832 réponses à ce sujet

[White_Buffalo94]

I like DAII, with a few minor exceptions, and one potentially gamebreaking one (bugs, but I trust those will be ironed out soon enough)

[AllThatJazz]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

_000Darkstar wrote...

What are you people smoking? DA2 is the same game as Origins. It simply changed some of Origins' shortcomings, i.e. Combat.
Everything that made Origins an RPG is still there... You people make my head hurt.

Real questions is "what are you smoking".
DA II is lower then **** compared to Origins.
Recycled areas, horrible ending, weak romances, unable to change companions (armor, robes, clothes etc...), Mass Effect dialogue wheel...

Aside from the recycled areas, everything you've just said (or how one feels about it) is completely subjective. Of all the things to care about in a game, companion armour doesn't make my top 50.  Maybe we're just all smoking something different.

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 20 mars 2011 - 08:28 .

[88mphSlayer]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

enrogae wrote...

Upsettingshorts -- I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I disagree with pretty much every point you've made. You say I don't value the positive aspects of what they did (what few there are), but you are wrong in your assumptions. I do value the positive aspects of DA:2, even if what I find positive differs from what you find positive.

No, you're saying the same thing I am - in this paragraph anyway. 

I'll show you in the next paragraph.

enrogae wrote...

A choice that you get to make, that has the same outcome no matter what choice you make, is less meaningful... period. It has no meaning if it changes nothing.

I disagree.  I value that my character in DA2's position and feelings on an issue matters to him and the people around him, even if the outcome remains static.  That's giving my protagonist characterization, it gives my companions characterization through their response.  Whether or not the same thing happens, or similar things happen, ultimately isn't as interesting to me.  So as far as something you value (variation in outcomes) and something I value (opportunities for characterization) goes, I can see why you'd prefer DAO and I'd prefer DA2.  Because neither is good at both.

enrogae wrote...

And less dialogue is less dialogue period... the fact that it's a shorter game only reinforces my opinion here.

Eh... I don't want to get into a thing about hours per playthrough. 

enrogae wrote...

But what I speak of is the fact that you can't really talk to anyone. You don't get to know your comrades in DA:2 as much as you could in DA:O.

Sure you can, and I sure did.  The difference - and I think DG might have addressed this in another thread - is that in DA2 you can't simply chat them up on cue like you could in DAO.  They reveal themselves to you more or less at their own pace, in their own way - and sometimes in more than one way.  If you don't use a companion or simply don't keep up with them, you can miss out on that content more easily than you could in DAO, where you could simply have a sitdown with whoever whenever.  But overall I didn't experience the same lack of connection to the characters in DA2 that others claim to, with one exception:  Fenris.  Because I played a 2HW and simply lost track of the guy.  I'll recitfy that in another game.

enrogae wrote...

Really, they just sit in the same spot for 9 years saying the same things?

Definitely could have been done better.  Though personally to me it's not that much worse repeating the same stuff for months.  I do seem to recall Isabela's oneliner about the hat shop changing over time, but I don't remember a ton of examples.  Some of the banter between characters changed to reflect their personal quests, like Aveline and Donnic or Merrill with the mirror.

enrogae wrote...

 a pointless debate.

They pretty much all are.

88mphSlayer wrote...

what does "friendly" - "sarcastic" - "dick" have to do with deciding the fate of the universe?

You're doing it wrong.

Picking the same direction every time isn't what they intend people to do.  Furthermore there's more than 3 options - though the game only "tracks" three for one liners and such.   Heck I think they should move around the diplomatic/top, sarcastic/right, blunt/bottom thing with every option just to ensure people don't fall into that habit. 

DA2 allows you to play a character who has feelings and positions on things - unlike say, Commander Shepard, who is one of two barely coherent characters. 

i don't care about Shepard's feelings and positions on things, i care about my feelings and positions on things

[slimgrin]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

Which makes it a crusade...at best.

I don't know how many different ways one can say 'we're aiming for the casual market', but the reps at Bioware are determind to find the limit.
 

Modifié par slimgrin, 20 mars 2011 - 08:30 .

[abaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

He's talking about creative stagnation, guys. If you make the same game over and over again only the same people will buy it. This isn't anything new from Bioware, I can't think of a single game they've made that wasn't significantly different in a number of ways from its predecessor. Each time some fans jumped ship, and others jumped on. That approach is what got them where they are, not making (insert game here that is your personal favorite). It's one thing to say they made the wrong calls, but it's something else entirely to say that that they shouldn't make them and just keep putting out the same game - which is all Mike Laidlaw says they aren't going to do. Other games, like Madden from EA Sports for example are pretty much the same game year in and year out, and they're criticized for that.

Sure, the genre can evolve. But losing depth on the way was never the Bioware approach.

I can't judge the whole game, but what I saw in the Demo just wasn't what I expect to be a fantasy role playing game. Just a brief outline: Fighting right from the start, so you don't even get the chance to learn anything about your character or companions, the new anime fighting style, the ludicrous death animations, spawning enemies. The impossibility to communicate with your companions whenever you want to.

Other things I don't like encompass repetitive maps and the impossibility to outfit your crew. Admitted, that I learned only by browsing the reviews, but its a major turnoff for me.

So evolving, in this case, meant watering the game. That's keeping it simple to meet the shareholders requirements and to appeal to the lowest common denominator. For some it may be the only game in town, but I doubt, that creating something mediocre and interchangeable is the right tool for attracting a new fanbase. It will attract a few casuals, but they're moving on as soon as something new and shiny hits the shelves.

[Babli]

DA 2 is supposed to be an evolution of RPG?

Damn, now I really hope that The Witcher 2 will kick DA2´s ass.

[Shockwave Pulsar]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand how exactly DAII is supposed to be SO different from DAO ?
I get that the game was rushed and because of that it reuses the same environments all the time and takes places in one city instead of a continuos journey. You can't change companion armor and there are now icons in conversations, and the combat is a lot faster and has flashier animations (eg. mages doing staff-swirling combos instead of repeatedly poking the staff two inches forward), but the mechanics and the control is exactly the same. I played DAO a lot and except for faster (and for me much more fun & involving) combat it feels exactly the same.

[Moroseth]

ExiledMimic wrote...

I have no problem with Bioware experimenting on how to appeal to a larger market with an RPG that attempts to reach out to the FPS crowd.  They are a large company and if they want to expand their market to try it, then by all means: give it a whirl.

However... they should have created an entirely new game to test this out.  Not relied on the popularity of Origins to give them thousands of blind-buys where the new game could have succeeded or failed on it's own merrits.  In fact some of the raw lingering hatred for DA2 is that it's a kick to the scrotum for any die hard RPG fans who really loved the first one.  If they made some new RPG "The Kirkwall Chronicles" or some such, that wasn't tied to DAO's excellent story telling and following, then they could decide what did and didn't work.

Evolving what you make can work.  If done right.  Evolving most gamers sadly doesn't work so well.  Gaming is a hobby and just like a Football guy doesn't want to see people score touchdowns through a hoop, the basketball guy doesn't want you to kick the free-throws in.  Meshing the two together only causes blinding anger and lapses in forum judgement.  As we can plainly see here.  Maybe in DA3 they'll get smart, go back to Origins mode, and produce an RPG built for those who did enjoy DA2.  I don't see why they can't have a series of their own that they can love and enjoy.

Just keep it out of Dragon Age.  Some people who play RPGs absolutely LOATHE FPS games.  After DA2 I'm going to sit on Bioware titles for 2 weeks + until they get my respect back.  In fact most of those who're angry should do the same.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Very well said.

[upsettingshorts]

Blastback wrote...

Well, what I was trying to get at was how much should a series evolve from one game to the next.  For my money, Bioware is trying to force things to much inbetween games. I don't like the idea of having completely diffrent skill and ability mechanics with each new game.  Like how your stats in ME determined your accuracy only for in ME2 for those to go  away completly.  Or for Rogue skills going from being dependent on skill points in Origins to  attributes in DA2.

