245 réponses à ce sujet

[Dejajeva]

I still don't understand why they are hanging out HERE. I mean, I get that Bioware makes other games- but can't you go to that part of the forum and chat? I mean I'm new here, but I'm sure there's even a board specifically for Origins right? So....

[schryke]

I enjoyed Origins more the first time I played through it, but I went back to give it another go after beating DA2 and appreciated the changes they implemented that much more afterward. I'm not saying that there weren't any flaws in the sequel, because there were quite a few, but I'm glad the developers took a chance instead of just updating the graphics and calling it a day.

[Lianaar]

Dragon Age is a universe, just like D&D was. The individual Dragon Age games might not even continue the same storyline, however they'll be located in Dragon Age universe. They'll differ. I do not expect another game to be just like this. There will be attempts, experiments and changes. Changes drive the world forward. Sale records, responses, critics and DLC sales will probably decide which directions will be altered or chopped down. Don't expect all DA games to be done based on the same successful template. Luckily BioWare is more then that.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Dejajeva wrote...

I still don't understand why they are hanging out HERE. I mean, I get that Bioware makes other games- but can't you go to that part of the forum and chat? I mean I'm new here, but I'm sure there's even a board specifically for Origins right? So....

Freedom of speech? Or did you think this forum was only for people to do nothing but praise the game?

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with criticism. Any good writer or game designer should listen to criticism and decide whether it has any merit so they can work on it in future games. This game has flaws, and people will point out those flaws. And not everyone will like a game as much as others. That being said I personally didn't hate this game, I preferred Origins. But this game was alright.

[nubbers666]

da2 gave me a new outlook on dao
other than the laggy 20 min loads and crashes every hr dao was 100 times better well except combat lol

[Corto81]

Dejajeva wrote...

I still don't understand why they are hanging out HERE. I mean, I get that Bioware makes other games- but can't you go to that part of the forum and chat? I mean I'm new here, but I'm sure there's even a board specifically for Origins right? So....

You buy and pay for a game, expecting certein criteria will be met since it's a sequel.

Few things:
- DA2 somewhat stepped away from RPG into an action arcade
- it's feels tiny, lazy, claustrophobic, untested, unfinished
- it feels dumbed down and it feels linear... My character feels like a half-assedly done Nathan Drake or Ezio Auditore unlike the Warden who was... Me. And surrounded himself with people he liked (killing or not recriuting certain NPCs... in DA2, regardless of that I think Anders, Merill, Fenris and Sebastian are either immature, sociopats or borderline retarded in their dealing with issues, you can't ditch them... you hang around with them for 10 years... huh??? )
- i'm playing it for the 3rd time now (so it's not like I tried and quit and just want to moan about it)
- I find DA2 to be okay and cheap fun... like a generic high-budget action movie... 
- if DA2 didn't have DA in it's name, myself and I'm guessing a whole lot of other people would've never have bought it... If this was the franchise starter, the game would've died, it's that bad.

So yeah, playing it for the 3rd time, having some fun, but it feels shallow and unfinished and not memorable.
Not to mention some of the stuff devs put in I find insulting to the customer's intelligence (really, just run the same cave over and over? really? who the hell "okayed" that?)

And in the end, people feedback and hope they're heard.
Most of the disappointed people have been HC DAO/BG fans and they feel DA2 is a step forwards in graphics, combat etc... But about 10 steps back in story, gameplay, immersivness, role-playing, etc.

[Lianaar]

Corto81 wrote...
- DA2 somewhat stepped away from RPG into an action arcade

I am not saying you should like or dislike the game, but this is not correct.
DA2 stepped toward traditional table top rpg, there is no more classical RPG then this. Of course my terms of RPG are tainted by table top standards. I have seen no game, that came this close to giving back p&p rpg feeling.

[Arppis]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

"Some folks" you talk about don't actually like Dragon Age because Dragon Age 2 is certainly far removed from the core theme, spirit and gameplay that made DAO so successful. What "some folks" like is a linear rpg and they are certainly welcome to it.

how was DA:O not linear? please explain.

"you can do the treaty quests in whatever order you want" is not a valid answer lol.

You have no idea what linear means do you? if you define linear by simply meaning the story has a beginning and an end then you have never played a non-linear game.

DA2 wasn't linear then.

[Dejajeva]

*shrugs*

I do understand the value of criticism. I just don't understand the concept of beating a dead horse. And I don't think that this forum is just for praise of the game...I guess I just think this is one too many...you know. Dead horses.

But carry on. I'm going back to my Fenris love thread.

[SkittlesKat96]

I've cooled down a little now and I actually appreciate the game now, it could have been better and it had some disappointments but it's still a good Rpg and even though it's not like Origins and BG it's still actually a unique Rpg of which isn't seen in the market anymore.

