212 réponses à ce sujet

[Giantdeathrobot]

 Mass Effect 2 was not obviously rushed, for one. It had actually good marketing, for once in an EA title. It also did away from the first game's awkward ''TPS but not too much because it's Bioware'' thing and made gameplay much more focused and fun, for me at least, by embracing the fact that it was primarily a shooter (and a damn good one at that).

DA2 took Origin's RPG-centric gameplay, sped it up 2X, inserted some ridiculous animations, and removed some tactical elements by ditching the isometric camera. I do not believe it makes it a button-masher (not on PC where there is auto-attack at any rate, the ommission also certainly hurt sales a lot), since the core system behind combat is even more solid than in Origins, but it's like an RPG trying too hard to look cool to fans of other genres, like Fallout 3 but with a bit less fail.

Bottom line; hybrid systems for the sake of hybrid systems rightfully turns people off. You should select a genre and stict with it, or else you will try to imitate too many different sources and crash yourself trying to please everyone. That's, in part, what happened to DA2.

[Vasparian]

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.

The difference here is that ME2 had good characters and story. DA2 IMO, had neither of these things.

[GGRush]

ME2 is high quality.
DA2? Even though I enjoyed it, between recycled maps, rushed ending, game breaking bugs and etc, I can't say it's high quality.

[Riloux]

Dragon Age is not a ****ing shooter.

[Statulos]

mrsph wrote...

Dragon Age and Mass Effect have two very different fanbases.

Not always; I like both universes.

The problem, I think, is that both are different narrative forms. Mass Effect was ment to be character-centered from the beggining. We are watching the story of Sheppard and all that is important to him and arround him.
In a sense it feels like The Witcher novels; they explore a character, Geralt, and his interactions with the world.

Dragon Age is an exploration of an environment and a world in its many facetes. It´s a polyphonic narrative where many stories are told together with the glue of a common time and place. To draw a comparison, it reminds me from the structure of Forgotten Realms.

The problem I see on both sagas is the fact that we had a very clear idea of what Mass Effect was going to be almost from the start in narrative terms. Sure, many got dissapointed by the content, but at least the general idea is clear.

Dragon Age started as an exploration, but the epic scale of events led many (myself included) that the stories would be "chained" one to another, perhaps in a more explicit way that it was done in DA 2. There we find a narrative method that somehow feels alien and to many people, not completely organic. Several drastic changes in aesthetics and gameplay, reinforced (at least to me) that alienation from the first installment whereas in Mass Effect 2 they felt more coherent.

Modifié par Statulos, 27 mars 2011 - 05:37 .

[Addai]

Well, whether ME2 > DA2 is going to be a matter of opinion, isn't it?

I would say that they are about on par, with DA2 a bit ahead simply because I like the lore a lot more. ME2 was very good at being a cinematic game. It was heart-pounding and had a lot of "moments." I wish that DA2 had aspired to be like Origins with just a few improvements rather than copying Mass Effect in so many respects and doing so without the polish that ME2 had. If it had stuck to more classical RPG roots, I think it would be a better game. That said, it's a lot of fun and has surprising twists and engaging characters, and was better than I expected it to be.

[Terror_K]

To be honest, I thought there really should have been more of a backlash to ME2, as I was incredibly disappointed in it for similar reasons to why I'm so disappointed in DA2. Both are examples of games overstreamlined and mainstreamed and dumbed down to appeal to a greater audience, while seemingly made more to bring in potential fans than for existing ones, etc. Sure, there was a bit of backlash from some with ME2, but not as much as with DA2. ME2 also suffered a bit of "Rule of Cool" and "Modern Hollywoodistion" as well, but not as much as DA2.

