212 réponses à ce sujet

[XX55XX]

ME2 was considered by critics to be one of the best games of 2010.

DA2, in the meanwhile, was considered to be one of the most disappointing games of 2011.

Yet, if you think about it, both games had similar qualities:

1. Choices did not matter. There were hardly any reactive decisions in either game. Killed Elnora in ME2? Didn't matter. Do you save or kill the mages? They die regardless of whatever you choose.
2. The plots were underdeveloped in both games. ME2 focused on sidestories more than the Reaper conflict. DA2, focused on the loosely-connected endeavors of an individual while leaving a central conflict out entirely.
3. You couldn't get your comrades to talk to you whenever you wanted. It always had to be post-mission or whenever the game told you to talk to them.
4. Both games had extremely linear levels.

I can't think of anymore points, but feel free to add to this.

The ultimate question is: Why did people like ME2 more than DA2 even when both games had similar designs?

Modifié par XX55XX, 26 mars 2011 - 10:01 .

[Eurypterid]

I'm not sure it's really viable at this point to say DA2 'failed', but:

ME2 was the sequel to an RPG/Shooter hybrid and, while some things were streamlined and some mechanics were changed, overall it wasn't out of line with the original in the series. Look at the differences between DA:O and DA2. One of the easiest things to point to is the fact that DA2 is way more similar to ME2 than it is to DA:O.

[Marionetten]

Mass Effect never prided itself on being the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate. In fact, it actively tried to be a more action based RPG. This is why Mass Effect 2 was considered an improvement.

[Ixalmaris]

Don't be shy, DA2 failed massively.

Why ME2 was successful? Because the game system stayed the same. ME1 was a shooter, ME2 was a shooter. If BW made ME2 into a plattformer then you would have seen the same reaction as with DA2.

Modifié par Ixalmaris, 26 mars 2011 - 10:01 .

[TwistedComplex]

Because Montreal > Edmonton

That's why

That said, they're 2 completely different games, and the changes made in DA2(outside the change in art style maybe) didn't belong in the Dragon Age series

Modifié par TwistedComplex, 26 mars 2011 - 10:05 .

[SamimaS]

Because there wasn't massive change between ME1 and ME2!

Dragon Age on the other hand, saw vast changes! Much more linear, different graphic style, hack n slash on console, voiced character in second not the first etc! i could go on!

[BeefoTheBold]

I think your premise is faulty.

XX5XX wrote...
1. Choices did not matter. There were hardly any reactive decisions in either game. Killed Elnora in ME2? Didn't matter. Do you save or kill the mages? They die regardless of whatever you choose.

For starters, they were setup to be different games to begin with. Mass Effect was supposed to revolve around a specific protagonist and narrative whereas DAO's tagline was "choose your origin" and much of the value pitch was around the choice based elements.

I didn't like this in ME2, but it was way more exaggerated in DA2. The references to your choices in ME1 are all over the place in ME2, both large and small. Whether it is big issues (who rules the Krogan homeworld, whether or not there is a Citadel Council or not and if so who represents humanity on it) or smaller ones like the constant radio messages on the citadel and the continuation of romances, ME2 was much more of a direct sequel than DA2 was.

And that's the biggest thing. ME2 continued onto ME1 whereas DA2 pretty much tossed everything that happened in DAO in the crapper and moved on.

XX5XX wrote...
2. The plots were underdeveloped in both games. ME2 focused on sidestories more than Reaper conflict. DA2, focused on the loosely-connected endeavors of an individual while leaving a central conflict out entirely.

Not true. ME2 focused entirely on the Reaper conflict in the form of you gradually discovering the horrifying truth of who the Collectors were and the probable eventual fate for mankind, among others.

An equivalent DA2 would have had you continuing in the role as Warden and finding out more truths about the Darkspawn. What happens between Blights? What's the truth about where they came from? Were they really a curse of the Maker in response to Tevinter? What do they do between Blights? What happened to Morrigan? How exactly does the Broodmother thing work in creating new Darkspawn?

Can you, as the most successful Warden alive, now go on the offensive and take the fight to the Darkspawn? If so, then maybe you forgo going after Morrigan and that bites you in the butt.

With ME2, the threat of the Reapers is omnipresent to such an extent that Shepard partners with a group like Cerberus, a terrorist organization, because they're the only ones willing to help him.

XX5XX wrote...
3. You couldn't get your comrades to talk to you whenever you wanted. It always had to be post-mission or whenever the game told you to talk to them.

True to a certain extent, but the conversations went deeper, you found out so much more about them, and at the very least they were a little more convenient to talk with with them being more or less in the same location.

XX5XX wrote...
4. Both games had extremely linear levels.

The difference, I think, is in expectations. This was expected with ME2. That was EA's reach-out to the casual crowd. DA2 was supposed to be their reward to their loyal crowd.

Instead, both games ended up being reaches out to the casual crowd and an abandonment of their core fanbases.