[genocidal villain]

Dragon Age 2 isn't terrible, but a disappointment compared to the first once. I still enjoy the game. I missed how quest were connected to the main plot instead of finding someones remains and bringing it to someone for 50 silver. Re-used maps was really a let down. I wouldn't mind if the game was 2 disc just to make maps appropriate for the game.

[CRISIS1717]

Arppis wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

"Some folks" you talk about don't actually like Dragon Age because Dragon Age 2 is certainly far removed from the core theme, spirit and gameplay that made DAO so successful. What "some folks" like is a linear rpg and they are certainly welcome to it.

how was DA:O not linear? please explain.

"you can do the treaty quests in whatever order you want" is not a valid answer lol.

You have no idea what linear means do you? if you define linear by simply meaning the story has a beginning and an end then you have never played a non-linear game.

DA2 wasn't linear then.

Sidequests-->Act Finale-->Sidequests-->Act Finale-->Sidquests-->Act Finale

With no deviation from the storyline. 

[Saboteur-6]

Right because DA:O wasn't a linear path to fight the Archdemon. Granted you could pick and choose which hub zone you did in what order but it was a clear path to a clear resolution. It was an ILLUSION of choice. That's really not that different than what happened in DA 2.

You could argue that the railroaded plot in DA:O was handled in a more satisfying way and that BioWare handled the illusion of choice better in that game but...c'mon...don't act like DA II is this huge deviation from the "oh so perfect" DA: O.

Modifié par Vech24, 25 mars 2011 - 09:45 .

[Casper]

Yes it was epic...but DA2 is another game and should be judged on its own.

I love DAO...but I had a hell of a lot of fun with DA2...win.

[Zalocx]

Why to people try to keep implying that us Baulders Gate/Neverwinter Nights old timers "loved DA:O because it was an oldschool RPG"?

There was ALOT more dumbing down between NWN:HotU and DA:O than there was between DA:O and DA2.

-Races became cosmetic instead of actually having mechanical merits and flaws to show that they were different species (remember when Elves used to have +2DEX/-2CON to set them apart from humans?)
-Regenerating health after each fight was atrocious and sucked the fun and tension out of extended dungon crawls
-Going from the vancian system of NWN's spell casting to the mana bar system,of DA:O was a huge step backwards for strategy and planning
-4 tier talents have nothing on actual point-buy skills
-4 ability Specializations <<<<< actual PrCs
etc. etc.

DA2 has its faults, and you can criticize them. But don't try to pretend that DA:O was a perfect love letter to "hardcore" RPG fans. A lot of us saw it for what it was: a fun game, but one that was trying to be like something that came out almost a decade prior, and sadly failing because it felt like it had more in common with WoW than with Baulder's Gate

[Arrtis]

Clonedzero wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

"Some folks" you talk about don't actually like Dragon Age because Dragon Age 2 is certainly far removed from the core theme, spirit and gameplay that made DAO so successful. What "some folks" like is a linear rpg and they are certainly welcome to it.

how was DA:O not linear? please explain.

"you can do the treaty quests in whatever order you want" is not a valid answer lol.

The thing is it was linear.
But it had enough smaller yet not too small decisions that lead to different things.To keep the non linear feel.

[EDarkness]

Vech24 wrote...

Right because DA:O wasn't a linear path to fight the Archdemon. Granted you could pick and choose which hub zone you did in what order but it was a clear path to a clear resolution. It was an ILLUSION of choice. That's really not that different than what happened in DA 2.

You could argue that the railroaded plot in DA:O was handled in a more satisfying way and that the handled the illusion of choice better in that game but...c'mon...don't act like DA II is this huge deviation from the "oh so perfect" DA: O.

Here's the thing, we can't look at DA2 in a vacuum.  Since it's clearly labeled 2, then there is no way it's not going to be compared to the first.  I don't think there's anyone out there who says that DA:O was perfect.  Far from it, but in general both games are compared to each other.  That makes a lot of sense.  Some people like DA2, but I'd argue that far more people enjoyed the first one more.  I think people have to accept that fact.  I really enjoyed No More Heroes on the Wii.  Great game, but I'm more than willing to accept the fact that there are far more people out there who didn't.  The game just resonated with me.  Much like DA2 resonates with some people.  Both sides of the Dragon Age argument really need to be open for casual discussion on both games.  And to be honest, I think that's what irritates me the most about DA2.  It really divided the fans and it's sad to see so much bickering going on.

All games are basically linear experiences.  That's pretty much the nature of the beast, but like you said, it's how it's hidden or handled in the overall narrative.

