245 réponses à ce sujet

[Lithuasil]

EDarkness wrote...
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.

One of the large differences being - I can engage in a debate, about why DA2's gameplay, while nowhere perfect, is a step in the direction of the kind of gameplay these games need, and I can state why.
One the other hand, I have yet to hear any sound arguments to why rpgs would need slow, strategic team-combat. (If there are any, feel free to enlighten me)

(That being said, I liked both games, and I'm full well willing to give the decision what story is better to personal taste - but declaring the franchise dead and mourning it's passing is a ridiculous overreaction by any means)

[TillyBomas]

Hehe, I play the original DAO with only the nude mod. And the Stone Golem DLC. I couldn't afford anything else... and really, I didn't think the game truly needed anything else.

Curious to see what comes out for DA2 in the mod section.

[Suron]

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.

why isn't it a valid answer? because it alone is what makes DA:O more non-linear then DA2.

fact is..ALL GAMES have SOME semblance of linearity.  They HAVE to.  there's a beginning a middle and an end to a story.  what seperates non-linear games from linear is what comes inbetween.  Even the coveted Bethesda games are linear in that respect.

As I said, the treaties in any order is EXACTLY the answer..but not the ONLY one.  Why is it not valid to you? because it DESTROYS your point?  whatever.

DA:O was non-linear because you could approach it in SO many ways and play through differently each time..hitting various spots at different times.  DA2 has NONE of that...most quests don't open till you do a previous one.  DA:O had VERY LITTLE of that in context to the ENTIRE game.  DA2 is NOTHING but that..the ONLY non-linear aspects of DA2 are when you get that SMALL handful of quests you can hit in any order..but for the majority you're going from a to b to c without much variation at all between them.  DA:O was completely different.

So gtfo with your "hitting treaties isn't valid" because it is.  And the only reason you're trying to dismiss that is, as I said, because it destroys your argument on it's own.  But it can be backed up as well.

no DA:O was FAR from perfect.  But even with it's faults it's leaps and bounds above DA2 in terms of what BioWare uses as their biggest selling point "choice"

you have "choice" in both games.  Only in DA:O your choices affect the world..in DA2 your "choices" only really affect Hawke's personality..but as usual I'm starting to digress.

but it apparently can be repeated for you.  DA2 is "more action packed" sure but it's a step down from an RPG standpoint then DA:O....actually it fits in with the criticisms BioWare had for JRPGs (Final Fantasy 13 specifically) pretty darn well.  And just because an answer to your question immediately blows your point-of-view away does in fact NOT make it invalid.

[Suron]

TillyBomas wrote...

Hehe, I play the original DAO with only the nude mod. And the Stone Golem DLC. I couldn't afford anything else... and really, I didn't think the game truly needed anything else.

Curious to see what comes out for DA2 in the mod section.

and this is one of hte differences..DA:O didn't need that much in terms of mods..they were all flavor.  DA2 STRONGLY needs a toolset and mods to make up for the copy-paste and lack of content and whatnot...totally different beasts.

if we needed a Toolset for EITHER of the two games...DA2 wins hands down..DA:O can stand on it's own much more because it has a lot more replayability..from different origins to different play orders to different choices...you could have different plays each time..DA2? your limited in EVERY WAY from what Origins provided..from race to class to armor customization to choice...the only real "choice" you get in DA2 is Templar or Mages..and even that STILL ENDS IN THE EXACT SAME WAY.

unlike say choosing to put Harrowmount or Bhelen as King...killing or saving Conner...having Isolde kill him, killing him yourself, sacrificing Isolde to save the boy...to the Dalish..to the werewolves..do I really need to keep going?

but yah...DA:O mods were for flavor..DA2 needs them to EXTEND it's life.

[TillyBomas]

Lithuasil wrote...

EDarkness wrote...
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.

One of the large differences being - I can engage in a debate, about why DA2's gameplay, while nowhere perfect, is a step in the direction of the kind of gameplay these games need, and I can state why.
One the other hand, I have yet to hear any sound arguments to why rpgs would need slow, strategic team-combat. (If there are any, feel free to enlighten me)

(That being said, I liked both games, and I'm full well willing to give the decision what story is better to personal taste - but declaring the franchise dead and mourning it's passing is a ridiculous overreaction by any means)

Well, the Truth is, they don't.  However, from the way I can see itt.. you have three types of RPG's right now..