That said, I don't think ME2 fell as far away from the tree as DA2 did with origins. They also didn't completely reboot, retcon and redesign things visually (and thank God because Mass Effect is definitely something very much defined by its look!) and it was always an action-RPG from the star rather than starting off as a more hardcore, PC-lead RPG and becoming a console-driven action RPG like the transition from DAO to DA2. Casey Hudson being the project lead from the start and staying through ME2 probably helped this, while Dragon Age lost Dan Tudge and Brent Knowles late in DAO's development and early in DA2's respectively.

I still think ME2 is overrated as a game and there should have been more backlash, but it still isn't as much of a betrayal and deviation as DA2 was. Not by a longshot. Also, ME2 is kind of still a good game, but I just found it to be a weak sequel, especially given the trilogy nature of it. DA2 isn't really that good of a game, though had it not been Dragon Age (or at the very least not had the '2' slapped onto it) it wouldn't have been as bad either.

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 mars 2011 - 06:03 .

[ashwind]

DA2 is not ecxactly like ME2 but they do have some similarities. Many good and valid points has been made as to why ME2 is better received than DA2 (Not to say ME2 > DA2, just better received).

IMO - ME2 presented the game much better, paid attention to details and is very careful in presenting itself.

Lets look at one of the similar systems used by both ME2 and DA2:

Wave of enemies. In ME2, enemies actually come in waves like DA2. Why is there so much complain and resentment in DA2 while it is hardly an issue / (noticed) in ME2?

In ME2, waves do not appear out of thin air. The door opens, and more reinforcements arrive, the geth ship drops units into the field. So there is a sense of enemies reinforcing their position. While it works basically the same, ME2 has a better presentation and it made it look/feel seamless. DA2 did not pay enough attention to the details.

ME2 knows that you will be limited to visit very small section of the planets. For example, we are limited to the wards in the Citadel, Omega, Tuchanka, etc. While the levels are NOT that huge - they made sure that every one of them is very distinctive and hence creating the illusion of "travelling". In DA2, I sometimes cannot tell if I were in the Docks or Lowtown. 

After I played ME2 - I saw a review that reads "ME2 is absolutely awe inspiring - 10/10" and I agree with the awe inspiring part fully.

The pacing and presentation of the game made it - awesome (it has nothing to do with a button  pun intended)

Modifié par ashwind, 27 mars 2011 - 06:08 .

[DAO MAdhatter]

XX55XX wrote...

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

This isnt true in the least.  Infact most people actually like DA 2, & most the the reviewers have given it quite a high rating.
 

[DarthSliver]

Well unlike ME2, with DA2 we dont want them to waste their time on DLC. We would rather them just get started on DA3 and improve on the flaws of what DA2 had. Which i might say, despite having enjoyed DA2, is quite alot. I may be a fan of DA:O and its sequel but I am not blind to the flaws in DA2. So since i do see the flaws and they do displease me, I dont plan to waste money on the DLC of DA2.
But like said with ME2 we actually are looking forward to the DLC that the game has. You actually are really looking for to that kinda stuff with ME2. And that is the difference between DA2 and ME2, you want them to make DLC for the game because you really liked it.

[Darkchipper07]

People like watching movies

[DAO MAdhatter]

Darkchipper07 wrote...

People like watching movies

Yes, except DA 2 is not a movie, nore is MA 2, They can be quite challanging & rewarding combat wise if you actually turn the difficulty up from casual.

[Scnew]

For one, Mass Effect 2 actually got rid of the first game's habit of side quests that re-use identical environments over and over and over. Dragon Age 2, meanwhile, decided that even the main story quests should reuse the same environments.

[Gatt9]

XX55XX wrote...

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?

That's a very good question.

A better one is:  How is it that Starcraft 2,  Grand Turismo 5,  and Red Dead Redemption were beat out by a game that claimed to be an RPG,  didn't actually include any RPG mechanics,  had AI equivalent to the late 90's,  and poor writing get such critical acclaim? 

Says alot about our critics doesn't it?

Of course,  so does the ridiculously high reviews for DA2.

[spernus]

Scnew wrote...