DA2 has its faults, and you can criticize them. But don't try to pretend
that DA:O was a perfect love letter to "hardcore" RPG fans. A lot of us
saw it for what it was: a fun game, but one that was trying to be like
something that came out almost a decade prior, and sadly failing because
it felt like it had more in common with WoW than with Baulder's Gate

A lot of the issues with Baldur's Gate to Dragon Age had to do with losing the D&D license.  They had to come up with their own system and this is what we got...for better or worse.  In my opinion, I'm glad they dropped the crazy D&D 3 ruleset.  Ugh...hated 3rd Edition.

Modifié par EDarkness, 25 mars 2011 - 09:47 .

[Zalocx]

EDarkness wrote...

A lot of the issues with Baldur's Gate to Dragon Age had to do with losing the D&D license.  They had to come up with their own system and this is what we got...for better or worse.  In my opinion, I'm glad they dropped the crazy D&D 3 ruleset.  Ugh...hated 3rd Edition.

They could not use the settings or the exact rulesets, but last I checked Wizards of the Coast did not have a patent on vancian magic systems and racial stat bonuses. Hell KOTOR used the same STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA system, skill points and feats and all and I don't remember any Wizards logo in that game.

[Saboteur-6]

EDarkness wrote...

Vech24 wrote...

Right because DA:O wasn't a linear path to fight the Archdemon. Granted you could pick and choose which hub zone you did in what order but it was a clear path to a clear resolution. It was an ILLUSION of choice. That's really not that different than what happened in DA 2.

You could argue that the railroaded plot in DA:O was handled in a more satisfying way and that the handled the illusion of choice better in that game but...c'mon...don't act like DA II is this huge deviation from the "oh so perfect" DA: O.

Here's the thing, we can't look at DA2 in a vacuum.  Since it's clearly labeled 2, then there is no way it's not going to be compared to the first.  I don't think there's anyone out there who says that DA:O was perfect.  Far from it, but in general both games are compared to each other.  That makes a lot of sense.  Some people like DA2, but I'd argue that far more people enjoyed the first one more.  I think people have to accept that fact.  I really enjoyed No More Heroes on the Wii.  Great game, but I'm more than willing to accept the fact that there are far more people out there who didn't.  The game just resonated with me.  Much like DA2 resonates with some people.  Both sides of the Dragon Age argument really need to be open for casual discussion on both games.  And to be honest, I think that's what irritates me the most about DA2.  It really divided the fans and it's sad to see so much bickering going on.

All games are basically linear experiences.  That's pretty much the nature of the beast, but like you said, it's how it's hidden or handled in the overall narrative.

DA2 has its faults, and you can criticize them. But don't try to pretend
that DA:O was a perfect love letter to "hardcore" RPG fans. A lot of us
saw it for what it was: a fun game, but one that was trying to be like
something that came out almost a decade prior, and sadly failing because
it felt like it had more in common with WoW than with Baulder's Gate

A lot of the issues with Baldur's Gate to Dragon Age had to do with losing the D&D license.  They had to come up with their own system and this is what we got...for better or worse.  In my opinion, I'm glad they dropped the crazy D&D 3 ruleset.  Ugh...hated 3rd Edition.

Oh no I completely agree with you. It's just that one of the frequent explanations I see provided when contrasting DA: O with DA 2 is that "there was SO much more choice" in DA:O. To which I'm saying "Uh no...there really wasn't".

[EDarkness]

Zalocx wrote...

EDarkness wrote...

A lot of the issues with Baldur's Gate to Dragon Age had to do with losing the D&D license.  They had to come up with their own system and this is what we got...for better or worse.  In my opinion, I'm glad they dropped the crazy D&D 3 ruleset.  Ugh...hated 3rd Edition.

They could not use the settings or the exact rulesets, but last I checked Wizards of the Coast did not have a patent on vancian magic systems and racial stat bonuses. Hell KOTOR used the same STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA system, skill points and feats and all and I don't remember any Wizards logo in that game.

There is probably some licensing stuff going on that we don't know about, but KOTOR was definitely 3rd Edition D&D rules adapted to the Star Wars universe.  The world of licensing is complicated.  My guess is that they couldn't keep using 3rd Edition rules or have any signs of D&D in their games.  So having to design something else, this is what we got.  But in my opinion, anything is better than 3rd Edition (or 4th Edition for that matter).

