  I can't explore the landscape because I'm stuck in a city. I have to kill a lot of mages even if I side with them since my character is too stupid to convince anyone of anything. I can't stop Merrill form doing the stupid thing she will do. Despite being a mage I can't convince Fenris that not all mages are bad and that the ones that are bad are symptoms of the abuse they receive at the hands of the Chantry. I can't tell Anders what  a stupid idea doing the thing that he does is. I can't be a warrior who uses magic (arcan warrior or spirit warrior). I can be a snarky idiot but not a silver tongued devil.

Modifié par Ahisgewaya, 19 mars 2011 - 06:21 .

[Foryou]

I like it though the story isn't as good as origins. And the game doesn't have driving force in it. Though don't get me wrong I still love this game. I prefer dragon age 2 combat. So if Dragon Age 3 is their offspring then that game would be perfect

[Phaelducan]

Again, most RPG's (including DA:O) have you pick from 3-5 canned responses... at best.

Look, I liked Torment, Kotor, BG, etc, but their dialog wasn't really any deeper. You have good/bad/neutral/sarcastic. Put an alignment spin, or possibly a stat-based bonus in (which I'm all for, don't get me wrong), and it's the same basic mechanic again. Pick your emotional response, and push a button to use it.

As to inventory... am I crazy or didn't DA2 have item descriptions? At work right now, but unless I'm seriously going out of my mind I can picture highlighting an item and getting a description...

Race? Variety is great, don't get me wrong... but a good RPG has to have non-human options for the main protagonist? Lots don't, and are still great games.

It sounds more like you are maybe talking about the intangibles... and that's fine, and I agree that DA:O felt deeper and was more rewarding to complete (and consequently, I liked it more)... but I don't think the reasons you gave are entirely accurate or fair. Mechanically the game is pretty similar to the first one, just with a new set of clothes and a poorer premise for the plot.

[Pyrate_d]

Yeah, I'd be very happy to see a game with DA2's combat, but with a big world and an involving story like DAO. That's really my problem with DA2--the changes were tolerable, but the omission of content (conversations, locations) was totally unacceptable.

[Ronin2006]

Phaelducan wrote...

Ronin, I never said you used those terms, I was paraphrasing the responses to the argument. The "my opinion is my opinion so it's valid" argument is tired and illogical anyway. Opinions can and often are based on erroneous information and perception. In this case, that is exactly what I am referencing. The premise of rating a game, as stated by you, me, and others, is to give an honest opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of the product. If the review is inherently dishonest, then it's a problem with the reviewer as well as the review.

Simple truth, if you are crucifying a product using invalid means of comparison and criteria, or almost as bad COMPLETELY subjective criteria such as how a character/plot point was written, then you are ignoring established and utilized tenets of the industry.

That is not to say, as you put it, that of course reviews do that because the standards aren't uniform. Even with a rigid standard, there are still guidelines which professionals in the reviewing business utilize on a daily basis.

In order for a game to receive a 1 or a 10, there has to be such obvious flaws or positive traits that it almost needs no discussion (other than for lolz or back-patting). Even at 2-3 or a 9, there isn't a ton of room for discourse (some, but generally opinions will be fairly similar).

What you aren't admitting, is that by showcasing DA2 here, we are seeing professionals, whose job it is to rate games, play games, compare games, etc... those people are giving an average score of 80%. If you look at the same site, you see the user reviews instead failing to hit even 50%.

Of the possibilities, the far more likely one for that difference is that the reviewers don't know how to use a fracking ratings system. DA2 is not 1 sub-5 rating game. Period. The production values, quality in art direction, gameplay, graphics, dialog, writing, etc etc. You might like various parts more or less than others, more or less than it's predecessor, more or less than others in the genre... but there is no conceivable way that you can look at all of those factors and make a rational and logical argument that the game itself is uniformly deserving of consistent ratings below 5/10. That's garbage, and the people making those reviews are missing the point.

Liking is not the same thing as rating accurately.

Thanks for the more mature response this time, I think we're getting closer to a consensus, or at the very least a constructive argument/disagreement.  Of course I don't advocate the "my opinion is my opinion and therefore it's valid" approach.  To the contrary, my stance has been throughout this thread that an opinion is valid as long as it is backed up by reason and logic.  Simply to state an opinion and wish for it to be valid is unreasonable and illogical and hence that opinion is worth ignoring whether you love or hate the game, so yes, we can agree that is stupid regardless of how you feel about the game.

I think the major point of differentiation between us is that you believe that a 60% rating for Dragon Age 2 is unreasonable and unfair and you have dismissed any such scores as being unreasonable.  What you'll find is that I and some of my fellow posters (the more reasonable ones, though I don't want to speak for them) do think it is a bad game and worthy of such a score.  Even a reasonably (sic) respected publisher has given it such a bad score and so it's hardly unreasonable to look at this as a bad game, because you yourself admit that a 6/10 is the score of a bad game.  (Though admittedly not horrible in the same vein as Superman 64 which was outright broken and deserves a score in the negatives)  Hence there are often some good reasons for the "hate" that this game gets.  I would not advocate some of the blind hatred, but some hatred yes, there are real reasons for it.

While I appreciate that you think Dragon Age could never be a below 5 game, it is not fair just to state that as an out and out fact. (much like you said a 60% rating is not fair)  Personally, I too would find it hard to justify giving the game a 2%, but if (and it is a very qualified if) somebody can reasonably argue that it is, then we need to be open to that possibility.  Personally I would like to see someone try, but I doubt we'll see it, but don't dismiss it just because you and I can't envisage it.

Lastly, yes while the critical scores may be higher than 60% (with approx 80% average), I would hate to think that the critics have robbed us of our independent thought and ability to assess the good and bad of a game by ourselves and share that with other people in a constructive manner.