For one, Mass Effect 2 actually got rid of the first game's habit of side quests that re-use identical environments over and over and over. Dragon Age 2, meanwhile, decided that even the main story quests should reuse the same environments.

It's easy, do like me and replay Mass effect 2 again and you will understand why.    Vastly superior production values and graphics, great art direction, responsive shooting and sniping, excellent setpieces, etc. Mainstream critics will always award plenty of points when you've got the production values (no relation to bribing) since they love that and it's been a classic signature of japanese games since the NES era (the best console games were also the most polished, starting with Nintendo).

Let's not forget another reason why Mass effect 2 scored big mainly with critics. The variety within most loyalty missions / sidequests, which Dragon age 2 doesn't have. The fatal flaw was using the most hated feature of the first Mass effect which were the recycled bunkers and derelict spaceships ( my last ME game was a total pain, as the repetitiveness of the uncharted worlds almost drove me insane ) .

[DAO MAdhatter]

Gatt9 wrote...

XX55XX wrote...

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?

That's a very good question.

A better one is:  How is it that Starcraft 2,  Grand Turismo 5,  and Red Dead Redemption were beat out by a game that claimed to be an RPG,  didn't actually include any RPG mechanics,  had AI equivalent to the late 90's,  and poor writing get such critical acclaim? 

Says alot about our critics doesn't it?

Of course,  so does the ridiculously high reviews for DA2.

Im hoping your not talking about DA 2.

If your not, THan what game are you talking about?

[spernus]

Gatt9 wrote...

XX55XX wrote...

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?

That's a very good question.

A better one is:  How is it that Starcraft 2,  Grand Turismo 5,  and Red Dead Redemption were beat out by a game that claimed to be an RPG,  didn't actually include any RPG mechanics,  had AI equivalent to the late 90's,  and poor writing get such critical acclaim? 

Says alot about our critics doesn't it?

Of course,  so does the ridiculously high reviews for DA2.

You should easily know the answer to that question. Most critics are nowhere close to being crpg fans or even care about them. 90%+ of them never played the first Fallout or Planescape: torment and they probably have no intention of doing so. These are the same critics heralding the least inspired, slow and restrictive game in the Street fighter franchise which is IV as a near masterpiece of a FG. Critics are clueless toward rpgs and fighting games outside of noticing the level of polish and basic gameplay quality.

[DAO MAdhatter]

spernus wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

XX55XX wrote...

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?

That's a very good question.

A better one is:  How is it that Starcraft 2,  Grand Turismo 5,  and Red Dead Redemption were beat out by a game that claimed to be an RPG,  didn't actually include any RPG mechanics,  had AI equivalent to the late 90's,  and poor writing get such critical acclaim? 

Says alot about our critics doesn't it?

Of course,  so does the ridiculously high reviews for DA2.

You should easily know the answer to that question. Most critics are nowhere close to being crpg fans or even care about them. 90%+ of them never played the first Fallout or Planescape: torment and they probably have no intention of doing so. These are the same critics heralding the least inspired, slow and restrictive game in the Street fighter franchise which is IV as a near masterpiece of a FG. Critics are clueless toward rpgs and fighting games outside of noticing the level of polish and basic gameplay quality.

That is a very bisaed view. As not everyone plays rpgs from 10, 15, 20 years ago or even care to but are still huge rpg fans... Like myself.

[Artoz96]

[quote]DAO MAdhatter wrote...

[/quote]

That is a very bisaed view. As not everyone plays rpgs from 10, 15, 20 years ago or even care to but are still huge rpg fans... Like myself.[/quote]


RPG fan cant like DA2 because DA2 is not an RPG. It have only some elements of rpg, better to say it is hack&slash game with sometimes interesting quests (few) and elements of customisation. But also, armor requirments makes atributes almost useless.

[Sinvx]

1000questions wrote...