The WOW rpg:  DAO was very akin to wow.  You went into battle had a delay on your primary attack, and a skill bar with skills and cooldown, but all flowed in real time.  DA2 uses the same premese, just ups the hell out of the delay time for basic attacks.  Many other games use this formula (My understanding is Star Wars Galaxys, most MMO's ect.)

The Pen and Paper rpg: This is the 'd20' rpg.  Methodical Turn based/real time combat.  Emphsis by most players for being the most 'strategic' of the gameplay types, allowing the most out of team based combat.  Team balance, ability and cohesion is a must.  LOADs of games use this forumla.  the 'hard core' rpg gamers paradise.

The third type is other random types, that try to make their own, borrow from others, or combine.  However, allot of times games that are labeled RPG's are really just adventure games with RPG elements.  Its just something that happens.  Part of learning.  Some games will be good, others, not so much. 

[EDarkness]

Lithuasil wrote...

One of the large differences being - I can engage in a debate, about why DA2's gameplay, while nowhere perfect, is a step in the direction of the kind of gameplay these games need, and I can state why.
One the other hand, I have yet to hear any sound arguments to why rpgs would need slow, strategic team-combat. (If there are any, feel free to enlighten me)

(That being said, I liked both games, and I'm full well willing to give the decision what story is better to personal taste - but declaring the franchise dead and mourning it's passing is a ridiculous overreaction by any means)

There doesn't have to be any reason other than there are people who like action games (ala Call of Duty) and people who like strategy games (ala D&D Gold Box games).  They're just two different kinds of gamers.  One is not better than the other.  I wouldn't say that these games NEED fast action gameplay.  The combat system, to me, doesn't make much of a difference other than it has to be fun.  I do enjoy twitchy action stuff and over the top abilities, but that's my personal taste and I understand that there are those out there who don't.  Nothing is set in stone as far as what combat system a game uses. 

The problem with this is that the first game appealed to a lot of gamers.  Was it perfect? No, but a lot of people liked it.  Changing the rules after the fact, doesn't help keep fans who enjoyed the old way.  It's one of those things that developers have to weigh the good and the bad of a change like this.  It's like Nintendo all of a sudden deciding to change so that Mario doesn't defeat enemies by jumping on their heads, but he now has to mash an attack button.  You can bet there will be people who simply won't like the change.  As I said earlier, ultimately, it's gonna come down to people speaking with their money.  If the players don't like the changes, then they don't buy.  Whether the changes are good or bad will work itself out over time. 

[Arrtis]

Lithuasil wrote...

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?

I am thinking more on terms of side quests.
I never used the extra hands in origins because I didnt need them.

[Lithuasil]

@TillyBomas / EDarkness

Go secure yourself a copy of "Dark Messiah of Might and Magic". Once you've experienced how immersive even the most linear of experiences gets, if the developer mans up, and comes up with a combat system that seamlessly weaves into the cutscenes, and actually stays true to lore, it's pretty hard not to miss it.

[Arrtis]

I demand perfection or equal quality.
I got neither.

[Lithuasil]

Arrtis wrote...

I demand perfection or equal quality.
I got neither.

What you got was far from perfection, but also massively better then Origins? :|

[Arrtis]

Lithuasil wrote...

Arrtis wrote...

I demand perfection or equal quality.
I got neither.

What you got was far from perfection, but also massively better then Origins? :|

Inferiour in too many important ways.
Combat was made better but not fun.

[Persephone]

Suron wrote...

and this is one of hte differences..DA:O didn't need that much in terms of mods..they were all flavor.  DA2 STRONGLY needs a toolset and mods to make up for the copy-paste and lack of content and whatnot...totally different beasts.

but yah...DA:O mods were for flavor..DA2 needs them to EXTEND it's life.

Completely untrue, I am sorry. Nearly ALL major dialogue files in DAO are severely bugged. (Esp. Alistair thinking he is king if he is NOT, never mind Morrigan, Leliana and Zevran. Horribly bugged!!) Also, the epilogue slides were bugged and won't trigger properly. Miscoded banters, bugged quests and even the "boon" at the end not triggering properly? (Mages, Dalish and the Howe boon for HNs) Were it not for Modders like ejoslin, Terra-X and cmessaz, DAO would still be a buggy mess. (4 "patches" later, mind you) Much as I adore DAO, lets not put it on a pedestal.

Modifié par Persephone, 25 mars 2011 - 11:44 .

[Lithuasil]

Name one.

[Arrtis]

Length.

[Lithuasil]

Arrtis wrote...

Length.

