260 réponses à ce sujet

[bas273]

mdugger12 wrote...

You don't have to even play the game to write a good review. Just copy and paste what angry old school fans have written in forums, say DA II doesn't look as good as Baldur's Gate 2 and wait for your pats on the back.

I'm pretty sure that the guy who wrote this review on RPGCodex spent more time playing DA2 than most of the 'professional reviewers' on the mainstream websites.
You seem angry because some people don't like the game that you love. Get over it.
People have different opinions. I can't imagine that you've played DA:O and Baldur's Gate (2) on the PC. If you liked those games, you wouldn't say these things about DA2.
If you truly are a Bioware fan, you would be happy with criticism. Do you want DA3 to be better, or do you want DA3 to be released this Christmas? Criticism makes a game better.

[fsfsfsfsfsfsf]

mdugger12 wrote...

LOL This thread is a joke right? It's comic gold! Because I'm certain that there isn't anybody that actually played DA II could have taken that review seriously.

What about the 50+ posts before yours?

[mdugger12]

I'm not angry at all and I wouldn't want to come off that way. Maybe I poured it on a little thick. I find it all pretty entertaining. I really like DA II but by no means would I defend DA II to the death or anything. But the review was pretty laughable. The real joke is applauding an article, that is obviously pretty lacking and overall not very well done, because you agree with it. Then attacking people who like DA II and calling them sheep because they don't, in your opinion, admit that it is lacking and overall not very well done. That is classic

[mdugger12]

But pointing out issues does make games better. I agree 100%. But alot of this is going beyond simple criticism.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Hah, bold. A great review.

[Steven83]

As if VD can actually make a better RPG! Everyone's a critic, but when the challenge is out for those to make a playable product, they rather stand back and play classic old games and grumble why today's games are too dumb for them.

If you're so smart, make your own games then.

[Dark Elhoim]

Steven83 wrote...

As if VD can actually make a better RPG! Everyone's a critic, but when the challenge is out for those to make a playable product, they rather stand back and play classic old games and grumble why today's games are too dumb for them.

If you're so smart, make your own games then.

That's a great idea! He really should make a game.

[Merkwuerdigliebe]

Steven83 wrote...

As if VD can actually make a better RPG! Everyone's a critic, but when the challenge is out for those to make a playable product, they rather stand back and play classic old games and grumble why today's games are too dumb for them.

If you're so smart, make your own games then.

www.irontowerstudio.com/
http://en.wikipedia....ge_of_Decadence

He actually is working on it already.

[dragon_83]

Steven83 wrote...

As if VD can actually make a better RPG! Everyone's a critic, but when the challenge is out for those to make a playable product, they rather stand back and play classic old games and grumble why today's games are too dumb for them.

If you're so smart, make your own games then.

I'm so glad that you brought this up. VD is the co-founding member of Irontower Studios, a small indie team. They make Age of Decadence, one of the most anticipated INDIE rpg, which looks like it will be a great old-school role-playing game.

[fsfsfsfsfsfsf]

Steven83 wrote...
If you're so smart, make your own games then.

Merkwürdigliebe wrote...
www.irontowerstudio.com/

lol

[Merced652]

fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...

Steven83 wrote...
If you're so smart, make your own games then.

Merkwürdigliebe wrote...
www.irontowerstudio.com/

lol

That guy is so mad right now, he might call all of the codexers up in here angry neckbeards!!!

[Steven83]

Huh. Surprised. But...

"Combat
Combat in AoD is turn-based and focuses heavily on tactical options."

OK. That's fine. Final Fantasy had turn based combat and I'm fine with that. But...

"AoD does not have party-based combat"

What? I'm just going to walk around alone and fighting in turn based mode? And this is fun? Whatever happened to meaningful party interaction and dynamics. You have 8 classes designed but only allow one character per party, that's a cheap way of increasing content.

Sorry for the derail, but really, if Age of Dragons can actually live up to its promises, I'll eat my own words, but at the moment. No. I'm not convinced.

[dobrikruh]

Steven83 wrote...

Huh. Surprised. But...

"Combat
Combat in AoD is turn-based and focuses heavily on tactical options."

