832 réponses à ce sujet

[Narreneth]

88mphSlayer wrote...

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

Yeah, I know.  I wish they'd give us multiple options to pick from so we can display what best fits our personal standpoint in the conversation.

Oh wait...

[Blastback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Okay, first, I admit, I'm talking as much in hypotheticals as I am the actual changes seen from Origins to DA2.  I'm talking about the generall line of thought Mike expressed, you know? 

For the examples that I gave,I'd like to see the abilities expanded on rather than reworked unless completly nessecary.  Breaking the abilities down to webs was fine, but lockpicking and trap detecting being reliant on your cunning score rather than a skill set was not.  Give rouges an ability set that lets them fight with one weapon and a buckler, and warriors use two weapons in future DA games, but keep the previous ability sets as well. 

[Shockwave Pulsar]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

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.

Having finished both games I can say that the speed and the attack animations are the only fundamental differences, control, positioning, mechanics are all the same, everything happens the same way, only about twice as fast.

[Medhia Nox]

It's like using Twilight to get someone into literature. I suppose we applaud that - so, sure, let Bioware run with it. I'll save some money.

[slimgrin]

Medhia Nox wrote...

It's like using Twilight to get someone into literature.

Exactly.

[upsettingshorts]

There's also force behind all physical and some magical attacks, a Fortitude score based on strength, melee AoE on all attacks on Nightmare difficulty, tactical active dodging, elimination of potion/heal spamming, and cross-class combos. Just to list a few things that were the opposite of dumbed-down. Not claiming that other things weren't, but they did add depth in places and it should be acknowledged.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 08:56 .

[Altima Darkspells]

Well, that's Mr. Laidlaw's opinion.

I imagine the 3.2 million people who bought Dragon Age: Origins somewhat disagree that the 'traditional' RPG genre is dead and stale.

I look forward to the day where companies like CDProjekt and Obsidian get their acts together and face-stomp BioWare to provide an adequate rivalry. As it is now, BioWare may as well have the monopoly on CRPGs.

[Blastback]

Medhia Nox wrote...

It's like using Twilight to get someone into literature. I suppose we applaud that - so, sure, let Bioware run with it. I'll save some money.

Ouch.  Thats a little harsh.

Okay, really harsh.

[bsbcaer]

Dr. Impossible wrote...

Do comedy movies "evolve" by turning into dramas?

Check the ouevre of Mr. Adam Sandler.  The movies he makes today, still comedies (for the most part), are not the same types of movies that he made when he was first starting out.  I think that playing the same "man-child" character that he played early on his career would become quite stagnant over time.

[Narreneth]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

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.

Combat is nearly identical to Origins.  The primary difference is there isn't an auto-attack on console.  I don't mind that, myself, but to each his own.  Abilities play out identically, you can still use the ability wheel, hell, most of the spells that made it over have nearly identical (if not, tweaked) function as in Origins.  The primary difference is Cross-class combos, which enrich combat.  There are so many situations where utilizing them properly makes a fight fly by easily, but failing to do so causes death.

People are getting hung up on the fact that not everything is identical and lambasting DA2 as a far leap from Origins, when in truth it really isn't. 

[L33TDAWG]

They should have made a Jade Empire 2, to satisfy this evolution because the first was really big on action and I can't remember anyone who hated it!

[AllThatJazz]

Blastback wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Okay, first, I admit, I'm talking as much in hypotheticals as I am the actual changes seen from Origins to DA2.  I'm talking about the generall line of thought Mike expressed, you know? 

For the examples that I gave,I'd like to see the abilities expanded on rather than reworked unless completly nessecary.  Breaking the abilities down to webs was fine, but lockpicking and trap detecting being reliant on your cunning score rather than a skill set was not.  Give rouges an ability set that lets them fight with one weapon and a buckler, and warriors use two weapons in future DA games, but keep the previous ability sets as well. 

See, this illustrates the thing that was a bit of a problem for me. There was soooo much complaining in the forums in the run-up to the game that DA2 wasn't going to feature the Warden and his/her companions, that it wasn't going to be about 'Warden' issues (ie a Blight), that it was going to try and do some do new stuff rather than there just being more of the old stuff, with some cosmetic variation.  And the idea that it might be all of those things horrified me. I was relieved to a certain extent when I played DA2, because I felt as though I'd actually played a new game, rather than paid full price for a slight variation on a game I played a couple of years ago, which would have felt far more like an expansion pack.


