276 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

randName wrote...

For one it would be rather boring if we all agreed, and 2nd, we don't all agree.

& what some see as flaws, other care nothing about, and so on (even if they can acknowledge that its factually correct that areas are re:used for example).

I am not saying we should all agree on everything. That would be boring indeed. But the flaming isn't necessary.

[StowyMcStowstow]

I defend it because I like it. Simple as that. Sure, it has several shortcomings, but I like what they improved more than what they didn't. And the fact that the short dev time is to blame for nearly all of the problems.

[Volourn]

How can anyone cry that Kirkwall is 'empty' yet praise DA1 to high heaven when the city in that game - Denerim - was... let's just, say, 'lesser'.

How can anyone claim DA2 quests suck when you have the multitude of 'sign quest posts' thatw ere fetch in DA1.

How cna people whine about filler combat or 'enemies dropping from the cielings' in DA2 when these existed in DA1.

How can people complain about DA2 haveing a 'dissapoointing plot' when DA1's plot was 'let's go kill the archdemon' while in DA2 the plot is a lot more complex than that. You knwo the villain in DA1, but you really don't in DA2.

How can people claim that DA1 had more C7C than DA2 when in DA1 you are forced to become a warden, forced to go to Lothering, and forced to fight the archdemon. That's your big C&C there.

LMAO

Blind hypocrites are blind hypocrites.

I like both DAs. Their strenghths and weaknesses are almost the same. Both games have things they do better and do worse.

So.. I have a question for OP: Whya re people defending DA1 while bashing DA2 even though DA1 was as bad or evenw orse in some of things you are complaining about?


P.S. Varric > Oghen NO CONTEST

Modifié par Volourn, 28 mars 2011 - 02:03 .

[ashwind]

Volourn wrote...

So.. I have a question for OP: Whya re people defending DA1 while bashing DA2 even though DA1 was as bad or evenw orse in some of things you are complaining about?

P.S. Varric > Oghen NO CONTEST

Although I am not the OP - I will try to answer on behalf of the OP and the people who insist that DA1 > DA2 :devil:

You SILLY DWARF! Of course DA1 > DA2! Just look at the review score! DA1 is 9~10/10 and DA2 is 2.5/10!! Of course it isworthless!

Dont ask me why - the reviewers cannot be wrong - at least those who gave DA2 a score of 4 or lower out of 10 - any score above that the the reviewer is clearly paid!!

Look! Amazon is lowering prices and refunding!! I dont care what Bioware is doing! As long as it aint done MY way, it is trash! I cannot dress up my friend - ARRRR tis the END OF WRPG!!! nuff said!

I think... that sums everything up...

:devil:

Modifié par ashwind, 28 mars 2011 - 02:12 .

[Itkovian]

Aireoth wrote...

Thats my question, we all know that this game has the following massive problems:

A) Enemies recycled/poping out of thin air.
Recycled Areas. 
C) Average plot : I will quantify this, by plot I mean the wholistic feeling of immersion, freedom to chose (and face consequences), reaction of characters in the world to you (and you to them) as well as your NPC companions stories, the plot was poor/average from bioware. This is better then most other developers, but we hold bioware to a higher standard, otherwise we might as well play Two Worlds.
D) Lack of Replay value : Tied to plot problems.
E) Lack of Polish: ie Lack of Finishers/Silly body explosions, under designed character models (darkspawn), under populated areas (city).

A) 

You cannot mention this as a problem without bringing up the updated combat. They substantially changed combat to make it faster and more intense (while retaining its tactical depth, indeed improving it IMO), which means that things die faster.

Therefore they added waves in order to make fights longer and more intense. The alternative would have been to either make tons of enemies appear at a time (which I suspect is limited by console capacity), or else make it much easier to die (which probably would not be to most people's liking). Another altenative would be to keep to DAO's pacing, but that had its own problems (and, indeed, I think DA2 is definitely a major improvement... playing a sword and board warrior was fun again).

I'm not saying the "waves" are the best solution, but it does work and makes for some fantastically intense battles. Without it, battles would probably be much shorter and people would be complaining about THAT.

Also, the enemies do not pop out of thin air, at least 90% of the time the place reinforcements appear in makes sense, and you can plan for it... except for Demons who are summonned and "pop" in DAO as well. As for enemies being recycled, I'm not sure what you mean. There's more variety of enemies in DA2 than DAO.