So there's be less of a problem if DA2 was DA1.5, and DA3 ended up being exactly the same as DA2?  I'm not sure I buy that, unless you're talking about why there's so much outcry as opposed to your position personally.  The outcry thing I can definitely understand, I think that's pretty much the main reason behind some - not all, not even most, but a vocal selection - of the complaints.

88mphSlayer wrote...

i don't care about Shepard's feelings and positions on things, i care about my feelings and positions on things

Do you want your positions and feelings reflected in the game?  Well, you got one opportunity - in DLC - as Commander Shepard to tell one of the characters in the game how you feel, through Shepard.

Okay there's probly more than that one, but they're extremely rare in any case.  Shepard is one of two incoherent action hero archetypes, the game simply doesn't allow for nuance without cheating the system.

In DA2 its practically every third option.

abaris wrote...

Sure, the genre can evolve. But losing depth on the way was never the Bioware approach.

It lost depth in some areas, gained them in others.

But like I said about the not appreciating thing applies there too.

Some people didn't appreciate some of the kinds of depth DAO offered, some people don't appreciate the kinds of depth DA2 offers.  It doesn't mean it isn't there in either game for people who do, however.

abaris wrote...

 Fighting right from the start, so you don't even get the chance to learn anything about your character or companions, the new anime fighting style, the ludicrous death animations, spawning enemies. The impossibility to communicate with your companions whenever you want to.

My usual spiel about the necessity of that sequence to establish the framed narrative/unreliable narrator aside, how are any of these things fundamental to the fantasy RPG experience?  They seem like a list of specific expectations that are unique to each individual.  Which is a damn high standard to hold a game to.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 08:37 .

[AkiKishi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You're doing it wrong.

Picking the same direction every time isn't what they intend people to do.  Furthermore there's more than 3 options - though the game only "tracks" three for one liners and such.   Heck I think they should move around the diplomatic/top, sarcastic/right, blunt/bottom thing with every option just to ensure people don't fall into that habit. 

DA2 allows you to play a character who has feelings and positions on things - unlike say, Commander Shepard, who is one of two barely coherent characters. 

If you flip around too much Hawke comes across like he has multiple personality disorder because of the inflection the VA puts on the various tone lines.

If Bioware need that level of control to tell a story, they should just drop all the character choice and go the SquareEnix route. It sells better for one.

[Brenus]

Alex109222 wrote...

Brenus wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

It will be interesting to see how many copies Skyrim sells. Should be a good indicator on how big the rpg market actually is.

Dont forget the Witcher 2!

out on my birthday I might add!

Its my birthday too on Witcher 2's release day OMG!

[DivineBeetle]

More like a regression.

I don't dislike it as a game but as a sequel to DAO its rubbish IMO

[Tirigon]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

He wants to turn people who don´t play RPGs into people who play RPGs that are no RPGs but crappy hack´n´slashs, to be accurate.

[upsettingshorts]

BobSmith101 wrote...

If you flip around too much Hawke comes across like he has multiple personality disorder because of the inflection the VA puts on the various tone lines.

This is the problem I have with Jennifer Hale in ME2.  I haven't had that issue with Nicholas Boulton or Jo Wyatt.

Granted, Mark Meer's Shepard maintains consistency flawlessly.  Too bad not only does the game not support that kind of dynamic, people criticize him for it.

...I didn't say it was perfect, did I?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 08:35 .

[MorrigansLove]

THE TRUTH IS OWTTTTTTTTT!

[88mphSlayer]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Do you want your positions and feelings reflected in the game?  Well, you got one opportunity - in DLC - as Commander Shepard to tell one of the characters in the game how you feel, through Shepard.

Okay there's probly more than that one, but they're extremely rare in any case.  Shepard is one of two incoherent action hero archetypes, the game simply doesn't allow for nuance without cheating the system.

In DA2 its practically every third option.

SHOW not TELL

yes, in the LOTSB dlc you can decide to have shepard tell liara how you feel

but in ME1 and ME2 you can also wipe out the council, give cerberus unlimited power, save hostages or destroy colonies, etc. etc. until the end of time... that is called showing morality, you're showing your morality by having your avatar punch a hostage, Shepard is just an avatar

[abaris]

My usual spiel about the necessity of that sequence to establish the framed narrative aside, how are any of these things fundamental to the fantasy RPG experience?

