266 réponses à ce sujet

[Danjaru]

Dragon age 2 is by no stretch of the imagination a bad game. It's a very solid game that would probably rank a 6.5/10 even with all its issues and all the lazy design choices.

The problem with it is that it's a sequel to Dragon Age Origins or it would've probably had a higher score. It's the sequel to the almost perfect RPG that started this franchise and is way too inferior to that game to be anywhere near a success of a release.

Game Developers are supposed to push themselves release better games than their last title. And when given time and the effort the title deserves we've seen alot of gaming companies that make superior sequels, seeing the faults of the previous game and making it better and more involving.

We see proof of this in the Mass Effect series, Grand Theft Auto series, Elder Scrolls, Two Worlds, Mount&Blade, Call of Duty, Halo (except ODST, that sucked). And even when the sequels aren't better, they're usually at least as enjoyable.

In that regard Dragon Age 2 failed miserably, went from a 10/10 on Origins to a 6.5/10 on Dragon Age 2. If it was a standalone game it would've most likely scored somewhat higher, but in being a sequel it's going to be compared to the original and it simply didn't measure up.

And to praise the developers for such a step backwards is doing them and yourselves a huge miss service.

Modifié par Danjaru, 06 avril 2011 - 08:20 .

[Darth Obvious]

ziloe wrote...

 You know what? It's people like you who make both EA and the game designers think they did a spectacular job and don't have to work any harder on the next one. They can do just another rush job so that EA can monopolize on the success of the franchise, and why? Because you didn't have any real standards and as long as you carry this mentality, they're going to produce more rushed games and DLC, because you couldn't say, "No. This isn't worth the money I'm paying for it."

Exactly. Bioware is too busy patting themselves on the back to even try to do better, despite the reality that this game is a disaster. The idea that the word 'masterpiece' could be used in the same sentence with DA2 must be some sort of sick joke.

[Morroian]

Darth Obvious wrote...

Exactly. Bioware is too busy patting themselves on the back to even try to do better,

Based on what? Mike Laidlaw's public statements soon after game release? You'd be an idiot if you expect anything critical in this time frame. And then we have the feedbacks from the devs on here even Mike that they are evaluating the feedback.

[Redneck1st]

Ltcoolny wrote...

I'm all for opinions, but let's make this a rule: Please don't reply to threads with extreme views or "hate" messages. I like constructive criticisms, but please this is tiring and it errodes the integrity of the forums.

I couldn't agree with you more on this here. Besides it's just a game and even though it may have had some faults it wasn't the worse game out there. I can name others but I won't. Lots of folks that I've seen on the boards seemed to have liked DA2 in spite of it's faults; myself included.

I've said this before and I'll say it again you can't always please everyone 100% of the time. Someone will always find fault with somethng for which someone else did or does. Of their reasonings for which they did one thing and didn't do something else.

[ziloe]

Redneck1st wrote...

Ltcoolny wrote...

I'm all for opinions, but let's make this a rule: Please don't reply to threads with extreme views or "hate" messages. I like constructive criticisms, but please this is tiring and it errodes the integrity of the forums.

I couldn't agree with you more on this here. Besides it's just a game and even though it may have had some faults it wasn't the worse game out there. I can name others but I won't. Lots of folks that I've seen on the boards seemed to have liked DA2 in spite of it's faults; myself included.

I've said this before and I'll say it again you can't always please everyone 100% of the time. Someone will always find fault with somethng for which someone else did or does. Of their reasonings for which they did one thing and didn't do something else.

But that's the difference, at least you see the faults. There are those in here who speak as though those who say there are faults, are crazy or alternatively, trolls. Those are the ones who really need to raise the standards. I'm so sick of games trying to cater to the casual gamer so much so that it cuts down on the hardcore gamers, like myself and others in here who also no doubt see the problems. 

[Morroian]

ziloe wrote...

But that's the difference, at least you see the faults. There are those in here who speak as though those who say there are faults, are crazy or alternatively, trolls. Those are the ones who really need to raise the standards.

