266 réponses à ce sujet

[Lithuasil]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

ziloe wrote...
Graphics? What the hell are you even talking about?

By bringing "have you ever played D&D into a discussion about a videogame, you render your own opinion pretty much invalid. Now add in, that just a few posts ago, you were actively excusing the railroading in a different game, and we're entering troll territory.

We're well into troll territory now. The D&D example shows just how much of a troll he really is. D&D has plenty of railroading. As a DM I didn't spend 6 hours preparing a scenario just so the players can go off and pick flowers or whatever. They will be involved in the events I've prepared one way or another just like DAO and DA2.

Not to mention that any halfdecent dm would interfere the assassination of a plot-critical npc for pure metagaming reasons (which is what he essentially demands) :|

[ziloe]

Lithuasil wrote...

ziloe wrote...
Graphics? What the hell are you even talking about?

By bringing "have you ever played D&D into a discussion about a videogame, you render your own opinion pretty much invalid. Now add in, that just a few posts ago, you were actively excusing the railroading in a different game, and we're entering troll territory.

Do you even know what D&D is? It's a roleplaying table top game. It's what the Dragon Age series is attempting to be. They give you choices and the game alters depending on what you do. Talking to you is pretty boring though, because you only see what you want to see. I'm giving you what I've experienced, and you continue to give me these suedo answers and even unclear responses that even you're not sure of, despite me telling you otherwise.

[Lithuasil]

Not taking something I'm not sure of for face value (like what you did) is what we call intellectual honesty. Essentially, it's the reason why *I* can afford to be arrogant.

[ziloe]

Lithuasil wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

ziloe wrote...
Graphics? What the hell are you even talking about?

By bringing "have you ever played D&D into a discussion about a videogame, you render your own opinion pretty much invalid. Now add in, that just a few posts ago, you were actively excusing the railroading in a different game, and we're entering troll territory.

We're well into troll territory now. The D&D example shows just how much of a troll he really is. D&D has plenty of railroading. As a DM I didn't spend 6 hours preparing a scenario just so the players can go off and pick flowers or whatever. They will be involved in the events I've prepared one way or another just like DAO and DA2.

Not to mention that any halfdecent dm would interfere the assassination of a plot-critical npc for pure metagaming reasons (which is what he essentially demands) :|

**** happens. It's being a good GM that finds ways out of it, or ways to go about another path that will lead you back. The Anders being dead thing is at least acknowledged, however, there could have been several different endings and world changing events. That's what bothers me. Your choices don't feel as influential as they did in Origins.

[Lithuasil]

Again with this. Because the choices you made in origins aren't acknowledged, the choices you make in DA2 don't feel as influential? Sound logic, really.

[nicodeemus327]

ziloe wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

ziloe wrote...
Graphics? What the hell are you even talking about?

By bringing "have you ever played D&D into a discussion about a videogame, you render your own opinion pretty much invalid. Now add in, that just a few posts ago, you were actively excusing the railroading in a different game, and we're entering troll territory.

We're well into troll territory now. The D&D example shows just how much of a troll he really is. D&D has plenty of railroading. As a DM I didn't spend 6 hours preparing a scenario just so the players can go off and pick flowers or whatever. They will be involved in the events I've prepared one way or another just like DAO and DA2.

Not to mention that any halfdecent dm would interfere the assassination of a plot-critical npc for pure metagaming reasons (which is what he essentially demands) :|

**** happens. It's being a good GM that finds ways out of it, or ways to go about another path that will lead you back. The Anders being dead thing is at least acknowledged, however, there could have been several different endings and world changing events. That's what bothers me. Your choices don't feel as influential as they did in Origins.

What other world chaning events besides ending the blight occur (which is forced)? Maybe wiping out the dalish elves? You can do that in DA2 as well. Picking the ruler of Fereldan? Yep, you can choose to become the new Viscount of Kirkwall in DA2. Wiping out the circle of magi. Obviously that happens in DA2.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 24 mars 2011 - 11:06 .

[ziloe]

Lithuasil wrote...

Again with this. Because the choices you made in origins aren't acknowledged, the choices you make in DA2 don't feel as influential? Sound logic, really.

Did you even play Origins more than once? I kept Loghain alive my last playthrough and brought him back to Ostagar for the DLC and seeing that was quite an enlightening experience. The were many variables, many that DA:2 was lacking. Even if it felt inconsequential to you, the fact that you can't even admit that, it is one of the very reasons I made this thread. People like you who are satisfied with a product, despite it lacking in the potential that was Origins and what it could have been. You think I didn't like like DA:2? I liked it, I didn't love it! Why? Because it was a giant disappointment and not because of all the hype, but because the conviction of the developers actually believing and spouting this was a worthy product and then it all turning out to be a lie, it's insulting!!! 

[Lithuasil]

I only finished it once. I *tried* to play through it again, I really did, but gave up somewhere between the fade and the deep roads. I also played through DA2 four times. In one week. Guess that makes the second installment a massive disappointment and a huge step backwa

oh
wait.