No debate there. Only excuse is they had a FAR shorter development time than DAO, and so they decided to re-use areas in order to have more gameplay content. Same reason they crafted the story around Kirkwall.

Is that the best option? Given their restriction I think it was, since the alternative would have been to have a shorter game.

Granted, it would have been better had they been given more time to add more original areas (1 extra quest hub area per act would have been great, for example), but I understand the limitations they were under, and I would rather have more gameplay and storytelling that reuses areas than less gameplay altogether.

Keep in mind that these things are a tradeoff, and once you're armed with all the information (like the fact they had a much reduced dev cycle), then it becomes clear that one simply cannot bash the re-use of areas without keeping in mind what the tradeoff would have been otherwise... well, one CAN do so, but it's not very reasonable.

I just hope they're given more time for DA3, personally.

C)

That's mostly subjective, and something a great quantity of players dissagree on. I personally loved the story, found that the structure of the acts (which are years removed) enables our choices to have FAR more consequences than in DAO.

In DA2, when I make a decision in Act 1, I can see its impact in Act 2 and Act 3. That's quite a big deal.

Certainly, the final decisions in Act 3 may not alter the final boss fight that much (but it HAS an impact, and a significant change to the structure of the finale quite frankly), but it certainly has the same level of impact than all the decisions in DAO have.

That is to say, in DAO most decisions impact the epilogue more than anything. The only actual change in the game is who can be summoned to help in the final battle (there's the Alistair/Loghain choice, mind you, but that also is reflected by several companion branches in DA2 as well, notably with Isabella and Anders).

Indeed, I think that there is good cause to say that at an objective level, our decisions in DA2 have a greater impact on the actual gameplay than DAO, while in DAO our decisions maybe be more large scaled (who becomes Orzammar's King, for example) but their actual impacts are moslty beyond the gameplay, in the epilogue.

D)

Tied to previous point, but patently false. A cursory glance at the game guide can show just the amount of differences you can find between playthroughs. At the very least there is grounds to replaying as a Mage and as a Warrior/Rogue.

E)

Can't really debate that. It's tied to re-used areas. I just hope they are given more time with DA3. But again I'd rather have that than less gameplay altogether.

That said, lack of finishers is NOT a lack of polish. It was a deliberate design decision, as finishers messed up the pace of the gameplay. I rather liked finishers and would like to see them back in some way, mind you.

But there is clealry a lack of polish in certain areas, a lack of details (no item descriptions, re-used icons, and so forth). More dev time can solve this in DA3.

Thank you.

Itkovian

Modifié par Itkovian, 28 mars 2011 - 02:26 .

[randName]

Persephone wrote...

randName wrote...

For one it would be rather boring if we all agreed, and 2nd, we don't all agree.

& what some see as flaws, other care nothing about, and so on (even if they can acknowledge that its factually correct that areas are re:used for example).

I am not saying we should all agree on everything. That would be boring indeed. But the flaming isn't necessary.

I replied to the OP, or the topic in general ~ not to you ~

Besides I don't agree about the flames, or I say let there be flames, and moderation, for if anything the salty taste of tears, while an acquired taste, is absolutely delicious.

Besides a dry discussion is boring ~

Modifié par randName, 28 mars 2011 - 02:42 .

[Dead End FRS]

I'd much rather good through the same good looking dungeon several times than spend another 4 hours in the grey hole of boredom that is basically every larger area in DA:O. Deep roads, Mage tower, Fade etc. may have been bigger, but they weren't better...

[sanadawarrior]

Dead End FRS wrote...

I'd much rather good through the same good looking dungeon several times than spend another 4 hours in the grey hole of boredom that is basically every larger area in DA:O. Deep roads, Mage tower, Fade etc. may have been bigger, but they weren't better...

You could just have both you know, there isn't any reason other than the rushed development cycle that they couldn't have made more environments that still had a quality feel to them.

[Dead End FRS]

It's about what you can expect from a game.
In DA2 you couldn't expect, gigantic, well designed levels because of the short time, in which it was developed. As in every Bioware game, you couldn't expect to not find a bug in just about everything, no broken quests or game-breaking mechanics. You couldn't expect there to be overly realistic characters, touching stories or a commentary on human nature.