Oh please, there is fault on both sides, its hardly just lightsiders bashing anyone critical of the game. In fact ISTM that the majority of the extreme lightside responses have mainly arisen as a result of the unreasonable OTT bashing Biwoare has received over the game.

[RPGrogue]

ziloe wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

ziloe wrote...

 You know what? It's people like you who make both EA and the game designers think they did a spectacular job and don't have to work any harder on the next one. They can do just another rush job so that EA can monopolize on the success of the franchise, and why? Because you didn't have any real standards and as long as you carry this mentality, they're going to produce more rushed games and DLC, because you couldn't say, "No. This isn't worth the money I'm paying for it."

While I agree completely, I don't see why this needed to be a thread and not a reply. 

Just think of it as the Daily show's opposition, the Colbert Report.

One problem though, Colbert pretends to be against Stewart, in real life they agree. The guy you see on the show is a character

[ziloe]

Morroian wrote...

ziloe wrote...

But that's the difference, at least you see the faults. There are those in here who speak as though those who say there are faults, are crazy or alternatively, trolls. Those are the ones who really need to raise the standards.

Oh please, there is fault on both sides, its hardly just lightsiders bashing anyone critical of the game. In fact ISTM that the majority of the extreme lightside responses have mainly arisen as a result of the unreasonable OTT bashing Biwoare has received over the game.

ISTM? International Society of Travel Medicine? The complaints are not unreasonable, though, some do go too far. As it was stated earlier, despite the reviews, EA continually sees this game as a masterpiece. Most of the main review places mentioned in the ads probably bought out in some way, especially considering bad reviews by big names have involved reviewers being fired. I.e Gamespot and the reviewer of Kane and Lynch. 

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

Lithuasil wrote...

ziloe wrote...
Did you even watch the interviews? Even the German interview stated 12 endings. They boasted a frame narrative, and yet we saw that maybe 5 times throughout a 30 to 50 hour game. The dungeons were constantly repetitive and as wonderful as the characters were, their story arches felt forced into little side quests, instead of flowing naturally.

Technically, I didn't watch them, nor did I watch any trailers. What I did was play through a game that was better then anything the company has made to date, and at least started to tackle every single issue I've ever had with their products. Call me easy to please if you want, but to me that's enough.

Better than anything they made to date?  That's garbage.  That is pure fanboy garbage.  I've played every game they've had; I love them all.  I don't dislike DA2 but it was not up to their usual quality.  The reused maps alone drop it from a 'pretty good' to 'average'.  And let's not talk about the character assassination that was done to Anders and the limited scope of the city and surrounding environs.  If you think this is their  best ever, you've never played any of their other games or you're flat out not telling the truth.  It's playable, engaging at times..lot of flaws.  Best ever?  No effing way.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Lithuasil wrote...

It might be personal taste, but I liked Kirkwall a hundred times more then the four twohundred square foot pieces I got to see of Mudbrownistan. At the least, it wasn't the same piece of York ca 1285 that ALL fantasy usually takes place in. Additionally, the hub-based environments bioware does work much much better, when they're relatively close together, so I can atleast assume I got a pretty decent representation of what it looks like, as opposed to arbitrary borders in Origins.
The recycled maps didn't really bother me that much - how much different do you expect two different sewer passages in the same city to look? Sure, it got a bit much towards the end, and the game could have used more polish - but I'd much rather see that polish applied in other areas first.

Ok, if I give you that sewers under the same city are the same then please explain to my why ancient ruins, the Deep Roads, and caves across various bits of the map all look the same? Really, I would appreciate the enlightenment. Also if you're going to complain that Fereldan as a whole was brown I don't see how that is any better than the very beighy Kirkwall. Hell, DA2 had less of a color palate than Origins.

[ziloe]

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

ziloe wrote...
Did you even watch the interviews? Even the German interview stated 12 endings. They boasted a frame narrative, and yet we saw that maybe 5 times throughout a 30 to 50 hour game. The dungeons were constantly repetitive and as wonderful as the characters were, their story arches felt forced into little side quests, instead of flowing naturally.