OK. That's fine. Final Fantasy had turn based combat and I'm fine with that. But...

"AoD does not have party-based combat"

What? I'm just going to walk around alone and fighting in turn based mode? And this is fun? Whatever happened to meaningful party interaction and dynamics. You have 8 classes designed but only allow one character per party, that's a cheap way of increasing content.

Sorry for the derail, but really, if Age of Dragons can actually live up to its promises, I'll eat my own words, but at the moment. No. I'm not convinced.

well if you dont like that kind of fighting, I am pretty sure you can finish the game without any fighting at all, just like DA2...oh wait

[AllThatJazz]

Dark Elhoim wrote...

Steven83 wrote...

As if VD can actually make a better RPG! Everyone's a critic, but when the challenge is out for those to make a playable product, they rather stand back and play classic old games and grumble why today's games are too dumb for them.

If you're so smart, make your own games then.

That's a great idea! He really should make a game.

Actually Vault Dweller is an Indie dev, I believe. I think it's 'Age of Decadence' he's lead designer of, a 2d isometric turnbased game. It will be interesting to see how it turns out, if it's ever released.

As someone who really enjoyed DA2 I obviously don't agree with most of his conclusions; however it was an interesting read, funny in places, and in a lot of examples I can see where he's coming from even if I don't agree. It's a far better standard of negative review than the gamecritics one, imo.

[Steven83]

And DA2 promises no-fighting solutions? Get back under your bridge, troll.

[dragon_83]

Steven83 wrote...

Huh. Surprised. But...

"Combat
Combat in AoD is turn-based and focuses heavily on tactical options."

OK. That's fine. Final Fantasy had turn based combat and I'm fine with that. But...

"AoD does not have party-based combat"

What? I'm just going to walk around alone and fighting in turn based mode? And this is fun? Whatever happened to meaningful party interaction and dynamics. You have 8 classes designed but only allow one character per party, that's a cheap way of increasing content.

Sorry for the derail, but really, if Age of Dragons can actually live up to its promises, I'll eat my own words, but at the moment. No. I'm not convinced.

There were good turn based games, which didn't feature a party. Like Fallout 1-2.

[dobrikruh]

Steven83 wrote...

And DA2 promises no-fighting solutions? Get back under your bridge, troll.

well i would be happy even with ability to make somewhat diplomacy based character

you know if there was at least one skill or ability that isnt combat based

[Steven83]

dragon_83 wrote...

Steven83 wrote...

Huh. Surprised. But...

"Combat
Combat in AoD is turn-based and focuses heavily on tactical options."

OK. That's fine. Final Fantasy had turn based combat and I'm fine with that. But...

"AoD does not have party-based combat"

What? I'm just going to walk around alone and fighting in turn based mode? And this is fun? Whatever happened to meaningful party interaction and dynamics. You have 8 classes designed but only allow one character per party, that's a cheap way of increasing content.

Sorry for the derail, but really, if Age of Dragons can actually live up to its promises, I'll eat my own words, but at the moment. No. I'm not convinced.

There were good turn based games, which didn't feature a party. Like Fallout 1-2.

Fallout had a semblance of party. But you can't directly control them. Just like Dragon Age series, you can set simpler scripts, but DA improved on that by adding additional and more complex reactive scripts leading to a better experience. Dragon Age simply did it better than Fallout's clunky party scripts and 'stuck in a corner' situations where I had to reload or kill them to proceed. Heck, if you want to control the party, you can do that in Dragon Age, but I find it more immersive if I just be Hawke throughout the game and let everyone else do their own thing.

Fallout series had personality and I liked it, but the turn based combat dragged on forever, especially if you don't crit the tough guys on the eye. Really glad they ditched the turn based combat in the third sequel. It felt more visceral, now I can just unload my pistols at will while taking cover to reload in the wild. Vegas wasn't bad, but I missed the more open feel of the wasteland capital.

[DraCZeQQ]

Perfect review! =) And I too love the Firkaag fight reference ... the whole quest line around him, the challange ... I loved it, preparing my party for Red Dragon Fight ... trying to find the needed scrolls, weapons ... and finally THE ULTIMATE LOOT! =)

Nothing from the DA2 trash can even compare to it ... and I find it weird he didnt mention how retarded the Duel with Arishok actually was ...

