266 réponses à ce sujet

[ziloe]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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?

It's not even just catering to the new audience, it's focusing on bringing in casual gamers. That's great and all, but it means cutting down certain important elements of story and gameplay so as to make it easier and more understandable to those new to the genre, etc. 

[Realmzmaster]

That is the point. Somewhere in that mass of causal gamers may be people who will give CRPGs a chance. You may need a simpler game to hook those individuals so that they can graduate to more sophisticated fair.
Some of those casual gamers may only stay with the simpler game, but others may get hook and look for deeper games. But an audience has to be gathered.
If the old guard are shrinking in number you have to reach into another pool.
Some of use may not like the changes, but there is nothing as constant as change.
Adapt or die.
Many may not like the changes EA brings, but In the end run it comes down to money and lines of credit. EA has it, Bioware did not. In the end it does not matter how critically acclaimed the game is. If the sales do not cover the cost, the game is a financial failure.
Many will say that EA could use money from other money making titles to fund more development time for CRPGs like DA:O and DA II. But EA is a business not a charity.
EA expects all of its products to make money. The shareholders demand it. The people who work there want to be paid and get raises so that they can raise their standard of living.
So it comes down to balance.
Time is money. Yes it is an old cliche, but it is still true.
I would love every game to be perfect without bugs and entertaining. But what entertains me may not entertain others.

[ziloe]

Realmzmaster wrote...

That is the point. Somewhere in that mass of causal gamers may be people who will give CRPGs a chance. You may need a simpler game to hook those individuals so that they can graduate to more sophisticated fair.
Some of those casual gamers may only stay with the simpler game, but others may get hook and look for deeper games. But an audience has to be gathered.
If the old guard are shrinking in number you have to reach into another pool.
Some of use may not like the changes, but there is nothing as constant as change.
Adapt or die.
Many may not like the changes EA brings, but In the end run it comes down to money and lines of credit. EA has it, Bioware did not. In the end it does not matter how critically acclaimed the game is. If the sales do not cover the cost, the game is a financial failure.
Many will say that EA could use money from other money making titles to fund more development time for CRPGs like DA:O and DA II. But EA is a business not a charity.
EA expects all of its products to make money. The shareholders demand it. The people who work there want to be paid and get raises so that they can raise their standard of living.
So it comes down to balance.
Time is money. Yes it is an old cliche, but it is still true.
I would love every game to be perfect without bugs and entertaining. But what entertains me may not entertain others.

You do realize that EA rushed this game in order to capitalize on the franchise, right? You do realize that one of the main developers of DA:O left, because of what was going on. Don't try and justify something that was nothing more than a money grab, that included even the other developers BSing their product in interviews and even in Live chats, answering the same questions and ignoring the more important ones. Even the demo only featured the combat mechanics and the very bare minimum of character interaction, etc.  

Modifié par ziloe, 12 avril 2011 - 02:30 .

[Riv2.0]

ziloe wrote...

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.

Hmmm... You might want to change the title of the thread. Give it it's own name, man! You bring up valid points, most of them are in fact accurate but the title makes it seem a little too much like a retaliation or something. And I did jump the gun a bit with my accustaion about hate. Sorry about that.

But, as I said, many of your points are accurate. In my opinion, this game had the same problem that Splinter Cell: Conviction had; it shouldn't have been a sequel. Both games are nice, work well enough and have great ideas but they're both sequels to vastly superior games with huge fan bases. If they were both new games with no prior titles, they would seem a lot better. As it is, there are a lot of problems with both games that need to be addressed but since they're sequels, these problems should have been mostly hammered out already.

But I still enjoyed DAII, despite it's problems. Yes, it is good but I have to agree; no masterpiece. Would have been better as a tie-in novel/comic/web series/mini game/etc.

Maybe we'll forget all this with DAIII, and EA will let Bioware get on with things and Bioware wll craft a game that is as good as, if not better than, DA:O. That WOULD be nice.

[ziloe]

Riv2.0 wrote...

ziloe wrote...

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.

Hmmm... You might want to change the title of the thread. Give it it's own name, man! You bring up valid points, most of them are in fact accurate but the title makes it seem a little too much like a retaliation or something. And I did jump the gun a bit with my accustaion about hate. Sorry about that.

But, as I said, many of your points are accurate. In my opinion, this game had the same problem that Splinter Cell: Conviction had; it shouldn't have been a sequel. Both games are nice, work well enough and have great ideas but they're both sequels to vastly superior games with huge fan bases. If they were both new games with no prior titles, they would seem a lot better. As it is, there are a lot of problems with both games that need to be addressed but since they're sequels, these problems should have been mostly hammered out already.