I realise that wasn't exactly where you were going with your point, but it was a handy springboard for mine 
For what it's worth, I agree with you about the non-combat skills - I wish they'd been kept in. x

[bsbcaer]

enrogae wrote...

VanDraegon wrote...

Blastback wrote...
The problem is that DA2 is a sequal. 

No, it isnt. Bioware have said more than once that DA2 is not A sequal to DA:O. It is meant to stand on its own.

Then, in my opinion, it shouldn't be called Dragon Age "2".

Why not?  The game is still set in the Dragon Age...

[MonkeyLungs]

Balthamoss wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

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.

Having finished both games I can say that the speed and the attack animations are the only fundamental differences, control, positioning, mechanics are all the same, everything happens the same way, only about twice as fast.

I played DA:O to completion 6 times and played a couple other characters part way through the game. Spent alot of time in Origins. I only played the demo of DA2 (several times) but the combat doesn't seem anything like Origins. Maybe it is just the speed but it certainly doesn't seem like that's the only difference. The speed of the comabt is super annoying though. It doesn't have the chops to be a real action game like Ninja Gaiden . The combat is not reactive enough and there are not enough combos, moves, blocking, parrying etc. It just feels like a spastic half-breed.

Granted I actually thought DA:O combat was a bit on the fast side so you can hopefully better understand my opinion.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

abaris wrote...

And by what Laidlaw calls evolving, they drive their core audience away.

I wonder if catering to the mass market makes up for that.

But the "I'll only play BG clones" is a small audience, so who cares?  The "I'll play a kick ass RPG regadless of how much BG DNA it has" crowd is much, much bigger. 

So.  Go the way of the dinosaurs, BG clones!

[upsettingshorts]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

Well, that's Mr. Laidlaw's opinion.

I imagine the 3.2 million people who bought Dragon Age: Origins somewhat disagree that the 'traditional' RPG genre is dead and stale.

If you're going to say it's his opinion, you should at least get it right.

He didn't say the genre was stale.  He said - in so many words - that resting on one's creative laurels is a good way to ensure that it becomes stale.

Last I checked, The Witcher 2 isn't the same as The Witcher, Deus Ex: HR isn't the same as DX1 or even Invisible War, Skyrim isn't going to be the same as Oblivion or Fallout, New Vegas wasn't the same as Fallout 3 though that wasn't done by the same dev team...

That people may look upon those changes on balance as more positive than those in DA2 isn't relevant, as that isn't what Mike Laidlaw was defending with this statement, which is change itself - not the specific nature of the changes which are best left for discussion in the Constructive Criticism thread and others like it.  

bsbcaer wrote...

Why not?  The game is still set in the Dragon Age...

Some folk have an oddly specific set of requirements as to what "really" constitutes a sequel.

Granted I mostly noticed that train of thought getting out of hand in other discussions, mostly pre-release.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 09:01 .

[this isnt my name]

Blastback wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

It's like using Twilight to get someone into literature. I suppose we applaud that - so, sure, let Bioware run with it. I'll save some money.

Ouch.  Thats a little harsh.

Okay, really harsh.

... (S)Hes right though.

[Narreneth]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

Well, that's Mr. Laidlaw's opinion.

I imagine the 3.2 million people who bought Dragon Age: Origins somewhat disagree that the 'traditional' RPG genre is dead and stale.

I look forward to the day where companies like CDProjekt and Obsidian get their acts together and face-stomp BioWare to provide an adequate rivalry. As it is now, BioWare may as well have the monopoly on CRPGs.

It's cute how you think you speak for all 3.2 million people who bought DA:O.  Or a majority.  Or even a large minority.

You speak for you and you alone.  Despite how many people you think hate DA2 in all its glory, every single person that I know in real life that has DA2 is thoroughly enjoying it.  Hell, even people I've struck up conversations with when shopping for a new game are enjoying it.  The people posting on these forums are not a good litmus test for what people think of DA2.

Also, calling Origins a "traditional" RPG is ridiculous.  Yes, there are elements, but there's elements in DA2 as well.  

[Blastback]

bsbcaer wrote...

enrogae wrote...

VanDraegon wrote...

Blastback wrote...
The problem is that DA2 is a sequal. 

No, it isnt. Bioware have said more than once that DA2 is not A sequal to DA:O. It is meant to stand on its own.

Then, in my opinion, it shouldn't be called Dragon Age "2".

Why not?  The game is still set in the Dragon Age...

Dragon Age 2 implies that it is a direct contiuation of the previous game.  Something like, Dragon Age: Rise to Power would show that it is a Dragon Age game, but not a sequal.  Part of the same franchise, but not the same series.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

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

Fixed that for you.  :D:D   If the time consuming, boring things that have fallen by the wayside are what someone requires to concider a game an RPG... I think you're missing out on a lot of great stories.