[ziloe]

Lithuasil wrote...

I only finished it once. I *tried* to play through it again, I really did, but gave up somewhere between the fade and the deep roads. I also played through DA2 four times. In one week. Guess that makes the second installment a massive disappointment and a huge step backwa

oh
wait.

Four times in one week? No wonder you didn't see what I saw. It took me a little under a week for one playthrough! Why don't you not rush through the game and maybe then you'll see how much its lacking. 

[lx_theo]

ziloe wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

I only finished it once. I *tried* to play through it again, I really did, but gave up somewhere between the fade and the deep roads. I also played through DA2 four times. In one week. Guess that makes the second installment a massive disappointment and a huge step backwa

oh
wait.

Four times in one week? No wonder you didn't see what I saw. It took me a little under a week for one playthrough! Why don't you not rush through the game and maybe then you'll see how much its lacking. 

Or they played it a lot? I finsihed two in a week, both with a high playtime, when it came out. That wasn't even the whole week, I toom a few days off until I cam back and did two more playthroughs.

[da0Xeffect2]

ziloe wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Again with this. Because the choices you made in origins aren't acknowledged, the choices you make in DA2 don't feel as influential? Sound logic, really.

Did you even play Origins more than once? I kept Loghain alive my last playthrough and brought him back to Ostagar for the DLC and seeing that was quite an enlightening experience. The were many variables, many that DA:2 was lacking. Even if it felt inconsequential to you, the fact that you can't even admit that, it is one of the very reasons I made this thread. People like you who are satisfied with a product, despite it lacking in the potential that was Origins and what it could have been. You think I didn't like like DA:2? I liked it, I didn't love it! Why? Because it was a giant disappointment and not because of all the hype, but because the conviction of the developers actually believing and spouting this was a worthy product and then it all turning out to be a lie, it's insulting!!! 

You're mad because it could have been better. There's a lot of games that could have been better. There's a bunch of things that could have been done with Origins. Maybe you should walk a day in a developer's shoes and try to make a game that everyone loves with a given time table to complete it.

[ziloe]

lx_theo wrote...

ziloe wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

I only finished it once. I *tried* to play through it again, I really did, but gave up somewhere between the fade and the deep roads. I also played through DA2 four times. In one week. Guess that makes the second installment a massive disappointment and a huge step backwa

oh
wait.

Four times in one week? No wonder you didn't see what I saw. It took me a little under a week for one playthrough! Why don't you not rush through the game and maybe then you'll see how much its lacking. 

Or they played it a lot? I finsihed two in a week, both with a high playtime, when it came out. That wasn't even the whole week, I toom a few days off until I cam back and did two more playthroughs.

Why do you think I said a little under a week? It's still a lot to process in one playthrough, unless you're just rushing through it and skipping side quests. 

[ziloe]

da0Xeffect2 wrote...

ziloe wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Again with this. Because the choices you made in origins aren't acknowledged, the choices you make in DA2 don't feel as influential? Sound logic, really.

Did you even play Origins more than once? I kept Loghain alive my last playthrough and brought him back to Ostagar for the DLC and seeing that was quite an enlightening experience. The were many variables, many that DA:2 was lacking. Even if it felt inconsequential to you, the fact that you can't even admit that, it is one of the very reasons I made this thread. People like you who are satisfied with a product, despite it lacking in the potential that was Origins and what it could have been. You think I didn't like like DA:2? I liked it, I didn't love it! Why? Because it was a giant disappointment and not because of all the hype, but because the conviction of the developers actually believing and spouting this was a worthy product and then it all turning out to be a lie, it's insulting!!! 

You're mad because it could have been better. There's a lot of games that could have been better. There's a bunch of things that could have been done with Origins. Maybe you should walk a day in a developer's shoes and try to make a game that everyone loves with a given time table to complete it.

I have been there. I studied video game design in college.

The problem is that EA was greedy and had the Devs had a larger timetable, this game could have no doubt been a lot better. 

[Lithuasil]

So basically, you're telling me, because I completed the game more often then you did, I saw less of the game? Now there's a sound argument.

[ziloe]

Lithuasil wrote...

So basically, you're telling me, because I completed the game more often then you did, I saw less of the game? Now there's a sound argument.

I think you missed what I said. I said finishing it four times in one week, you must have rushed through it. Especially considering doing all the side quests, it took me at least 3 days. I could understand finishing it twice, but 4 times, it just seems a bit out there. Don't take that to heart, because that's all you've been doing with my other posts, lol.

[Lithuasil]

Because if I like a game enough to play it four times in a row, chances are I'm going to take the exact same quests, and make the exact same dialogue choices four times. Not dying helps though (as does studying in a country with no mandatory attendance)

[ziloe]

Lithuasil wrote...

Because if I like a game enough to play it four times in a row, chances are I'm going to take the exact same quests, and make the exact same dialogue choices four times. Not dying helps though (as does studying in a country with no mandatory attendance)

You'd be surprised, some people I know do exactly that. Even some on this very forum, myself not included.