So you're content having a bunch of anonymous pixels running away with you?

What I mean, this is supposed to be a party game. Yet you don't know anything about your party. And suddenly one of these pixel piles dies - do you feel anything? Do you even know who you are and why the heck you're running away, other than being chased for some reason?

Other than in DAO or NWNII for that matter, there's no exposition to get a feeling of loss. It's called immersion, and that's what I expect from any RPG.

[AtreiyaN7]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

No, I think what he's saying it that he wants to open it up to people who don't necessarily snuggle with their first edition AD&D rulebooks at night or conduct blood sacrifices at their altar to Gary Gygax. I think he's saying that to solely cater to a single, small group can potentially lead to the stagnation of a genre.

As far as I'm concerned, experimentation and trying new things is good - kind of like that leap from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. I can't actually remember anyone complaining that they had suddenly had a three-dimensional post-apocalyptic wasteland to explore instead of a flat 2D map with an isometric view. Maybe there were people who wanted their sprites back? *shrug*

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 20 mars 2011 - 08:41 .

[SphereofSilence]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

He's talking about creative stagnation, guys. If you make the same game over and over again only the same people will buy it. This isn't anything new from Bioware, I can't think of a single game they've made that wasn't significantly different in a number of ways from its predecessor. Each time some fans jumped ship, and others jumped on. That approach is what got them where they are, not making (insert game here that is your personal favorite). It's one thing to say they made the wrong calls, but it's something else entirely to say that that they shouldn't make them and just keep putting out the same game - which is all Mike Laidlaw says they aren't going to do. Other games, like Madden from EA Sports for example are pretty much the same game year in and year out, and they're criticized for that.

It seems in this industry you're damned for taking risks and damned for not taking them. I think all he's saying is he'd rather be damned for taking them. I can respect that. Doesn't mean I'm going to like every change made, or they'll always hit the mark, but it's not some grand conspiracy or personal attack on vague veteran/hardcore/loyal fans.

Note that I say nothing about the relative quality of DA2 in this post. Only that I think that this thread misrepresents his position.

I can see his point of view. But it remains to be seen if his risk-taking here will yield even greater success than DAO, for DA2 and beyond. My money's on no.

[Sandmanifest]

ExiledMimic wrote...

I have no problem with Bioware experimenting on how to appeal to a larger market with an RPG that attempts to reach out to the FPS crowd.  They are a large company and if they want to expand their market to try it, then by all means: give it a whirl.

However... they should have created an entirely new game to test this out.  Not relied on the popularity of Origins to give them thousands of blind-buys where the new game could have succeeded or failed on it's own merrits.  In fact some of the raw lingering hatred for DA2 is that it's a kick to the scrotum for any die hard RPG fans who really loved the first one.  If they made some new RPG "The Kirkwall Chronicles" or some such, that wasn't tied to DAO's excellent story telling and following, then they could decide what did and didn't work.

Evolving what you make can work.  If done right.  Evolving most gamers sadly doesn't work so well.  Gaming is a hobby and just like a Football guy doesn't want to see people score touchdowns through a hoop, the basketball guy doesn't want you to kick the free-throws in.  Meshing the two together only causes blinding anger and lapses in forum judgement.  As we can plainly see here.  Maybe in DA3 they'll get smart, go back to Origins mode, and produce an RPG built for those who did enjoy DA2.  I don't see why they can't have a series of their own that they can love and enjoy.

Just keep it out of Dragon Age.  Some people who play RPGs absolutely LOATHE FPS games.  After DA2 I'm going to sit on Bioware titles for 2 weeks + until they get my respect back.  In fact most of those who're angry should do the same.

I agree completely, same for me as well.

[AllThatJazz]

slimgrin wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

Which makes it a crusade...at best.

I don't know how many different ways one can say 'we're aiming for the casual market' but the reps at Biowarwe are determind to find the limit.
 