I would like to state that I never fully played ME1, never bought it though had plans ( or still have to be honest and will buy now ).
I rented ME2 game on the recommendation of my friend. My friend suggested me that " ME2 IS A SHOOTER GAME WITH RPG ELEMENTS.IT IS SCIENCE FICTION AND IS A VISUAL TREAT". This set my expectations right. The dialogue were good, I could talk and know about my companions whenever I wanted. Agreed that they wont talk much till a trigger or flag has been set. The characters were good and variety. As someone said rightly the quests and side-quests slowly and steadily help you develop a team and prepare for an assault on REAPER's base. Cerberus was providing you intel on recruitments. So you knew since the begining what you were going to do and what to expect. Some characters you recruited yourself as old companions. I am not sure but anyone who is fan of ME series said that ME2 has better graphics but a bit less of RPG elements,never the less ME2 was never out of its place or track of ME series . So when ME2 game out with better graphics and all people who were looking forward for sequel got what they were expecting and hence it rose to popularity. ME1 made a fan base on which ME2 capitalized or should I say profited.

Now lets look at DA2, I bought DA:O as RPG game, I will not say it was Perfect 10 but definitely 9 and above on scale of 10 among latest RPG games.Characters, communication system etc everything was good, even bought dlc though they were full of bugs everytime they got released.
DA:Origins created a fan base among fantasy base RPG players. It had the characters, it had love stories in it. It had some portion of sex but I found it interesting not blunt on face , artistic would be right word.It was about a hero who rose to occassion, gathered allies,armies,companions and defeated a threat to his nation and the world. It was hit a hug success.
In DA2 they threw alot of things which worked for DA:Origins. Instead DA2 gave a different feel which was not in line of DA series or world. There are tons of things which went wrong in DA2. It did not even carried the story of the warden.

HONESTLY - I dont see DA2 as sequel to DA:Origins . If EA had released this game as separate title it would be considered good but you attach this game with DA:Origins and it takes sound beating.

They already said when they made DA:O, that the Dragon Age franchise will be about Thedas, and not about the Warden, or the Darkspawn. So of course it's not going to stay in line with it's prequel. It's a sequel in a sense that it continues with what's going on around Thedas. The Dragon Age series will not stick to one place or one series, or one threat/plot.

[DAO MAdhatter]

[quote]Artoz96 wrote...

[quote]DAO MAdhatter wrote...

[/quote]

That is a very bisaed view. As not everyone plays rpgs from 10, 15, 20 years ago or even care to but are still huge rpg fans... Like myself.[/quote]


RPG fan cant like DA2 because DA2 is not an RPG. It have only some elements of rpg, better to say it is hack&slash game with sometimes interesting quests (few) and elements of customisation. But also, armor requirments makes atributes almost useless.

[/quote]

Its not a hack & slash, Try hacking & slashing on Nightmare difficulty & see how far you get with out the rpg elements. I see little comparison with DA2 being compred to games like God of War.

[scpulley]

It's pretty simple, ME is a PLANNED series, that means they worked the story that way, they knew where they were taking the story. They could play with the gameplay all they wanted, they already knew what they wanted to do for the most important aspect the story. DA, in contrast, was NOT a planned series with a concrete story. It was just a setting, so when they tried to do the same changes to gameplay, that cut out time they should have focused working the story into the actual game because they had to do both activities, not just 1. So, story lost out for more time going into gameplay. This is what happens why you don't have clear direction to work as a base from and just want to be 'innovative'. It's also a case of how Bioware has interviewed since release, telling your customers 'we know what's best for your money' or 'you are just being closed minded to the greatness of our glorious innovation' doesn't endear customers to your side. Show, don't tell your changes.

[CRISIS1717]

Because the first Mass Effect had a stronger connection to action rpgs and Dragon Age Origins didn't.

/endtopic

[Bluumberry]

Why does everything have to be set a to specific standard or compared to something else?

Why can't you all just play a game - enjoy it or not - and shut up?