Technically, I didn't watch them, nor did I watch any trailers. What I did was play through a game that was better then anything the company has made to date, and at least started to tackle every single issue I've ever had with their products. Call me easy to please if you want, but to me that's enough.

Better than anything they made to date?  That's garbage.  That is pure fanboy garbage.  I've played every game they've had; I love them all.  I don't dislike DA2 but it was not up to their usual quality.  The reused maps alone drop it from a 'pretty good' to 'average'.  And let's not talk about the character assassination that was done to Anders and the limited scope of the city and surrounding environs.  If you think this is their  best ever, you've never played any of their other games or you're flat out not telling the truth.  It's playable, engaging at times..lot of flaws.  Best ever?  No effing way.

Thank you!

[ziloe]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

How unfortunate that this ends just before he sits down. Does that mean you're still standing too?

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

ziloe wrote...

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

How unfortunate that this ends just before he sits down. Does that mean you're still standing too?

Nope.

[ziloe]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

ziloe wrote...

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

How unfortunate that this ends just before he sits down. Does that mean you're still standing too?

Nope.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Is he doing what I think he's doing? And by that, I mean backing out?

[ziloe]

RPGrogue wrote...

ziloe wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

ziloe wrote...

 You know what? It's people like you who make both EA and the game designers think they did a spectacular job and don't have to work any harder on the next one. They can do just another rush job so that EA can monopolize on the success of the franchise, and why? Because you didn't have any real standards and as long as you carry this mentality, they're going to produce more rushed games and DLC, because you couldn't say, "No. This isn't worth the money I'm paying for it."

While I agree completely, I don't see why this needed to be a thread and not a reply. 

Just think of it as the Daily show's opposition, the Colbert Report.

One problem though, Colbert pretends to be against Stewart, in real life they agree. The guy you see on the show is a character

And that's why I referred to the show... not their real life personas. =/

[Riv2.0]

Awful lot of hate in here, eh?

Alrgiht, first things first; you are entitled to your opinion. there, I said it! I personaly loved DAII and I'm on my second playthrough. Is it as good as DA:O? No, of course not. Is the combat improved? Yes. Have they improved the graphics? Yes (despite flaws, the graphics ARE better). Did they reuse levels? They sure did. Was it lacking epicness? Yes. See, the game has flaws like most games do but that doesn't mean that everyone has to hate it.

As for the argument about the lack of choices that affect the game; it depends on how you see things. The point about saving Bethany/Carver in the Deep roads has already been brought up. For me, that was a very big thing! For some, maybe not.

But, one final thing before I return to my dark corner; there's really no need for a thread that is just there to disagree with another thread. Reply to the original thread instead of posting a thread like this.

[ziloe]

Riv2.0 wrote...

Awful lot of hate in here, eh?

Alrgiht, first things first; you are entitled to your opinion. there, I said it! I personaly loved DAII and I'm on my second playthrough. Is it as good as DA:O? No, of course not. Is the combat improved? Yes. Have they improved the graphics? Yes (despite flaws, the graphics ARE better). Did they reuse levels? They sure did. Was it lacking epicness? Yes. See, the game has flaws like most games do but that doesn't mean that everyone has to hate it.

As for the argument about the lack of choices that affect the game; it depends on how you see things. The point about saving Bethany/Carver in the Deep roads has already been brought up. For me, that was a very big thing! For some, maybe not.

But, one final thing before I return to my dark corner; there's really no need for a thread that is just there to disagree with another thread. Reply to the original thread instead of posting a thread like this.

It really has nothing to do with the other thread. It's to do with the mentality of believing this game to be a masterpiece without flaws. At least you as both a gamer and consumer, can admit that it does have drawbacks. The main point though is that the things you find as admittedly flaws, they're in there because we as a consumer don't raise our standards.

We bought their game, they got our money and we lost. Why? Because we were too accepting of the hype, looking at all the bright and shiny stuff and the excited babble of the developers advertising, that we were fooled into thinking this would be a masterpiece. And when it came out and many realized they were deceived, many in here have proved they didn't care. Thus, the very reason for this thread. They were satisfied with something that could have been better.

