221 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaelducan]

I'll agree that over-all DA:O had a better hook... but I put that on the Warden vs Hawke. However, not all of the Warden Origins were interesting to me. I liked both the Noble origins as well as the City Elf, but I could care less about the Dalish, Dwarf Commoner, or Mage stories.

With that said, I did like the Ostagar/Betrayal/Warden plot more pound for pound.

But... I seriously doubt that DA3 will not have something to do with the bigger picture legacy from DA:O. DA:2 is just another story set in the world of Thedas (and a really, really good one at that), but I get that a lot of people wanted more of the same from Origins. I didn't... but I do have to say that I liked the story of Origins better. Still, I'm glad Bioware went in a new direction and I really enjoyed 2, and it was an entire generation better that Origins in terms of gameplay.

[billy the squid]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

Then gear and loot, have you seen how many different stamina +2 rings you gather during the story, most of those are just junk with no real purpose. So you can't really fault DAO or others about their bad loot and gear mechanics since DA2 had similar, if not worse mechanic.

In Baldur's gate rings were fairly rare and almost all with any special effect were usable. not so here.

You just made my point!  Junk items slow the game down and yet you were able to see how many items in DA2 are junk...  Imagine if there had to be enough to fill al the slots DAO offered?  DA2 let you see what most people saw in DAO!  Endless gear is not content, it's filler and an artifical inflater of real game play time.

BG is a dinosaur.  Let it die.  The special effects you might have gained from a drop in BG your characters gain from the armor upgrades and the rival/friendship talents.  BG's mechnic was broken and chancy, since you might miss the loot.  DA2's mechanic lets you be sure you'll see the neat stuff in the game you bought.

So you mean that I was incapable of determining what I felt was and was not useful? I had to have it dictated to me? Really why stop there? remove all concepts of loot or any equipment and character attributes which is not dictated by the ideology of button hammering simplicity = endless entertainment value.

The same is true of the combat in DA2, it is filler and inflates gameplay time,  the story is limp only expanded by endless waves of tedious enemies which explode if I move in their general direction because of how awsome I am

BG must have done something right to survive for so long, was the style perfect ? no.  Where as DA 2's approach by your reasoning is to make a game designed for individuals who have for all intents and purpose been lobotomised, and could just have easily been entertained by dangling a bunch of keys infront of their face and saying "look at the shiny shiny"
If BG is a dinosour and should die, then DA2 is an abomination and should be burnt at the stake.

Modifié par billy the squid, 27 mars 2011 - 03:18 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

billy the squid wrote...
So you mean that I was incapable of determining what I felt was and was not useful? I had to have it dictated to me? Really why stop there? remove all concepts of loot or any equipment and character attributes which is not dictated by the ideology of button hammering simplicity = endless entertainment value.

I'm sure you're perfectly capable of determining what is wheat and what is chaff.  We all are.  The time we spend deciding what is the best gear for our character should be minimized so we can get back to the game. 

BG must have done something right to survive for so long, was the style perfect ? no.  Where as DA 2's approach by your reasoning is to make a game designed for individuals who have for all intents and purpose been lobotomised, and could just have easily been entertained by dangling a bunch of keys infront of their face and saying "look at the shiny shiny"

BG's didn't survive for that long.  Where is BG3?  BG4?  The IP is in a drawer some place and that's where it will stay.  If you played RPGs because you enjoyed deciding between Boots +1 AC and Boots +1 Save Versus Panda Secretions, then I can see how you would see DA2 as nothing shiny keys.  It's your loss.  All the tears in the world won't take BG3 out of the dust bin. 

:happy::happy::happy:

If BG is a dinosour and should die, then DA2 is an abomination and should be burnt at the stake.

Like Andraste, DA2 is closer to divinity.  :innocent::innocent::innocent:  Like Andraste, DA2 is going to be the positive example for RPGs to follow for years and years to come.

[Erode_The_Soul]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
Like Andraste, DA2 is going to be the positive example for RPGs to follow for years and years to come.

Then I shudder to see what lies ahead for the genre. DA2 was fine for what it was, but I don't think we should be holding it up as the benchmark that all RPGs should strive for.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Erode_The_Soul wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
Like Andraste, DA2 is going to be the positive example for RPGs to follow for years and years to come.