I managed to force myself to complete Origins once and gave up the second run somewhere between the fade and the deep roads.
I managed to play through DA2 four times. In a row. I spent more time on DA2, then I could *force* (always a good sign) myself to spend on origins.

Your point being?

[Persephone]

Lithuasil wrote...

Arrtis wrote...

Length.

I managed to force myself to complete Origins once and gave up the second run somewhere between the fade and the deep roads.
I managed to play through DA2 four times. In a row. I spent more time on DA2, then I could *force* (always a good sign) myself to spend on origins.

Your point being?

DAO owes its length to annoyingly long sequences ala The Fade, the Deep Roads and Andraste's Temple. Loathed all three. Thank God for the "Skip the Fade" Mod.

Modifié par Persephone, 25 mars 2011 - 11:54 .

[KodiakAsh]

Honestly I don't care about the recycled or overused environments. To be honest I hardly noticed while playing the game. Maybe if I played through the game 3-4 times or something it might get old to me but we all have different tolerances.

What REALLY stuck in my craw was choices the game gave you story wise throughout the entire game.

[forestmaiden86]

Lithuasil wrote...

Arrtis wrote...

Length.

I managed to force myself to complete Origins once and gave up the second run somewhere between the fade and the deep roads.
I managed to play through DA2 four times. In a row. I spent more time on DA2, then I could *force* (always a good sign) myself to spend on origins.

Your point being?

I'm the complete opposite I've played Origins 6 or 7 times only offical mods and I still love it and get really excited when I find something I hadnt seen before. I'm sure I will play it again in a few months but DA2 I've finished it once created another character but cannot will myself to go though the game again the thought to collect that 50 g for the Deep Road expedition and the game doesnt connect with me personally and the changes have been to dramatic. I love books and immersing myself into a story but DA2 just didnt grab me... I prefer humor and sure Isabelle and Varic had some good parts the story itself was bleak (I do realize they were marketing DA as a dark fantasy)

[Suron]

Persephone wrote...

Suron wrote...

and this is one of hte differences..DA:O didn't need that much in terms of mods..they were all flavor.  DA2 STRONGLY needs a toolset and mods to make up for the copy-paste and lack of content and whatnot...totally different beasts.

but yah...DA:O mods were for flavor..DA2 needs them to EXTEND it's life.

Completely untrue, I am sorry. Nearly ALL major dialogue files in DAO are severely bugged. (Esp. Alistair thinking he is king if he is NOT, never mind Morrigan, Leliana and Zevran. Horribly bugged!!) Also, the epilogue slides were bugged and won't trigger properly. Miscoded banters, bugged quests and even the "boon" at the end not triggering properly? (Mages, Dalish and the Howe boon for HNs) Were it not for Modders like ejoslin, Terra-X and cmessaz, DAO would still be a buggy mess. (4 "patches" later, mind you) Much as I adore DAO, lets not put it on a pedestal.

I wasn't counting gameplay bugs..and if you could read and comprehend I wasn't speaking for game BUGS..but the games themselves.

and while I KNOW those bugs existed..I didn't have all of them myself..some yes..but not all.

since you can't comprehend or read what I wrote I'll spell it out.

DA2 is JUST AS BUGGY IF NOT MORE then DA:O..so it's not only irrelevent from a bug standpoint it's irrelevent from the point I'm making.

I'm talking about CONTENT.  DA:O stands on it's own with the content and any mods were needed NOT to ADD CONTENT but to add FLAVOR.  DA2 needs mods to ADD CONTENT in ADDITION to FLAVOR.  And BOTH games need bugs fixed.

do you get it now? I don't know how to further elaborate on the points because I can't dumb down my post any further.

read first, respond next.  What I was saying went so far over your head even Sandal will look at you oddly.

Modifié par Suron, 25 mars 2011 - 12:24 .

[NedPepper]

It's not so black and white. I played Dragon Age: Origins multiple times. I'm in the process of doing the same with Dragon Age: 2. Both games have faults, but it is POSSIBLE to enjoy both games for what they are and to embrace the idea that Bioware can change things up and still maintain the quality and tone.

What I can never understand is the argument that DA:2 is nothing like Origins and is the death knell of the franchise. I just...can't understand it. I just recently started reading Dragon Age: The Stolen Throne by David Gaider. It's a prose book. YET, it feels like Dragon Age!

I'm starting to think some people are more obsessed with the idea of what makes an rpg over any real love of the ideas and story behind the lore. If that's the case...maybe Bioware isn't for you anymore. I dunno.