I'm not saying that Bioware doesn't have the capability to make something better than DA:O, they do! And that's what makes this situation with money mongering EA, who is up their ass about getting the game out in a year, so bloody sad. This could have been a masterpiece! But it wasn't. And because people have been too accepting of what it is, EA will never learn and the same things will continue with Western games, because they think we don't care.

Bioware should really be taking some pointers from the European developers of the Witcher, especially in choices. At least with them, when it came to boasting about 12 endings for their sequel, they could prove it by showing how it worked in the programming mechanics.

[Realmzmaster]

You mention we as consumers do not raise our standards. Are you saying we should raise them to your level? I have my own standards of what I consider to be a good or great game. Are my standards the same as your? Do they differ in certain places? Most likely! Does that make your standards superior to mine or my standards superior to yours?
Who gets to set the standards? If my standard is to compare every CRPG to DM ran campaigns no CRPG would stack up.
Therefore my standards are going to be different depending on the mode of play.
I pay my money I get to set the standard on which I judge a game. Also I never buy into the hype. I waited for the demo to come out. I played the demo. I liked what I saw. I bought the game. I got my money's worth.
I am finishing my third play through (did all three classes) and looking forward to a fourth. I will move up to hard or nightmare. It has been fun.

[jds1bio]

ziloe wrote...

Bioware should really be taking some pointers from the European developers of the Witcher, especially in choices. At least with them, when it came to boasting about 12 endings for their sequel, they could prove it by showing how it worked in the programming mechanics.

First, let's let that game be released first before we say how great the 12 endings might be.

Second, it's not ALL about the endings.  What happens during the journey is important too.  DA2 has plenty of quests and variations to keep people busy through at least three different playthroughs. 

But one ending is fine, if the game could cleverly prove that all possible actions of the player really caused the outcome.  DA2, beyond the first playthrough, never gave the player the chance to do this, because the actions of the extremist characters always negated any possibility of the player gaining influence.  That's fine for a story, but for an RPG it makes for a very small universe of roles.  Just like in DA:O and The Witcher.

The gameplay of DA:O, The Witcher, and DA2 amounts more to combat style play than role playing.  In fact, I'd say that out of all these games, DA2 has the most actual role-playing.  The Witcher has only three roles - Geralt that sides with the Order, Geralt that Sides with the Scoiatel, and Geralt that is neutral.  Beyond the origins, there is only one role in DA:O - Grey Warden.  People think there is more role-playing in DA:O only because the characters had SO much to say to you.

[ziloe]

Realmzmaster wrote...

You mention we as consumers do not raise our standards. Are you saying we should raise them to your level? I have my own standards of what I consider to be a good or great game. Are my standards the same as your? Do they differ in certain places? Most likely! Does that make your standards superior to mine or my standards superior to yours?
Who gets to set the standards? If my standard is to compare every CRPG to DM ran campaigns no CRPG would stack up.
Therefore my standards are going to be different depending on the mode of play.
I pay my money I get to set the standard on which I judge a game. Also I never buy into the hype. I waited for the demo to come out. I played the demo. I liked what I saw. I bought the game. I got my money's worth.
I am finishing my third play through (did all three classes) and looking forward to a fourth. I will move up to hard or nightmare. It has been fun.

I'm talking standards in general. Can you very well at least admit that it has flaws? It's not even about buying into hype. The developers said they were going to do something and they didn't follow through. Instead, they appealed to the casual gamer. Someone who may not expect a lot from games in the first place. But considering how far we've come, especially with companies such as Bioware who have proven themselves innovative many times, it's sad to see them fall backwards. If this game was given at least another year in development, I'm sure it would have been a lot better and met even the developers hopes for the series. 

[ziloe]

jds1bio wrote...

ziloe wrote...

Bioware should really be taking some pointers from the European developers of the Witcher, especially in choices. At least with them, when it came to boasting about 12 endings for their sequel, they could prove it by showing how it worked in the programming mechanics.