Then I shudder to see what lies ahead for the genre. DA2 was fine for what it was, but I don't think we should be holding it up as the benchmark that all RPGs should strive for.

It definetly needs tweaks, I agree.  It's a long way from flawless.  I just wanted to turn his words around on him.  

:lol:

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 27 mars 2011 - 05:18 .

[ZombiePowered]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Like Andraste, DA2 is closer to divinity.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie]  Like Andraste, DA2 is going to be the positive example for RPGs to follow for years and years to come.

I like you, guy. You're alright.

billy the squid wrote...


BG must have done something right to survive for so long, was the style perfect ? no.  Where as DA 2's approach by your reasoning is to make a game designed for individuals who have for all intents and purpose been lobotomised, and could just have easily been entertained by dangling a bunch of keys infront of their face and saying "look at the shiny shiny"
If BG is a dinosour and should die, then DA2 is an abomination and should be burnt at the stake.

You see, you insinuate that people who enjoyed DA2 are stupid monkeys with ADD. Which is rude.
Let me ask you something, do you prefer Lord of the Rings or the Odyssey?

[Cybermortis]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Erode_The_Soul wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
Like Andraste, DA2 is going to be the positive example for RPGs to follow for years and years to come.

Then I shudder to see what lies ahead for the genre. DA2 was fine for what it was, but I don't think we should be holding it up as the benchmark that all RPGs should strive for.

It definetly needs tweaks, I agree.  It's a long way from flawless.  I just wanted to turn his words around on him.  

:lol:

I'd say less tweeking and more intensive care.

RPG's are meant to allow you to create a character, then play that character as you see fit (within the limitations of the game engine). In DA2 we are being forced to play a character that is in essence someone elses. If I made a rogue in DAO I could make them a ranged fighter, with high dex and cunning to deal with traps. OR I could make a duel-wielding maniac with high strength and stamina who couldn't deal with any trap if they were handed written instructions. Or I could make a full on Blood Mage with a huge health pool at the expense of willpower.

In DA2 I have no option to give my rogue anything but cunning and dex or they can't use any of the equipment intended for them. Same goes for making a blood mage - if I give them a large health pool they can't equip mage equipment.

I'm forced into playing a role I don't want to play - and so are my companions. Need a healer? Anders is your man...in fact he's your only option unless you are a mage and want to play that role. Need a Tank? Avaline is your woman...errm...well your ONLY option really unless you want to be the tank yourself. In DAO I can turn Alistair into a duel-welding monster, or a ranged fighter or a two-hander. He may not have been initially speced this way, but I can turn him into anything I like if I want to do the tanking myself. A Healer? Wynne is the primary healer in the game, but if I don't want to have her in my party I can start specing Morregin as a healer. Basically in DAO I have the option of using practically any companion in any role their class can fill. In DA2 I'm stuck with their initial role - I can't turn Merral into a healer because she doesn't have access to any healing spells. So I either have to play as a mage and heal myself, or get stuck with Anders.

Modifié par Cybermortis, 27 mars 2011 - 05:37 .

[ZombiePowered]

Cybermortis wrote...

I'd say less tweeking and more intensive care.

RPG's are meant to allow you to create a character, then play that character as you see fit (within the limitations of the game engine). In DA2 we are being forced to play a character that is in essence someone elses. If I made a rogue in DAO I could make them a ranged fighter, with high dex and cunning to deal with traps. OR I could make a duel-wielding maniac with high strength and stamina who couldn't deal with any trap if they were handed written instructions. Or I could make a full on Blood Mage with a huge health pool at the expense of willpower.

In DA2 I have no option to give my rogue anything but cunning and dex or they can't use any of the equipment intended for them. Same goes for making a blood mage - if I give them a large health pool they can't equip mage equipment.