[DirtyFinger]

dragon_83 wrote...

I know that this topic will be locked down soon, but I thought you were interested in the opinion of one of our battle brother:

rpgcodex.net/content.php

why do you think the thread will get locked? there are hundreds of unflattering review threads in here - unlocked, mostly.

it's not like that bioware can hide the fact that they aggravated half their fanbase with this sloppy sequel.

[Merced652]

Steven83 wrote...

dragon_83 wrote...

Steven83 wrote...

Huh. Surprised. But...

"Combat
Combat in AoD is turn-based and focuses heavily on tactical options."

OK. That's fine. Final Fantasy had turn based combat and I'm fine with that. But...

"AoD does not have party-based combat"

What? I'm just going to walk around alone and fighting in turn based mode? And this is fun? Whatever happened to meaningful party interaction and dynamics. You have 8 classes designed but only allow one character per party, that's a cheap way of increasing content.

Sorry for the derail, but really, if Age of Dragons can actually live up to its promises, I'll eat my own words, but at the moment. No. I'm not convinced.

There were good turn based games, which didn't feature a party. Like Fallout 1-2.

 It felt more visceral

YIKES

[GGRush]

Firkragg? Tactics?
You tell the turnip lover to put seven traps under his feet. You talk to him, saying that you want to fight. He turns into a dragon and dies. It's not even funny.
I can also bet most liches are killed by one Azure Edge thrown in the face. Most of the rest which are not killed by Azure Edge, are cracked by Mace of Disruption, or blasted into oblivion by Daystar, or saw a scroll of protection from undead and said f*ck you.

There is tactics in BG2, thanks to DnD 2nd edition, but without mods like Ascension it can get boring pretty quickly, too. Also, huge imbalance in classes ensured that DnD 2nd edition is not coming back.

[DJBare]

Steven83 wrote...

As if VD can actually make a better RPG! Everyone's a critic, but when the challenge is out for those to make a playable product, they rather stand back and play classic old games and grumble why today's games are too dumb for them.

If you're so smart, make your own games then.

Seeing as it's been pointed out already I don't need to repeat it.
But your argument is still laughable, I've got a great idea for an RPG that would put DA2 to shame, but I just got one small problem, but perhaps you can help out, invest around $10,000,000 give me a studio and the pick of developers, with your help I'm sure we can create a fantastic RPG!


OT, I enjoyed the review even if a little colorful in places, he pretty much nailed it, though I don't hate the game, it is mediocre for a RPG, his comment about the story events seeming random is pretty much spot on, there are also events connected to the player character which I assumed were supposed to ilicit emotion from the player, the only emotion I felt was disgust in one particular event, I won't spoil it but I will just say "all that remains"; most of you will know what I'm refering to.

[Merced652]

DJBare wrote...

Steven83 wrote...

As if VD can actually make a better RPG! Everyone's a critic, but when the challenge is out for those to make a playable product, they rather stand back and play classic old games and grumble why today's games are too dumb for them.

If you're so smart, make your own games then.

Seeing as it's been pointed out already I don't need to repeat it.
But your argument is still laughable, I've got a great idea for an RPG that would put DA2 to shame, but I just got one small problem, but perhaps you can help out, invest around $10,000,000 give me a studio and the pick of developers, with your help I'm sure we can create a fantastic RPG!


OT, I enjoyed the review even if a little colorful in places, he pretty much nailed it, though I don't hate the game, it is mediocre for a RPG, his comment about the story events seeming random is pretty much spot on, there are also events connected to the player character which I assumed were supposed to ilicit emotion from the player, the only emotion I felt was disgust in one particular event, I won't spoil it but I will just say "all that remains"; most of you will know what I'm refering to.

Felt the same way about that quest. Wasn't mad, wasn't sad, was just like... that was dumb.  

[Steven83]

And Bioware did not have to work for their money? They had this huge vault that they every employee just visit every month, guarded by golden plated armored qunari(an?) EA employees to hand out their paycheck in form of small little golden figurines of mabari hounds?

Look back at how the company was founded and they, too, worked hard to get this far.