[Kelgair]

ziloe wrote...


I kept Loghain alive my last playthrough and brought him back to Ostagar for the DLC and seeing that was quite an enlightening experience. The were many variables, many that DA:2 was lacking.

So, do you want a short list of variables or will you wait for DLC to show them to you again?

[Lithuasil]

ziloe wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Because if I like a game enough to play it four times in a row, chances are I'm going to take the exact same quests, and make the exact same dialogue choices four times. Not dying helps though (as does studying in a country with no mandatory attendance)

You'd be surprised, some people I know do exactly that. Even some on this very forum, myself not included.

Judging by your experience on the matter, those must be the same people you play D&D with :|

[Kartikeya]

ziloe wrote...

I have been there. I studied video game design in college.

The problem is that EA was greedy and had the Devs had a larger timetable, this game could have no doubt been a lot better. 

If you studied video game design in college (I have too), then you know your demands are ridiculous. No game, no matter how much development time, has the technology to mimic a live human GM. The most devs can do is try to anticipate every player's actions in advance and provide for that the best they have with their budget and development time. What you want is real time development that responds to your decisions. That's currently impossible. Maybe someday.

Further, you're entirely right on that point. If the game had a longer development cycle, it could certainly have been improved, and probably greatly. But again, if you studied this, you know full well that game developers aren't the ones that decide when their game is released (more's the pity). Why, then, is most of your railing against the developers and not the people who laid down how long the development cycle was going to be and when it had to be released? Or against the fans that did enjoy it, some of whom believe it's the best game Bioware has ever done? It really and truly isn't that they 'just don't understand'. People have different tastes.

[ziloe]

Kelgair wrote...

ziloe wrote...


I kept Loghain alive my last playthrough and brought him back to Ostagar for the DLC and seeing that was quite an enlightening experience. The were many variables, many that DA:2 was lacking.

So, do you want a short list of variables or will you wait for DLC to show them to you again?

Alternatively, you could just tell me if there's more in this compared to Origins. I used the Achievements example in another thread, due to all the awards you get for alternative choices. And I don't mean it in a way that I care for them, just for the fact that there were a lot.

[Everwarden]

da0Xeffect2 wrote...

You're mad because it could have been better. There's a lot of games that could have been better. There's a bunch of things that could have been done with Origins. Maybe you should walk a day in a developer's shoes and try to make a game that everyone loves with a given time table to complete it.

No, no. Every game -could- be better. People aren't hating on DA2 because it "could be better", they're hating on it because it doesn't live up to the legacy of Origins or the high promises the dev team made. As a stand-alone it's an alright game, but it fails utterly as a sequel to Origins.

[ziloe]

Everwarden wrote...

da0Xeffect2 wrote...

You're mad because it could have been better. There's a lot of games that could have been better. There's a bunch of things that could have been done with Origins. Maybe you should walk a day in a developer's shoes and try to make a game that everyone loves with a given time table to complete it.

No, no. Every game -could- be better. People aren't hating on DA2 because it "could be better", they're hating on it because it doesn't live up to the legacy of Origins or the high promises the dev team made. As a stand-alone it's an alright game, but it fails utterly as a sequel to Origins.

Exactly!!!


+9000

[Kelgair]

ziloe wrote...

Kelgair wrote...

ziloe wrote...


I kept Loghain alive my last playthrough and brought him back to Ostagar for the DLC and seeing that was quite an enlightening experience. The were many variables, many that DA:2 was lacking.

So, do you want a short list of variables or will you wait for DLC to show them to you again?

Alternatively, you could just tell me if there's more in this compared to Origins. I used the Achievements example in another thread, due to all the awards you get for alternative choices. And I don't mean it in a way that I care for them, just for the fact that there were a lot.

There is an achievment for killing the Arishok, there is no seperate achievment for handing over Isabella and the book and letting them leave peacefully, two different ways of dealing with the Qunari in Kirkwall. There is an achievment for siding with the Elves and one for siding with the Werewolves, two different ways of getting allies for the final fight in Denerim. Two different ways to deal with a problem, one quest gets two achievment, one quest only gets one achievment.

There are no achievments for dealing with Fenryiel. But there are 3 outcomes(I think) to that quest.

[Lithuasil]

Everwarden wrote...

da0Xeffect2 wrote...

You're mad because it could have been better. There's a lot of games that could have been better. There's a bunch of things that could have been done with Origins. Maybe you should walk a day in a developer's shoes and try to make a game that everyone loves with a given time table to complete it.

No, no. Every game -could- be better. People aren't hating on DA2 because it "could be better", they're hating on it because it doesn't live up to the legacy of Origins or the high promises the dev team made. As a stand-alone it's an alright game, but it fails utterly as a sequel to Origins.

See, that's an assumption, something you simply claim. And if I could find a single element about DA2 that isn't an improvement, that assumption would be somewhat easier to take seriously.