I'm forced into playing a role I don't want to play - and so are my companions. Need a healer? Anders is your man...in fact he's your only option unless you are a mage and want to play that role. Need a Tank? Avaline is your woman...errm...well your ONLY option really unless you want to be the tank yourself. In DAO I can turn Alistair into a duel-welding monster, or a ranged fighter or a two-hander. He may not have been initially speced this way, but I can turn him into anything I like if I want to do the tanking myself. A Healer? Wynne is the primary healer in the game, but if I don't want to have her in my party I can start specing Morregin as a healer. Basically in DAO I have the option of using practically any companion in any role their class can fill. In DA2 I'm stuck with their initial role - I can't turn Merral into a healer because she doesn't have access to any healing spells. So I either have to play as a mage and heal myself, or get stuck with Anders.

What about story and characters? You could make Wynne a blood mage in Origins. That makes no sense. None at all. There needs to be consistency in the characters themselves. The combat and choices in speccing for combat are just a vessel for telling a story. Yes, that vessel should rock and you should get to decorate it and drive it how you want, but it needs to match up with the story. In Origins I didn't like that I felt compelled to use my companions specialization points on specializations that made no sense for the to have. DA:O tried to make it work by "unlocking" specializations with books or having characters 'teach' your companions how to do it, but why on earth was I making dictatorial decisions on how my companions should fight? They have their own personalities and preferences and morals. If they don't want to use blood magic or drink dragon blood then they shouldn't have to. Choice is nice, but not when it fundamentally contradicts the story and characters. That is what mods are for.

[TJSolo]

What about story and characters? You could make Wynne a blood mage in Origins. That makes no sense. None at all. There needs to be consistency in the characters themselves.

A: "Well, sometimes you have to give up perfect inner logic to make the game more fun." Yaron Jacobs.

Yes, that vessel should rock and you should get to decorate it and drive it how you want, but it needs to match up with the story. In Origins I didn't like that I felt compelled to use my companions specialization points on specializations that made no sense for the to have.

If you didn't like the specializations available for your companions in DAO then guess what. You did not have to give the any specialization other than the one they started with. The feels you had compelling you to do so spend points on out of character specs was your own reasoning and not the game.

DA:O tried to make it work by "unlocking" specializations with books or having characters 'teach' your companions how to do it, but why on earth was I making dictatorial decisions on how my companions should fight? They have their own personalities and preferences and morals. If they don't want to use blood magic or drink dragon blood then they shouldn't have to. Choice is nice, but not when it fundamentally contradicts the story and characters. That is what mods are for

Then don't. That is how choice works.
The only contradictions I am seeing would be your RPing reasons that are used to place limitations other players.

[DariusKalera]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

BG must have done something right to survive for so long, was the style perfect ? no.  Where as DA 2's approach by your reasoning is to make a game designed for individuals who have for all intents and purpose been lobotomised, and could just have easily been entertained by dangling a bunch of keys infront of their face and saying "look at the shiny shiny"

BG's didn't survive for that long.  Where is BG3?  BG4?  The IP is in a drawer some place and that's where it will stay.  If you played RPGs because you enjoyed deciding between Boots +1 AC and Boots +1 Save Versus Panda Secretions, then I can see how you would see DA2 as nothing shiny keys.  It's your loss.  All the tears in the world won't take BG3 out of the dust bin. 

:happy::happy::happy:

Of course, you fail to mention that the story arc of BG and BG2 ended and therefore no more games needed to follow in those IPs. 

However, since DA:O was the "spiritual successor" to the BG series then you can say that those games still had a direct effect on gaming long after their time.

Now, will DA2 be remembered after a decade like BG and BG2 are?  Doubtful.

[ZombiePowered]

DariusKalera wrote...

Of course, you fail to mention that the story arc of BG and BG2 ended and therefore no more games needed to follow in those IPs. 

However, since DA:O was the "spiritual successor" to the BG series then you can say that those games still had a direct effect on gaming long after their time.

Now, will DA2 be remembered after a decade like BG and BG2 are?  Doubtful.

And the DA series will have an effect on future Bioware games. All of Bioware's games have an effect on each other. They are learning from each other. That's the benefit of having multiple titles; you can get feedback on one and apply to the other. Thus, Mass Effect influences Dragon Age, which in turn influences Mass Effect, and both of these games will influence future games and are influenced by previous games. So to say BG is unique for having a influence past its time isn't really saying much. Everything from the most dismal failures to the most epic triumphs contains lessons for Bioware to learn about creating games.