[Suron]

Lithuasil wrote...

Arrtis wrote...

Length.

I managed to force myself to complete Origins once and gave up the second run somewhere between the fade and the deep roads.
I managed to play through DA2 four times. In a row. I spent more time on DA2, then I could *force* (always a good sign) myself to spend on origins.

Your point being?

and I put over 600 hours in DA:O and am on my 3rd play of DA2 and am having to FORCE myself through it.

so what's your point?

whether you liked it or not doesn't make his statement about length any less true.

[Lithuasil]

Suron wrote...


I'm talking about CONTENT.  DA:O stands on it's own with the content and any mods were needed NOT to ADD CONTENT but to add FLAVOR.  DA2 needs mods to ADD content in addition to flavor.  And BOTH games need bugs fixed.

Making a dungeon fifteen times as long as it needs to be is *not* the same as having more content.

[Suron]

Lithuasil wrote...

Suron wrote...


I'm talking about CONTENT.  DA:O stands on it's own with the content and any mods were needed NOT to ADD CONTENT but to add FLAVOR.  DA2 needs mods to ADD content in addition to flavor.  And BOTH games need bugs fixed.

Making a dungeon fifteen times as long as it needs to be is *not* the same as having more content.

you're right.  It doesn't.  Regardless DA:O still has more content.  inflated dungeons or not.

and I'll take inflated dungeons over the copy/pasted re-use in DA2 that is quite frankly an embarressment.  I don't see how anyone at BioWare can take pride in DA2 AS A WHOLE because of that.

but maybe that's just me..because I actually take pride in my work instead of approaching it as work that needs to get done with as many corners cut to speed it up as possible.

I used to work in HVAC..when I'd install a full system it took me longer then everyone I worked with.  Because I made sure it was not only done right, but that it looked as good as it possibly could.  Customers appreciated that more.  And it made me PROUD of my work.  Even if I didn't get as big a bonus as the other cats.  Whereas most everyone else slam dunked their jobs in getting by with it only looking as good and being done like it should ONLY to the point of it being passable.  Their crap got callbacks all the time while MINE were minimal..and 99% of the time were only mechanical failures, not installer error.

My point? it's akin to DA:O vs DA2.  I was like DA:O; took forever to get done, but the care and quality was apparent.  DA2 is like 99% of the guys I worked with, body-slammed in with minimal effort for a bigger payday (their bonuses being larger then mine because they took less time)

Modifié par Suron, 25 mars 2011 - 12:37 .

[Lithuasil]

Suron wrote...
you're right.  It doesn't.  Regardless DA:O still has more content.  inflated dungeons or not.

and I'll take inflated dungeons over the copy/pasted re-use in DA2 that is quite frankly an embarressment.  I don't see how anyone at BioWare can take pride in DA2 AS A WHOLE because of that.

My point still being - if I permanently feel like "come on can we get to the interesting bits now, please?" then having more content isn't a point in the games favor. Much like the Witcher, a game that supposedly has more then 80 hours of gameplay, which I'll never see, because the first half hour is so horrendously boring, I just give up.

And while I don't even mean to excuse the reused areas - here's a task for you. Go into the sewers, or into the nearest mountain cave. And come back, once you got completely lost because everything there looks the same.

[Suron]

Lithuasil wrote...

Suron wrote...
you're right.  It doesn't.  Regardless DA:O still has more content.  inflated dungeons or not.

and I'll take inflated dungeons over the copy/pasted re-use in DA2 that is quite frankly an embarressment.  I don't see how anyone at BioWare can take pride in DA2 AS A WHOLE because of that.

My point still being - if I permanently feel like "come on can we get to the interesting bits now, please?" then having more content isn't a point in the games favor. Much like the Witcher, a game that supposedly has more then 80 hours of gameplay, which I'll never see, because the first half hour is so horrendously boring, I just give up.

And while I don't even mean to excuse the reused areas - here's a task for you. Go into the sewers, or into the nearest mountain cave. And come back, once you got completely lost because everything there looks the same.

how could anyone get lost in DA:O (if that's what you're implying).  And your "because everything looks the same" comment makes no sense....the copy pasted areas in DA2 are EXACTLY THAT.

Fact is DA:O was expanded on everything we see in DA2..DA2 is step back..especially in the area you're arguing.  ok the brecillian forest looked the same..but at least it had multiple areas with different layouts...in DA2 you're sent to the EXACT same SMALL cave and it just cuts off a passageway and then calls it Cave2 instead of Cave1