And that last sentence sums up more than anything why DA2 makes people so mad and ME2 does not. Gamers like me may not have liked all the changes to ME2, but we consoled ourselves that the people who liked that type of RPG could have that and the rest of us could have our Dragon Age.

Modifié par BeefoTheBold, 26 mars 2011 - 10:06 .

[AkiKishi]

ME had less distance to "fall" it was already an entry level RPG with a pre-gen character anyway.

I'll just pick up something I was talking to someone else with earlier in the week.

In ME although things re-spawn it's a ranged game, they don't respawn on you. ME2 is about denying territory so things can't respawn,once you pass a certain point nothing will respawn. That's actually a good gameplay move over just holding down the trigger.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 26 mars 2011 - 10:10 .

[Drake Sigar]

Most disappointing games of 2011? It's March!

[Sylvianus]

better graphics, (no change in cartoon, no change ) consistent sequel, decisions imported, Mass Effect was already a shooter game, it's the same for M2, better gameplay whitout major changes. M1 is a trilogy, DA2 has completely changed the way of  dao.

You do not feel it's a sequel. In my opinion, we would not have put " 2 " to Dragon Age 2. it's just a spin off, not a sequel.

Dao was early a classic rpg. They totally change the gameplay.

Otherwise, DA2 has mainly taken the defects complained of M2. Lack of customization, less rpg, less dept, a weak story, too much fanservice.

What is really incomprehensible, because I heard that it was much screaming on this forum about the defects of M2.

How could they make the same mistake of mass effect team without having learned anything ?

Also with its own flaws. Kinematics not enough work,  sloppy game, game rushed, lots of bugs. Graphics not quite worked, yet more linear.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 26 mars 2011 - 10:13 .

[Sentox6]

Lol at "fail". We can't be certain yet, but I'd be quite surprised if this game wasn't more than profitable.

When the goal is to sell a product, the collective opinion of some enraged forumites does not dictate success or failure.

The thing that bugs me is the attitude that DA2 is somehow unique in the hatred it is receiving. I can't remember the last time a sequel's forums weren't full of vitriol and raging around release time. But certainly, the volume is probably more to do with DA2 being further out of line from people's expectations than ME2 was.

[InvaderErl]

ME2 retained enough of the "stop the collectors" plot to act as a driving framework for its character driven story to still feel relevant. Player incentive was clear with helping squadmates = greater chances of survival during the suicide mission. There were too many times where it simply seemed as if we were living a day in the Dragon Age universe without any greater end goal in sight, ESPECIALLY during Act 1.

ME2 had better production values. There were no recycled areas and the game clearly looked better than ME1. DA2 took the ME1 approach to re-using content and even managed to outdo it with MOST content being recycled.

ME2's gameplay mechanics were tightened and refined whereas DA2 seemed to be stuck between a more action approach and Origins, doing neither one as well as it should have. The inventory is a great example, streamlined in a few respects such as no longer equipping your party while still giving you the loot/junk and space requirements.

They needed to pick one or the other, trying to do both led to confusion.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 26 mars 2011 - 10:13 .

[DanaScu]

Eurypterid wrote...

I'm not sure it's really viable at this point to say DA2 'failed', but:

ME2 was the sequel to an RPG/Shooter hybrid and, while some things were streamlined and some mechanics were changed, overall it wasn't out of line with the original in the series. Look at the differences between DA:O and DA2. One of the easiest things to point to is the fact that DA2 is way more similar to ME2 than it is to DA:O.

What he said.

[MassEffect762]

Apparently there are more Shooter fans than RPG fans regarding ME2.(imo)

EA knows how to cater better to Shooter fans and apparently won't let EA Bioware cater to RPG fans(too expensive) concerning ME2.(lack luster story and mechanics)

Modifié par MassEffect762, 26 mars 2011 - 10:20 .

[BeefoTheBold]

DanaScu wrote...

Eurypterid wrote...

I'm not sure it's really viable at this point to say DA2 'failed', but:

ME2 was the sequel to an RPG/Shooter hybrid and, while some things were streamlined and some mechanics were changed, overall it wasn't out of line with the original in the series. Look at the differences between DA:O and DA2. One of the easiest things to point to is the fact that DA2 is way more similar to ME2 than it is to DA:O.

What he said.

Yeah, this sums it up way better than my long manifesto rant of a post did.

[Bio Addict]

It's complicated. Though I would hardly say we can call DA2 a failure just yet, I think one of the key differences in reaction to these 2 sequels is that while both were streamlined only the Dragon Age sequel was really rushed.

[Sentox6]

It's kind of funny that complaints have often been made about BioWare's cliched narrative structure, then they get slammed when they try something different.

And really, we're saying that the utterly pointless diversion that was Stop-the-Collectors is now better than DA2? Really? People seem to be getting upset because there's less of an illusion of Hawke being proactive and having a defined goal. Because everyone has a single, dominating goal in their life that overshadows everything else, right. DA2 gives you a character looking to survive, better their life, and deal with whatever comes their way. Just like most people live their life, really. It's refreshing to at least see the cliche change for once.