[Phaelducan]

ZombiePowered wrote...

DariusKalera wrote...

Of course, you fail to mention that the story arc of BG and BG2 ended and therefore no more games needed to follow in those IPs. 

However, since DA:O was the "spiritual successor" to the BG series then you can say that those games still had a direct effect on gaming long after their time.

Now, will DA2 be remembered after a decade like BG and BG2 are?  Doubtful.

And the DA series will have an effect on future Bioware games. All of Bioware's games have an effect on each other. They are learning from each other. That's the benefit of having multiple titles; you can get feedback on one and apply to the other. Thus, Mass Effect influences Dragon Age, which in turn influences Mass Effect, and both of these games will influence future games and are influenced by previous games. So to say BG is unique for having a influence past its time isn't really saying much. Everything from the most dismal failures to the most epic triumphs contains lessons for Bioware to learn about creating games.

QFT

If only Bioware fans could keep in mind that this is just one game in a large catalog of RPG titles, and that future titles will draw on their collective development experience. DA2 is not the penultimate RPG from Bioware, nor is it a mistake. It's just another game in their long history.

[Havokk7]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
Those games had great story, but loot and gear mechanics chewed away at the tasty part, inflating play times while players went through boring crap to get to the story.

Personally, I want the stuff that you describe as "boring crap". It is neither boring nor crappy to me; it is an essential part of an RPG.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

DariusKalera wrote...
Of course, you fail to mention that the story arc of BG and BG2 ended and therefore no more games needed to follow in those IPs. 

Wrongity-wrong-wrong.    BG3 was in developement when the developer went ****** up.  If there was an audience for them, then whoever bought the IP would have cranked a game out.  But there wasn't any audience for sprite based gear festivals.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Cybermortis wrote...

In DA2 I have no option to give my rogue anything but cunning and dex or
they can't use any of the equipment intended for them. Same goes for
making a blood mage - if I give them a large health pool they can't
equip mage equipment.

Your first rogue example can be done in DA2.  Not sure what you mean there...  The second rogue you made sounds like a warrior.  Which you can make in DA2.  There is mage gear that gives you bonuses to blood magic.  There are rings and belts and amulets.  I played a mage with high health and (relatively) low magic and had a blast.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Havokk7 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
Those games had great story, but loot and gear mechanics chewed away at the tasty part, inflating play times while players went through boring crap to get to the story.

Personally, I want the stuff that you describe as "boring crap". It is neither boring nor crappy to me; it is an essential part of an RPG.

Which is totally cool.  More power to you!  I hope you get a ton of games that flip your switches and make you squee.  However, I don't think you're in the majority anymore.  I think there are more players that are bored of that stuff or not even interested.

[TJSolo]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

DariusKalera wrote...
Of course, you fail to mention that the story arc of BG and BG2 ended and therefore no more games needed to follow in those IPs. 

Wrongity-wrong-wrong.    BG3 was in developement when the developer went ****** up.  If there was an audience for them, then whoever bought the IP would have cranked a game out.  But there wasn't any audience for sprite based gear festivals.

Who is whoever? Atari has the BG IP and is planning more games.

http://www.interplay.com/about/article.php?id=20
Interplay Releases 2007 Earnings; New Web Site Launch Imminent Tuesday April 8, 4:03 pm ET Massively Multiplayer Online Game, Sequels Seen as Key to Resurgence...

...At the same time, the company will leverage its portfolio of gaming properties by creating sequels to some of its most successful games, including Earthworm Jim, Dark Alliance, Descent, and MDK.

Dark Alliance is as close as Interplay can get to Baldur's Gate without the license from Atari. You might want to get find complete information and understand that information before jumping to those conclusions you defend so badly.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

TJSolo wrote...


Who is whoever? Atari has the BG IP and is planning more games.

[snips]

Dark Alliance is as close as Interplay can get to Baldur's Gate without the license from Atari. You might want to get find complete information and understand that information before jumping to those conclusions you defend so badly.

You might want to take a look at the sources you quoted and understand how old that information is before jumping to those conclusions you defend so badly.

PS, your sources were from from four years ago.  :lol:

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 28 mars 2011 - 04:59 .

[TJSolo]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

TJSolo wrote...