If, in fact, what Mike Laidlaw is saying is that 'we're aiming for the casual market', then why the hell shouldn't they? These '14 yr old console kidz' who are playing COD or whatever now, are a lot more likely to still be playing games in 20 years than I am. They need to think of their future market, not just their present one.

How many kids are there who play tabletop RPGs these days? Alot fewer than there were when I was 14, I'll bet, if only because when I was a kid there were no such things as Xboxes or Playstations or hell, even home computers. And many of those of us who love CRPGs today come from playing pen and paper. So assuming that the total number of tabletop RPGers has declined in favour of videogamers (which is kind of common sense, isn't it?), where does the future CRPG market come from? It comes from people already playing videogames, but not necessarily just those who are playing CRPGs.

I do know that because of ME2, my nephew has since played and loved Origins, DA2, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and despite being all hung up on graphics, is now wading his way through the first 2 Fallouts. He was a part of this COD/Left4Dead crowd that is now into RPGs thanks to Bioware games making them a little more accessible to those who aren't 'hardcore'. 

[AllThatJazz]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

No, I think what he's saying it that he wants to open it up to people who don't necessarily snuggle with their first edition AD&D rulebooks at night or conduct blood sacrifices at their altar to Gary Gygax. I think he's saying that to solely cater to a single, small group can potentially lead to the stagnation of a genre.

As far as I'm concerned, experimentation and trying new things is good - kind of like that leap from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. I can't actually remember anyone complaining that they had suddenly had a three-dimensional post-apocalyptic wasteland to explore instead of a flat 2D map with an isometric view. Maybe there were people who wanted their sprites back? *shrug*

Also, this.

[SphereofSilence]

dheer wrote...

His use of "evolve" really does bother me. Evolution is not perfect. There are many mutations that hurt or kill something. Just because he thinks he's "evolving" rpgs doesn't mean the direction he took is the right one.

Turning solid rpg foundations into more of an action console game could very well cause the "genre death" he goes on about.

It feels more like a forced 'revolution' to be honest, but that's just me.

[upsettingshorts]

abaris wrote...

So you're content having a bunch of anonymous pixels running away with you?

I'm okay with them being mostly anonymous at first.  Which is the only part they were anonymous for.  I don't need to hear a redhead tell me her entire life story before we leave the bar.  

In medias res is a perfectly viable storytelling mechanic.

abaris wrote...

What I mean, this is supposed to be a party game. Yet you don't know anything about your party. And suddenly one of these pixel piles dies - do you feel anything?

Depends.  Am I playing Hawke as an avatar or as a character?  If it's the former, I'm going to accept the fact that the game told me that it was my sibling, and think, "That sucked, I was beginning to like her" or "Good, he was getting on my nerves already."  If I'm in character, then it depends on the character doesn't it?

abaris wrote...

Do you even know who you are and why the heck you're running away, other than being chased for some reason?

If I read the codex entry in the journal at the beginning of the game  ("FirstName Hawke") or paid attention to the dialogue I would know both of those things.

abaris wrote...

Other than in DAO or NWNII for that matter, there's no exposition to get a feeling of loss. It's called immersion, and that's what I expect from any RPG.

Immersion is 100% subjective.  

The fact everyone in Thedas had an audible voice except the protagonist killed my immersion.  It enhanced it for others. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 08:47 .

[MonkeyLungs]

Balthamoss wrote...

Am I the only one who doesn't understand how exactly DAII is supposed to be SO different from DAO ?
I get that the game was rushed and because of that it reuses the same environments all the time and takes places in one city instead of a continuos journey. You can't change companion armor and there are now icons in conversations, and the combat is a lot faster and has flashier animations (eg. mages doing staff-swirling combos instead of repeatedly poking the staff two inches forward), but the mechanics and the control is exactly the same. I played DAO a lot and except for faster (and for me much more fun & involving) combat it feels exactly the same.

It's exactly the same, only different ... ???!!!!

Combat most certainly does not feel anywhere near the same. It was immediately apparent to me and the number one reason I did not pre-order.