First, let's let that game be released first before we say how great the 12 endings might be.

Second, it's not ALL about the endings.  What happens during the journey is important too.  DA2 has plenty of quests and variations to keep people busy through at least three different playthroughs. 

But one ending is fine, if the game could cleverly prove that all possible actions of the player really caused the outcome.  DA2, beyond the first playthrough, never gave the player the chance to do this, because the actions of the extremist characters always negated any possibility of the player gaining influence.  That's fine for a story, but for an RPG it makes for a very small universe of roles.  Just like in DA:O and The Witcher.

The gameplay of DA:O, The Witcher, and DA2 amounts more to combat style play than role playing.  In fact, I'd say that out of all these games, DA2 has the most actual role-playing.  The Witcher has only three roles - Geralt that sides with the Order, Geralt that Sides with the Scoiatel, and Geralt that is neutral.  Beyond the origins, there is only one role in DA:O - Grey Warden.  People think there is more role-playing in DA:O only because the characters had SO much to say to you.

That's another one of my pet peeves with DA:2, your choices don't matter. It's on a completely linear scale. I have played this game more than once. I have gone over my saves and redone choices. Everything is inevitable. I.e, not doing Anders last requests for instance. The events still happen. Bioware couldn't be creative enough to have some other catastrophic event still spiral the last moments into chaos. I expect more from the games I play, especially ones that have done quite well in the past with various outcomes. 

As for the Witcher, your choices still matter and make a lot bigger of an affect on people and the society around you. And when it comes to playing a Grey Warden, that isn't the problem. DA:O still made your choices matter and when Bioware retconned events, they decided to say the epilogues were just rumours because they couldn't compensate for everything, due to forcing a linear story.

Even playing as a human didn't matter. After all, the first enchanter was an elf, so an elf living in hightown after finding piles of gold, it would have played out fine. People liked playing an Origin story and they took that away. And the only reason why, because they wanted to appeal to casual gamers. 

[Realmzmaster]

ziloe wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You mention we as consumers do not raise our standards. Are you saying we should raise them to your level? I have my own standards of what I consider to be a good or great game. Are my standards the same as your? Do they differ in certain places? Most likely! Does that make your standards superior to mine or my standards superior to yours?
Who gets to set the standards? If my standard is to compare every CRPG to DM ran campaigns no CRPG would stack up.
Therefore my standards are going to be different depending on the mode of play.
I pay my money I get to set the standard on which I judge a game. Also I never buy into the hype. I waited for the demo to come out. I played the demo. I liked what I saw. I bought the game. I got my money's worth.
I am finishing my third play through (did all three classes) and looking forward to a fourth. I will move up to hard or nightmare. It has been fun.

I'm talking standards in general. Can you very well at least admit that it has flaws? It's not even about buying into hype. The developers said they were going to do something and they didn't follow through. Instead, they appealed to the casual gamer. Someone who may not expect a lot from games in the first place. But considering how far we've come, especially with companies such as Bioware who have proven themselves innovative many times, it's sad to see them fall backwards. If this game was given at least another year in development, I'm sure it would have been a lot better and met even the developers hopes for the series. 

Every CRPG I have played has flaws from Wizardry to Dragon Age 2 (yes I have been playing CRPGs that long). My point is that I got my money's worth and my standards are not low by any means, but YMMV.
Talking about standards in general is an opinion. Your opinion is just as valid as mine. The flaws in the game did not overshadow my overall enjoyment and that is what matters to me.

[ziloe]

Realmzmaster wrote...

ziloe wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You mention we as consumers do not raise our standards. Are you saying we should raise them to your level? I have my own standards of what I consider to be a good or great game. Are my standards the same as your? Do they differ in certain places? Most likely! Does that make your standards superior to mine or my standards superior to yours?
Who gets to set the standards? If my standard is to compare every CRPG to DM ran campaigns no CRPG would stack up.
Therefore my standards are going to be different depending on the mode of play.
I pay my money I get to set the standard on which I judge a game. Also I never buy into the hype. I waited for the demo to come out. I played the demo. I liked what I saw. I bought the game. I got my money's worth.
I am finishing my third play through (did all three classes) and looking forward to a fourth. I will move up to hard or nightmare. It has been fun.