Who is whoever? Atari has the BG IP and is planning more games.

[snips]

Dark Alliance is as close as Interplay can get to Baldur's Gate without the license from Atari. You might want to get find complete information and understand that information before jumping to those conclusions you defend so badly.

You might want to take a look at the sources you quoted and understand how old that information is before jumping to those conclusions you defend so badly.

PS, your sources were from from four years ago.  :lol:

Of course those sources are old, the decisions and press releases happened then. The only act that would invalidate those sources would be those companies retracting their stated goals, not the date on the articles. 
How long do you think it takes to make a MMO or a game that is making generational leaps in technology?

[kelvarnsen]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Check this out on Kotaku.

That pretty much says it all.  DA2 (like ME2) was more focused more on the story side of an RPG than previous DAO/BG/NWN games.  Those games had great story, but loot and gear mechanics chewed away at the tasty part, inflating play times while players went through boring crap to get to the story.

DA2 did skimp a bit on the exploration, there's no way around that, and yeah Kirkwall could have felt more bustling and alive.  But in service of the story, it did a great job.

The trend of "more story, less numbers" is one that must continue.  There's just no reason to play Excel as a video game anymore.

what was so good about the story? i like the idea, but for me the execution was poor. i templar/mage conflict should have been brought up explicitly much sooner. we should have met/seen meredith and orsino from the start and seen how the characters/conflict evolved. instead we were running around doing boring chores for random people in kirkwall.

[neppakyo]

kelvarnsen wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Check this out on Kotaku.

That pretty much says it all.  DA2 (like ME2) was more focused more on the story side of an RPG than previous DAO/BG/NWN games.  Those games had great story, but loot and gear mechanics chewed away at the tasty part, inflating play times while players went through boring crap to get to the story.

DA2 did skimp a bit on the exploration, there's no way around that, and yeah Kirkwall could have felt more bustling and alive.  But in service of the story, it did a great job.

The trend of "more story, less numbers" is one that must continue.  There's just no reason to play Excel as a video game anymore.

what was so good about the story? i like the idea, but for me the execution was poor. i templar/mage conflict should have been brought up explicitly much sooner. we should have met/seen meredith and orsino from the start and seen how the characters/conflict evolved. instead we were running around doing boring chores for random people in kirkwall.

^^^ This. Exactly!

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

TJSolo wrote...
Of course those sources are old, the decisions and press releases happened then. The only act that would invalidate those sources would be those companies retracting their stated goals, not the date on the articles. 
How long do you think it takes to make a MMO or a game that is making generational leaps in technology?

*BZZZZTT*  Wrong.  No one has head anything since.  They swept BG3 into the tar pits.  Dinosaur Game.  No one cared.

[cindercatz]

Korusus wrote...

snip/
Indeed, why not a "skip combat button"?
/snip

Sadly, that would vastly improve this game for me. :-/

*slinks out of thread*

[JELLAQTP]

I like DA2 as an action game. But it doesn't fix my RPG need. But getting to the original topic, you are not really looking for a point, you have chosen your point and just looking for validating sources.

Majority is not a real authority when you try to defend some point. New things are not automatically better than old things.

As I said before, I like DA2 as an action game with some background. Maybe what happens is that is builded over DA that is a heir from ... ohhh Baldur's Gate. Let's think it in the other way and say we get Call of Duty and give it a lot of mechanics, story, where you had to read a book to use some guns, where you have to level up and things like that.

If Dragon Age 2 was more a new IP like "Hawks Rise" or something, the changes would have been more seamless.

[TJSolo]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
Of course those sources are old, the decisions and press releases happened then. The only act that would invalidate those sources would be those companies retracting their stated goals, not the date on the articles. 
How long do you think it takes to make a MMO or a game that is making generational leaps in technology?

*BZZZZTT*  Wrong.  No one has head anything since.  They swept BG3 into the tar pits.  Dinosaur Game.  No one cared.

No company needsto or will update the public to their licensing meetings, development/design plan, and production schedule, unless that company wants to. You not being informed by Atari and Interplay on the current status of BG3/Dark Alliance does mean either company has changed their stated goals. Stop saying garbage like "no one cares" as if you speak for anyone other than yourself.