Shepard isn't actually any less reactive to events than Hawke is. It's the limitation of the medium. The over-arching goal of "stop the Reapers" simply gives the illusion of direction and purpose, but you still spend the whole game responding to scenarios that are delivered to you.

[TwistedComplex]

MassEffect762 wrote...
 ME2.(lack luster story and mechanics)

"Lack luster story"

Modifié par TwistedComplex, 26 mars 2011 - 10:31 .

[InvaderErl]

Sentox6 wrote...
 The over-arching goal of "stop the Reapers" simply gives the illusion of direction and purpose, but you still spend the whole game responding to scenarios that are delivered to you.

I that that illusion makes a lot of difference for the player. It didn't need to be "save the world/stop the reapers/blight/whatever"  but DA2 could have done more to give the player the sense of moving torwards something than merely a few vague statements thrown out at the start.

[AkiKishi]

Sentox6 wrote...

It's kind of funny that complaints have often been made about BioWare's cliched narrative structure, then they get slammed when they try something different.

And really, we're saying that the utterly pointless diversion that was Stop-the-Collectors is now better than DA2? Really? People seem to be getting upset because there's less of an illusion of Hawke being proactive and having a defined goal. Because everyone has a single, dominating goal in their life that overshadows everything else, right. DA2 gives you a character looking to survive, better their life, and deal with whatever comes their way. Just like most people live their life, really. It's refreshing to at least see the cliche change for once.

Shepard isn't actually any less reactive to events than Hawke is. It's the limitation of the medium. The over-arching goal of "stop the Reapers" simply gives the illusion of direction and purpose, but you still spend the whole game responding to scenarios that are delivered to you.

Things become cliche because they are popular. If you want to do something new, then you need to do it right or people will be all over you.

[Funkjoker]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Instead, both games ended up being reaches out to the casual crowd and an abandonment of their core fanbases.

And that last sentence sums up more than anything why DA2 makes people so mad and ME2 does not. Gamers like me may not have liked all the changes to ME2, but we consoled ourselves that the people who liked that type of RPG could have that and the rest of us could have our Dragon Age.

QFT. This is the best explanation you can get. I do hope that BioWare returns to the wishes of the core fangroup and makes DA3 as good as DAO, as it was successful without the need to appeal to mainstream.

Modifié par Jean-Funk Van Damme, 26 mars 2011 - 10:36 .

[Fikmeister]

Sylvianus wrote...

Also with its own flaws. Kinematics not enough work, sloppy game, game rushed, lots of bugs. Graphics not quite worked, yet more linear.

I read this with Mordin's voice in my head. And I agree.

[Sentox6]

TwistedComplex wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...
 ME2.(lack luster story and mechanics)

"Lack luster story"

Since everyone seems to be using critical reception as the benchmark around here, then yes, one of the most common complaints about ME2 was a relatively poor main plot.

InvaderErl wrote...

I that that illusion makes a lot of
difference for the player. It didn't need to be "save the world/stop the
reapers/blight/whatever"  but DA2 could have done more to give the
player the sense of moving torwards something than merely a few vague
statements thrown out at the start.

Fair enough. This is precisely why I like DA2. I enjoy the complete absence of any goal other than experiencing what happens next. Subjective preferences are subjective, I guess

[Otterwarden]

Eurypterid wrote...

I'm not sure it's really viable at this point to say DA2 'failed', but:

ME2 was the sequel to an RPG/Shooter hybrid and, while some things were streamlined and some mechanics were changed, overall it wasn't out of line with the original in the series. Look at the differences between DA:O and DA2. One of the easiest things to point to is the fact that DA2 is way more similar to ME2 than it is to DA:O.

Speaking only for myself, the RP mechanics of ME1 were unfamiliar and cumbersome.  I'm not used to dealing with issues like heat sink on my weapons or ammo packs, so it took some time figuring out how to upgrade my weapon properly.  An investment I was willing to make, however, equally willing to jettison.  Likewise, the inventory system was awful.  Since I typically opened and picked up everything, each item pretty much looked alike, so I was scrolling forever to try and find a particular piece of equipment.  This was compounded when I would sell the stuff to the one available merchant on the Normandy.  His stock became unbearable by the end of the game (thanks to my OCD/RPG heritage I received the "Rich" achievement very early on).  Travelling on planets was a great idea and I enjoyed the potential of what could be done with that, but the Mako was not cooperating, nor was there anything too exciting to find on these planets.  For these reasons, and what the moderator pointed out, I understood when the series reverted to its core shooter aspects.

Another main difference though was the story for me.  In ME2 it was executed well.  Martin Sheen as the "illusive man" was a great bonus and I enjoyed being his unwilling pawn.  Actually enjoyed it enough to do something I rarely do, replay the game.  So now I have a paragon and renegade Shepard and I'm looking forward to seeing how that will play out.  Also, I loved the humor in ME2.

Modifié par Otterwarden, 26 mars 2011 - 10:44 .