Once again, I hate Dragon Age 2 and think it's a bad game.  My opinion on this is from assessing aspects of the game objectively, and then giving my own subjective weighting to these aspects and providing my assessment of it accordingly.

[Gavinthelocust]

There be someone saying whiny things using MY AVATAR?!
You've just made yourself a mortal enemy Ronin.

[bEVEsthda]

Solo80 wrote...

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.

I totally agree too. Which I hope I have made the center of my critical posts. ...But: The burger is quite nice, if you try it.
DA2 is a nice game, but no, - it wasn't what I hoped the Dragon Age franchise would turn into.

[Kendaric Varkellen]

Phaelducan wrote...
Complex? Don't see that. Origins was easier to complete on Nightmare with less planning than DA:2. Grossly OP'd specs, cheesy CC combo's... not trying to get off-topic but if you want complexity I don't think a pause and play RPG is the right genre. 

Honestly the combat in DA2 is almost identical. The only difference is instead of a 1-action que, now you press the button and you do the action. It's still based on cooldowns, mana/stamina, leveling and unlocking abilities, etc. It's faster, but the core mechanics are basically unchanged.

Complexity doesn't mean the difficulty of combat.
The core mechanics of the game changed quite a lot between DA:O and DA 2. Origins had non-combat skills you could train that could affect which options were available to you in a given dialog and had other uses in game mechanics as well, you had more options in building your charater as well (STR based rogues for example). Things like that are what we mean when we refer to complexity.

[Ronin2006]

Gavinthelocust wrote...

There be someone saying whiny things using MY AVATAR?!
You've just made yourself a mortal enemy Ronin.

HAHA, damn, I thought I was the only one.

[Ahisgewaya]

[quote]Phaelducan wrote...

Again, most RPG's (including DA:O) have you pick from 3-5 canned responses... at best.

But they actually look like what you wind up saying. I tried to ask a guard to let me into the city and wound up flirting with him even though I'm a guy.

Look, I liked Torment, Kotor, BG, etc, but their dialog wasn't really any deeper. You have good/bad/neutral/sarcastic. Put an alignment spin, or possibly a stat-based bonus in (which I'm all for, don't get me wrong), and it's the same basic mechanic again. Pick your emotional response, and push a button to use it.

Except that in Torment you could talk to your party members at any time and convince them to change their minds. Same thing with Kotor.

As to inventory... am I crazy or didn't DA2 have item descriptions? At work right now, but unless I'm seriously going out of my mind I can picture highlighting an item and getting a description...

One of the first items I got in the game was "amulet". Not "the magus shield" or "spellward" but just "amulet. That is lazy writing and an insult to me as a customer. And no, there is no item description.

Race? Variety is great, don't get me wrong... but a good RPG has to have non-human options for the main protagonist? Lots don't, and are still great games.

But they don't call themselves Dragon Age. It's a bait and switch. They also don't have humans who are as nasty and vile as the ones in Dragon Age are. It's like playing as a N A Z I.

It sounds more like you are maybe talking about the intangibles... and that's fine, and I agree that DA:O felt deeper and was more rewarding to complete (and consequently, I liked it more)... but I don't think the reasons you gave are entirely accurate or fair. Mechanically the game is pretty similar to the first one, just with a new set of clothes and a poorer premise for the plot.

The plot is too linear and too simple. Like I said, it's a magazine that claims to be the sequel to a book.


My responses are in blue.

Modifié par Ahisgewaya, 19 mars 2011 - 06:41 .

[Ravenfeeder]

Phaelducan wrote...
As to inventory... am I crazy or didn't DA2 have item descriptions? At work right now, but unless I'm seriously going out of my mind I can picture highlighting an item and getting a description...

You get the description of the bonuses, but there's no history or anecdote attached in the way there was in DA:O.  I've got this set called 'Armour of the Fallen', but have no idea why it's called that.  It has its own unique look, but no unique feel.

Unless not seeing the history is a bug I haven't heared of yet.

[AkiKishi]

Ravenfeeder wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...
As to inventory... am I crazy or didn't DA2 have item descriptions? At work right now, but unless I'm seriously going out of my mind I can picture highlighting an item and getting a description...

You get the description of the bonuses, but there's no history or anecdote attached in the way there was in DA:O.  I've got this set called 'Armour of the Fallen', but have no idea why it's called that.  It has its own unique look, but no unique feel.

Unless not seeing the history is a bug I haven't heared of yet.

Codex.

[Ahisgewaya]

Origins had a codex and an item description. Less is not more.
And you should never get a magic item called "amulet". What's next? All warriors get "Sword" but no more description of it? Sword +1? How is that a step forward instead of three steps backward?

Modifié par Ahisgewaya, 19 mars 2011 - 06:45 .

[Alexander1136]

Ajspeed wrote...

Im having trouble comprehending so many peoples deep seeded hate for this game many of whom were judging it before they even played it. Honestly what is wrong with its?
Its like Mass Effect and the changes made to Mass Effect 2 its refined the gameplay making things alot neater and easier to manage and id say it better for it Mass Effect and DAO both had similar problems of somewhat clunky interface but they both have been refined in there sequels due to what the fans complained was wrong with the first game, Bioware Cant Satisfy everyone but they do there best.

Re-used maps, dumbed down story,retard proof gameplay, theres threads on it look around.<_<

[stewie1974]

sometimes an amulet is just an amulet. To expect every item to be named and have a noteworthy history is a bit .... unlikely.

I insist you name every item in your house beyond its generic name.

A fork is no longer a fork and you must name each and every fork differently. Don't be lazy now.