But in most of these points, the game suprised me positivly. The few areas that the game has are well built (except the warehouse!), there were fewer devestating bugs than I thought there would be, you couldn't make yourself permanently immune to everything or one-shot bosses, and the caracters and plot decisions where way less black and white than they used to be in DA:O (you didn't even have to slay little children and old women to side with the templars!!!).

[xCirdanx]

Volourn wrote...

How can anyone cry that Kirkwall is 'empty' yet praise DA1 to high heaven when the city in that game - Denerim - was... let's just, say, 'lesser'.

How can anyone claim DA2 quests suck when you have the multitude of 'sign quest posts' thatw ere fetch in DA1.

How cna people whine about filler combat or 'enemies dropping from the cielings' in DA2 when these existed in DA1.

How can people complain about DA2 haveing a 'dissapoointing plot' when DA1's plot was 'let's go kill the archdemon' while in DA2 the plot is a lot more complex than that. You knwo the villain in DA1, but you really don't in DA2.

How can people claim that DA1 had more C7C than DA2 when in DA1 you are forced to become a warden, forced to go to Lothering, and forced to fight the archdemon. That's your big C&C there.

LMAO

Blind hypocrites are blind hypocrites.

I like both DAs. Their strenghths and weaknesses are almost the same. Both games have things they do better and do worse.

So.. I have a question for OP: Whya re people defending DA1 while bashing DA2 even though DA1 was as bad or evenw orse in some of things you are complaining about?


P.S. Varric > Oghen NO CONTEST

I don´t think it´s empty, but i don´t see an improvement to Denerim and people are complaining, not crying, because Kirkwall and the few recycled zones are the game, there is nothing more, while DA1 gave you Denerim and several zones from the bigger fad, deep roads, elven ruins etc etc.

Quest with a description, you could also ignore them, something that made sense for that faction like getting ride of corpses for the thiefs and not randomly looting a corpse, and bringing it back "oh i found something you lost" please...

I can´t remember a wave of enemies teleporting into the fight in DA1. Where was that?

Oh really, care to share how complex the plot in DA2 is? You are just a random guy who happens to be at the right time at the right place, in fact, it doesn´t matter what you do, because the game has only one ending. I´m not saying that DA1 had a complex plot, it was just more a typical fantasy plot, but where is the complex plot in DA2?  The cliffhanger end? The Lyrium thing? Where?

You obviously don´t get the C&C reference.

Considering your points, i would say, you are a bit blind. But if you like DA2 better, thats fine.

Well, propbably because they think DA1 is better and your shallow points don´t suggest something else.

I also think Varric is more interesting, makes it even worse that you can´t talk to your team mates unless it´s some scripted event.

[DownyTif]

Volourn wrote...

How can anyone cry that Kirkwall is 'empty' yet praise DA1 to high heaven when the city in that game - Denerim - was... let's just, say, 'lesser'.

How can anyone claim DA2 quests suck when you have the multitude of 'sign quest posts' thatw ere fetch in DA1.

How cna people whine about filler combat or 'enemies dropping from the cielings' in DA2 when these existed in DA1.

How can people complain about DA2 haveing a 'dissapoointing plot' when DA1's plot was 'let's go kill the archdemon' while in DA2 the plot is a lot more complex than that. You knwo the villain in DA1, but you really don't in DA2.

How can people claim that DA1 had more C7C than DA2 when in DA1 you are forced to become a warden, forced to go to Lothering, and forced to fight the archdemon. That's your big C&C there.

LMAO

Blind hypocrites are blind hypocrites.

I like both DAs. Their strenghths and weaknesses are almost the same. Both games have things they do better and do worse.

So.. I have a question for OP: Whya re people defending DA1 while bashing DA2 even though DA1 was as bad or evenw orse in some of things you are complaining about?


P.S. Varric > Oghen NO CONTEST

Wow, have we played the same games ?

1- Denerim may be "empty" like you say but guess what, that's a city part of a big world you explore. It's not THE ONLY CITY of the game where everything goes on!

2- Indeed, but the side-quests in DA1 are more interesting than DA2. That's my opinion only. At least you see new locations, not always the same areas with different entry points.

3- Enemies from the ceilling existed in DA1 when it was appropriate (spiders). Not in every battle with any type of enemies. The wave system is not in DA1.