[Aldandil]

EDarkness wrote...
Here's the thing, we can't look at DA2 in a vacuum.  Since it's clearly labeled 2, then there is no way it's not going to be compared to the first.  I don't think there's anyone out there who says that DA:O was perfect.  Far from it, but in general both games are compared to each other.  That makes a lot of sense.  Some people like DA2, but I'd argue that far more people enjoyed the first one more.  I think people have to accept that fact.  I really enjoyed No More Heroes on the Wii.  Great game, but I'm more than willing to accept the fact that there are far more people out there who didn't.  The game just resonated with me.  Much like DA2 resonates with some people.  Both sides of the Dragon Age argument really need to be open for casual discussion on both games.  And to be honest, I think that's what irritates me the most about DA2.  It really divided the fans and it's sad to see so much bickering going on.

All games are basically linear experiences.  That's pretty much the nature of the beast, but like you said, it's how it's hidden or handled in the overall narrative.

I quote you because I think you're on to something when you talk about the vacuum. Even though we can't play DA2 in a vacuum, it's still definitely possible to prefer DA:O to DA2, but still enjoy DA2 immensely. Some people thinks it's a bad game, and I guess they get to feel left out. However, it's a bit difficult for me to understand how you can think that DA:O was great and that DA2 is the worst game around, when there are no other games out there (or being made) that are more similar to DA:O than DA2. It certainly seems as if what you're saying about the vacuum is true, people seem to think that since DA2 isn't everything they liked about DA:O, it's the end of the franchise. I, on the other hand, think it's a bit of an overreaction from people who like to get excited over things.

When it comes to linearity: DA:O was very open with in what order you wanted to do a recruitment quest, but linear within those recruitment quests. DA2 is very open within every act, but linear in the order of those acts. That difference makes no difference to me.

[Persephone]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Arppis wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

"Some folks" you talk about don't actually like Dragon Age because Dragon Age 2 is certainly far removed from the core theme, spirit and gameplay that made DAO so successful. What "some folks" like is a linear rpg and they are certainly welcome to it.

how was DA:O not linear? please explain.

"you can do the treaty quests in whatever order you want" is not a valid answer lol.

You have no idea what linear means do you? if you define linear by simply meaning the story has a beginning and an end then you have never played a non-linear game.

DA2 wasn't linear then.

Sidequests-->Act Finale-->Sidequests-->Act Finale-->Sidquests-->Act Finale

With no deviation from the storyline. 

Oh there are a lot of deviations, one of which took my breath away yesterday as I finished my pro templar playthrough (A female mage, no less). I won't spoil it but...DAMN.......that one lingered with me.

[Lithuasil]

Arrtis wrote...
The thing is it was linear.
But it had enough smaller yet not too small decisions that lead to different things.To keep the non linear feel.

You mean picking what pokemon you want to bring for the final battle?

[Kelleth]

I love it how most of the people claim that Dragon Age Origins is way better then Dragon age 2... And most of those people are using a heavily modded PC version of the game, which, of course, makes the game better.
People just need to wait til the modders get more stuff out there, and people will start going on how much better DA2 is.

[EDarkness]

Aldandil wrote...

I quote you because I think you're on to something when you talk about the vacuum. Even though we can't play DA2 in a vacuum, it's still definitely possible to prefer DA:O to DA2, but still enjoy DA2 immensely. Some people thinks it's a bad game, and I guess they get to feel left out. However, it's a bit difficult for me to understand how you can think that DA:O was great and that DA2 is the worst game around, when there are no other games out there (or being made) that are more similar to DA:O than DA2. It certainly seems as if what you're saying about the vacuum is true, people seem to think that since DA2 isn't everything they liked about DA:O, it's the end of the franchise. I, on the other hand, think it's a bit of an overreaction from people who like to get excited over things.

This is true.  I enjoyed DA2 for what it was, but I went into the game not expecting DA:O 2, but something else.  Being a fan of Japanese action RPGs, I thought the combat was great and button mashy.  I started another game because it's quick and doesn't require a lot from you as a player.  This isn't a bad thing, but it's quite a bit different from DA:O.  But both sides of the argument pretty much have to deal with the fact both games will be compared to each other and some people like one, the other, or both.  I like DA:O better, but I did have fun with DA2.

I love it how most of the people claim that Dragon Age Origins is way
better then Dragon age 2... And most of those people are using a heavily
modded PC version of the game, which, of course, makes the game better.
People just need to wait til the modders get more stuff out there, and people will start going on how much better DA2 is.

I don't think that's true.  Just look around the internet.  I doubt most people complaining about DA2 played the PC version.  I played both the PC/Mac version and the 360 version.  Never downloaded any MODs. There are lots of people out there who simply do not like DA2 but enjoyed DA:O.  I think that's something people have to come to grips with.  There's nothing wrong with it, either.  Different gamers want different things.  Bioware took this risk when they changed the game from the original. 

Modifié par EDarkness, 25 mars 2011 - 10:50 .