But I still enjoyed DAII, despite it's problems. Yes, it is good but I have to agree; no masterpiece. Would have been better as a tie-in novel/comic/web series/mini game/etc.

Maybe we'll forget all this with DAIII, and EA will let Bioware get on with things and Bioware wll craft a game that is as good as, if not better than, DA:O. That WOULD be nice.

I'm glad we can find a mutual understanding. I was actually disappointed that my buying David Gaider's books didn't really help me much when it came to this. Perhaps he'll have something better this round and hopefully at the very least, not have EA breathing down his neck the entire time. As a writer, I know how annoying it can be to not be able to have much control over your own schedule.

Also, considering that thread died a long time ago, perhaps it is time for a name change. Any recommendations?

Modifié par ziloe, 13 avril 2011 - 02:26 .

[ziloe]

 Perhaps Bioware could improve our expectations with some added DLC. Or alternatively, like the Witcher did, remake it.

[ziloe]

 Wow, the forum is moving quickly today.

[Master Shiori]

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."

Or maybe, just maybe, there are actualy people out there who liked DA2 and think it was well worth their money.

Ever thought of that?

Just because you didn't find a game to be satisfying doesn't mean everyone else must automaticaly share your opinion.

[LiquidGrape]

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."

Oh, play the world's smallest violin, why don't you?

Your innate sense of superiority doesn't impress anyone. Nor does it help whatever deluded "argument" you think you are advocating.

Moving on.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 14 avril 2011 - 02:37 .

[Camenae]

The way I see it, DA2 is what the Chinese would call a "chicken rib," as in, it doesn't have enough meat on it to be absolutely satisfying, but it has too much meat to just toss it out altogether.

I hope DA2 does well enough in sales where EA will allow Bioware to still make a DA3. As in, I hope that EA/Bioware goes in the direction of making the chicken ribs into a full breast, rather than tossing it out like it's just a bone.

[Siansonea]

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."

Distilling...

"It's people who have a positive opinion that make a company think that its product is well-received."

Your Captain Obvious award is in the mail.

"It's people who have a differing opinion or standards from mine who are inferior."

You really stickin' with that? Heaven forbid that there be other gaming styles out there. There is no 'right' one. Instead of ranting, how about offering constructive criticism to EA and BioWare. When people turn into red-faced pitchfork wielding types, the conversation just breaks down.

And I'm not going to suddenly start hating a game just because a bunch of very unpleasant people on the Internet hate it. I'm not that easily influenced. Especially by people who are actively insulting me while trying to persuade me to their point of view. Not exactly a classic Dale Carnegie move.

[Siansonea]

ziloe wrote...

*epic snip*

It's not even just catering to the new audience, it's focusing on bringing in casual gamers. That's great and all, but it means cutting down certain important elements of story and gameplay so as to make it easier and more understandable to those new to the genre, etc. 

Important to whom? Important to you, but if it's not important to me, why should I care? You want people to be upset because you're not getting what YOU want, even if it's not something THEY care about. I'm guessing that initiative will be met with limited success.

[axl99]

Threads like this aren't exactly a great way to show newer fans your love of a series. Nor is it even a great example of model forum behaviour. And let's not even get started on the OP's argument.

The horse had long been beaten to death with an ugly stick. Stop desecrating it by pissing on it and setting its corpse on fire while you do an irish jig. That's just nasty.

[ziloe]

axl99 wrote...

Threads like this aren't exactly a great way to show newer fans your love of a series. Nor is it even a great example of model forum behaviour. And let's not even get started on the OP's argument.

The horse had long been beaten to death with an ugly stick. Stop desecrating it by pissing on it and setting its corpse on fire while you do an irish jig. That's just nasty.

Too bad I'm Scottish.

[ziloe]

 I think this pretty much covers my argument and the many worries of even the ME series.

http://gamerant.com/...ges-dyce-79223/

[Everwarden]

axl99 wrote...
The horse had long been beaten to death with an ugly stick. Stop desecrating it by pissing on it and setting its corpse on fire while you do an irish jig. That's just nasty.

No. 

[John Epler]

Fairly certain this didn't need to be resurrected. And considering the aggressive tone of the OP, as well as its tangential relation to DA2, I think we're done.

Now let me show you how to lock a thread... Cajun style.