4- Indeed, DA1 has a clear plot from the start. At least it gives the drive to finish the game. So far in my game, I'm starting to see the plot and it's been 30h of play. Before that, I was just doing side-quests. Side-quests for 30h when you don't know what the hell is the goal of this game? 

You are talking about blind hypocrites, I just think you are blind. The things you compare between DA1 and DA2 isn't even based on opinions, those are facts that can be verified. Just to compare Denerim and Kirkwall is really funny.

[Cody211282]

Volourn wrote...

How can anyone cry that Kirkwall is 'empty' yet praise DA1 to high heaven when the city in that game - Denerim - was... let's just, say, 'lesser'.

I think if you compair Kirkwall to Orzimmar you get a better idea of why people think kirkwall is dead. They spent a huge ass amount of time in that city and it felt very much alive.

[Avissel]

Orzimmar was three maps that were layed out in almost straight lines. It was populated by a few merchants and some npcs that either did not speak, or endlessly repeated the same lines, aside from plot relevent npcs. It was still a nice city though.

All I'm saying is that Rose Tinted Glasses syndrome is in full swing around here.

[kinna]

DownyTif wrote...

Volourn wrote...

Wow, have we played the same games ?

1- Denerim may be "empty" like you say but guess what, that's a city part of a big world you explore. It's not THE ONLY CITY of the game where everything goes on!

2- Indeed, but the side-quests in DA1 are more interesting than DA2. That's my opinion only. At least you see new locations, not always the same areas with different entry points.

3- Enemies from the ceilling existed in DA1 when it was appropriate (spiders). Not in every battle with any type of enemies. The wave system is not in DA1.

4- Indeed, DA1 has a clear plot from the start. At least it gives the drive to finish the game. So far in my game, I'm starting to see the plot and it's been 30h of play. Before that, I was just doing side-quests. Side-quests for 30h when you don't know what the hell is the goal of this game? 

You are talking about blind hypocrites, I just think you are blind. The things you compare between DA1 and DA2 isn't even based on opinions, those are facts that can be verified. Just to compare Denerim and Kirkwall is really funny.

4. Did you listen to the conversations in the acts? They pretty much explain why you do what you do. For example, in first act how can you earn enough money to go on the Deep roads expedition if not doing sidequests that pay. Why go to Deep Roads? To get enough money so you can buy back your familys house.

[ReinaHW]

I like DA2, sure it's been rushed out, glitchy, feels like it could have done with another year or two of development time, but I like it. It's enjoyable, it's not terrible, not incredible, just enjoyable, average.

Until this whole tight deadline and stupid demands to get games out in that tight deadline to make a quick profit ideal is abolished, which will likely never happen since common sense doesn't exist when it comes to the profit hungry, then the amount of rushed out games is only going to get worse.

[Persephone]

Avissel wrote...

Orzimmar was three maps that were layed out in almost straight lines. It was populated by a few merchants and some npcs that either did not speak, or endlessly repeated the same lines, aside from plot relevent npcs. It was still a nice city though.

All I'm saying is that Rose Tinted Glasses syndrome is in full swing around here.

I always DREAD going to Orzammar. Mainly because of the DR and quests there. (Except for Dagna!) Orzammar has prevented me from finishing several of my Wardens' tales. Booooooooooooring.

[Kimberly Shaw]

What about that Kirkwall changes less in 7 years than I change in 7 days? Considering they only had one city with Hightown/Lowtown/Darktown 3 areas to use and a few buildings in these of import (Chantry, Viscount Keep, um...er...the hidden town?) they REALLY wasted an opportunity to do something neat with the time skips and make massive changes to coincide with the player choices. And yes, Kirkwall could have been a sandbox with fast travel parts to make it feel like a truly connected city instead of just 3 zones.

[ToJKa1]

Persephone wrote...

Avissel wrote...

Orzimmar was three maps that were layed out in almost straight lines. It was populated by a few merchants and some npcs that either did not speak, or endlessly repeated the same lines, aside from plot relevent npcs. It was still a nice city though.

All I'm saying is that Rose Tinted Glasses syndrome is in full swing around here.

I always DREAD going to Orzammar. Mainly because of the DR and quests there. (Except for Dagna!) Orzammar has prevented me from finishing several of my Wardens' tales. Booooooooooooring.