[SphereofSilence]

SirGladiator wrote...

SphereofSilence wrote...

Gavinthelocust wrote...

I hate to say it because Mike is a nice guy, but we need his ass fired if this was all his fault.

IMO, the biggest scapegoat is EA. I think EA's investors wanted more profit returns, citing that DA franchise need to perform better (there's a source somewhere which I can't remember, you can prolly search it up). Thus, they asked BW for a shorter release date and to generate more sales. You can imagine these led the changes of direction for DA2 in the attempt to reach a bigger audience. One thing I am sure of is I do not want to be in the position and circumstances of Mike. It's a very difficult position to be in, and there may be no way for him to please all sides. He has to take risks. It's not just Mike alone I'm sure.

I'd look at it a different way.  He was put in charge of the most successful game that Bioware has, they gave him way less time to make a sequel than they had for the first one, to me the logical choice would be to 'not' take any risks at all.  Why completely overhaul the best selling game in your company, 'especially' when you've got such limited time?  Just improve the graphics, tweak a few things here and there (like the improved crafting system which is great), and basicly make DA2 a true sequel with another epic storyline.  Thats the safe thing to do, pretty much guaranteed to result in keeping your DAO fans happy plus gaining new fans due to the better graphics and other little improvements that you do make.  He instead wanted to roll the dice, take the big risks to try to get the big rewards, and it appears that didn't work.  I like the new combat system (of course I liked the old combat system too), I like a lot about DA2, but it does appear he lost a lot more of the core fans than he gained in new ones, and it wasn't because he was in a difficult position, it was just because he wanted to go away from what he, and everybody else, knew was virtually guaranteed to work because it worked so incredibly well last time.  He knew what the core DAO fans wanted, and he chose to give them something different, its as simple as that.

Hmm. I do remember before DAO was done, DA2 was already in development and Brent Knowles resigned as lead designer for DA because he didn't like the direction the franchise was going. So I think they went ahead with choosing to make something different even before DAO was out. In any case, I may have assumed too much that isn't true, so I take back what I say. You may be right. 

[Altima Darkspells]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There's also force behind all physical and some magical attacks, a Fortitude score based on strength, melee AoE on all attacks on Nightmare difficulty, tactical active dodging, and cross-class combos. Just to list a few things that were the opposite of dumbed-down. Not claiming that other things weren't, but they did add depth in places and it should be acknowledged.

Indeed.  I actually found the combat mechanics in DA2 to be their best area.  Anyone can tell just by looking at everything involved with it that a lot of time and effort were put into it.  I'm frankly amazed at how refined and interesting it is, given the extremely short dev cycle.

Of course, it's easy to overlook all that because other aspects of the game just completely ruin it.  The level design, as pertaining to combat, is boring and bland.  It's all narrow corridors with little room to move around, and the Enemy Wave system was just terrible to implement in 99% of the fights for no reason other than to just have it.

The talent upgrade system itself is just as bad as Origins.  They basically took several lines from Origins, mashed them together, split abilities that came with talents and called them upgrades, and then mis-matched everything to go from A>B>C>D linear progression to...A>(B then C OR C then >D progression.  You still ended up with talents that you weren't going to necessarily use.

Still, with all that, I enjoyed the 'sweet spot' for the few levels after getting the second specialization where I felt I had enough talents to be diverse and the enemies were still challenging (and not in a cheap way) that I felt I got the most out of my points.

[Fishy]

You need to be cautious with 'evolving' . Evolving mean taking the technology for your advantage and not the opposite.
There's so many exemple for this..


Here's one exemple

Modifié par Suprez30, 20 mars 2011 - 09:05 .

[TheMadCat]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

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

Fixed that for you.  :D:D   If the time consuming, boring things that have fallen by the wayside are what someone requires to concider a game an RPG... I think you're missing out on a lot of great stories.

Really? What great stories am I missing?

[AllThatJazz]

Medhia Nox wrote...

It's like using Twilight to get someone into literature. I suppose we applaud that - so, sure, let Bioware run with it. I'll save some money.

And if they start off reading Twilight, then move into other types of fantasy/SF, then start exploring other genres, what's the problem here? Perhaps they should never read anything, eh? 

As a former English Teacher who has, God knows, struggled to get kids in deprived areas to read anything for pleasure, I'll give 'em Twilight over intellectual snobbery anyday.