I'm talking standards in general. Can you very well at least admit that it has flaws? It's not even about buying into hype. The developers said they were going to do something and they didn't follow through. Instead, they appealed to the casual gamer. Someone who may not expect a lot from games in the first place. But considering how far we've come, especially with companies such as Bioware who have proven themselves innovative many times, it's sad to see them fall backwards. If this game was given at least another year in development, I'm sure it would have been a lot better and met even the developers hopes for the series. 

Every CRPG I have played has flaws from Wizardry to Dragon Age 2 (yes I have been playing CRPGs that long). My point is that I got my money's worth and my standards are not low by any means, but YMMV.
Talking about standards in general is an opinion. Your opinion is just as valid as mine. The flaws in the game did not overshadow my overall enjoyment and that is what matters to me.

And perhaps that's what I find so disappointing. See, I studied video game design and despite the teachers spouting that many games lacked story, we only had one class term to teach story and it was barely anything constructive. There was a lot more they could have done and the fact that they didn't do it and people are okay with that, well I see that as a problem. So, perhaps it goes beyond standards which you claim are so relative, despite being defined by your culture.

[Realmzmaster]

ziloe wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

ziloe wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You mention we as consumers do not raise our standards. Are you saying we should raise them to your level? I have my own standards of what I consider to be a good or great game. Are my standards the same as your? Do they differ in certain places? Most likely! Does that make your standards superior to mine or my standards superior to yours?
Who gets to set the standards? If my standard is to compare every CRPG to DM ran campaigns no CRPG would stack up.
Therefore my standards are going to be different depending on the mode of play.
I pay my money I get to set the standard on which I judge a game. Also I never buy into the hype. I waited for the demo to come out. I played the demo. I liked what I saw. I bought the game. I got my money's worth.
I am finishing my third play through (did all three classes) and looking forward to a fourth. I will move up to hard or nightmare. It has been fun.

I'm talking standards in general. Can you very well at least admit that it has flaws? It's not even about buying into hype. The developers said they were going to do something and they didn't follow through. Instead, they appealed to the casual gamer. Someone who may not expect a lot from games in the first place. But considering how far we've come, especially with companies such as Bioware who have proven themselves innovative many times, it's sad to see them fall backwards. If this game was given at least another year in development, I'm sure it would have been a lot better and met even the developers hopes for the series. 

Every CRPG I have played has flaws from Wizardry to Dragon Age 2 (yes I have been playing CRPGs that long). My point is that I got my money's worth and my standards are not low by any means, but YMMV.
Talking about standards in general is an opinion. Your opinion is just as valid as mine. The flaws in the game did not overshadow my overall enjoyment and that is what matters to me.

And perhaps that's what I find so disappointing. See, I studied video game design and despite the teachers spouting that many games lacked story, we only had one class term to teach story and it was barely anything constructive. There was a lot more they could have done and the fact that they didn't do it and people are okay with that, well I see that as a problem. So, perhaps it goes beyond standards which you claim are so relative, despite being defined by your culture.

Standards are relative because they shift between cultures and generations. There are few if any universal standards. Any good CRPG is going to have to balance all the elements. It is not enough just to have a great story. It is not enough to have just great graphics. It is not enough to have great game play.
In the past the most important element was game play. Game play still edges out story and graphics. It does not matter how good the story is or how great the graphics if the game play is not there. Some of us still play Hack and it is not because of the great graphicsor the fascianting story. The game play is what brings us back. It is one of the ultimate dungeon crawls.
But having said that many gamers today will not want to go back to the black and white line drawings of Wizardry 1 or the graphics of the first Ultimas. So all the elements must balance. Also must take audience and futire audience into consideration.
No company will survive for long without garnering a future audience. It is nice to say we carter to the old niche, but eventually that niche will run out. Then what?

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 10 avril 2011 - 11:43 .