And Orzammar is my favorite location just for those reasons. I can't stand the Brecilian Forest, though. Funny things these opinions

[wintermonk]

I agree with the exploding bodies and recycled caves. But then, in NWN I remember walking by the same rock a hundred times. Yet I enjoyed that game.

I think people should remember that games are games and have limitations. Limitations of time, money, computer power, etc.

I loved the story. I'm on my third play through, and I enjoyed it MORE the second time than the first. I feel like Kirkwall might not have thousands of people walking around in it that you can see, but I haven't seen this yet for any game by anyone. Are people expecting to power on their computer and be transported into the holodeck of the USS Enterprise?

When I read a book, I have to use my imagination. I don't mind doing that with the computer games. But I'm a bit older than the average gamer today, I expect, and grew up playing Atart 2600. I didn't whine about why Mario's hammer dissapers after about fifteen seconds of whacking barrels or why Pac Man doesn't eventually get full. Or why, in every fantasy RPG i've ever played, I can get stabbed in the chest with a sword and continue fighting.

I think some people are just a bit game spoiled or something.

[oldmansavage]

Not everyone is going to agree that this is a bad game.  Even its short comings to me and you, others consider an upgrade.  In short, this game was designed to turn your tipical call of duty fan on to RPGs.  I absolutely despise the game and won't play another hour of it but my little cousin who hates games like kotor and baldur's gate 2 absolutely loves it.  Then you have folks that simply love everything and are pretty well content with whatever.

EA and Bioware hit a home run with this as far as the bottom line is concerned.  Our time is pretty well over and the next gen of gamers are molding the market.  Unfortunately we'll have to rely on niche games or learn to like what we consider sub par entertainment. 

Modifié par oldmansavage, 28 mars 2011 - 08:45 .

[Schurge]

I actually enjoyed the story.

[DownyTif]

kinna wrote...

DownyTif wrote...

Volourn wrote...

Wow, have we played the same games ?

1- Denerim may be "empty" like you say but guess what, that's a city part of a big world you explore. It's not THE ONLY CITY of the game where everything goes on!

2- Indeed, but the side-quests in DA1 are more interesting than DA2. That's my opinion only. At least you see new locations, not always the same areas with different entry points.

3- Enemies from the ceilling existed in DA1 when it was appropriate (spiders). Not in every battle with any type of enemies. The wave system is not in DA1.

4- Indeed, DA1 has a clear plot from the start. At least it gives the drive to finish the game. So far in my game, I'm starting to see the plot and it's been 30h of play. Before that, I was just doing side-quests. Side-quests for 30h when you don't know what the hell is the goal of this game? 

You are talking about blind hypocrites, I just think you are blind. The things you compare between DA1 and DA2 isn't even based on opinions, those are facts that can be verified. Just to compare Denerim and Kirkwall is really funny.

4. Did you listen to the conversations in the acts? They pretty much explain why you do what you do. For example, in first act how can you earn enough money to go on the Deep roads expedition if not doing sidequests that pay. Why go to Deep Roads? To get enough money so you can buy back your familys house.

So from that you can learn the goal of the game? I know what Act 1 is for. What I am saying is that until mid act 2, you have no clue of where all this is going, the ultimate goal. There is a plot, it's just really long before you actually care. I was sooo thrilled to buy my family's house back after 15-20h of play!!! Epic!

[Rockpopple]

A lotta folks are spoiled on games that only existed in their heads.

[Cody211282]

Avissel wrote...

Orzimmar was three maps that were layed out in almost straight lines. It was populated by a few merchants and some npcs that either did not speak, or endlessly repeated the same lines, aside from plot relevent npcs. It was still a nice city though.

All I'm saying is that Rose Tinted Glasses syndrome is in full swing around here.

I'm doing the Orzimar quests right now(playing DA:O as I wait for patches), and hoestly I think it has some of the best quests in the game, mostly the ones were you learn about the poilitics and have multipul ways of doing things, I really really enjoyed that and am still finding new things to do with those quests.

But NPC wise I would say it has as many merchants as Kirkwall and much more detail in the background. It also has the same amount of NPCs justs tanding around as kirkwall does, and it's smaller.

Then again I'm one of the wierd people who really loved that part of the game, so maybe it's just me.

Modifié par Cody211282, 29 mars 2011 - 03:42 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

In response to the thread title, it's indoctrination from the rEApers.

-Polite