212 réponses à ce sujet

[Icinix]

Mass Effect 2 had choice, consequence and carry over decisions.

DA2 had a few different ways to say something different for the same outcome.

[harzamir]

When I bought ME2 I knew I was getting a faster paced action-rpg. When I bought DA2 I thought I was getting an epic rpg, and instead I got another action-rpg. While I think DA2 is a good enough game, it should have been named something else.

[ExiledMimic]

Sentox6 wrote...

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

Actually it does.  Poor reception kills the brand.  Damaging future sales and limiting long-term profit.  I doubt that's happened here, but the damage done is enough to create a little worry for future projects.  This bleeds over to ME, TOR and any new products developed.  The term "the customer is always right" isn't about short term profit.  It's about repeated sales from the customer and possitive word of mouth marketing which you cannot buy.  And it's not just forumites, as you stated.  Player reviews all over the place are sub 5/10.  Even if critics love it, tons of players dont and that damages the brand.

[Catalyst38]

I love both games no idea what peoples problems are... Da2 didn't really fail people just center there lifes around this stuff and forget that games are entertainment. The game was fun interesting and had a bunch of cool extras. As I have said before people would have only been happy with a dragon age clone with better graphics. They wanted the same type of story with similar party members and ext ext.

[Warheadz]

Bluumberry wrote...

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?

Words can't describe how I feel about his post.

[Deztyn]

Mass Effect 2 was marketed as a game where you build a team to take on the collectors in a suicide mission, and decisions made could mean the death of your team and your Shepard. Strangely enough, that was what the game was actually about.

It retained much of what appealed about the first game. Improved on many of it's flaws. The combat system was engaging and genuinely fun to play. Vanguards. It brought back fan favorite characters and kept them in character while allowing them to evolve in natural (and awesome) ways. Introduced a lot of new characters who had strong personalities and goals and not just one opinion or character trait that gets harped on endlessly. There were no 'false choices', when the game forced you down a path it did so in a way that didn't make you feel like it was screaming at you that you were playing it wrong and to shut up and play it the way Bioware intended. You had direction, at no point did you wonder why Shepard was involved in X or Y quest, it was either directly tied to the mission or optional and a lot of times both. The game was finished, I can't remember coming across a single bug on my first playthrough other than Conrad (and it was an ME1 issue) and I had it first day.

That said the game wasn't perfect either. There were a lot of complaints from people who thought the story wasn't as good as the first. Or that this or that class got gimped on Insanity. There was Horizon. The Prize. Liara. "Dear God Miranda stop jumping on top of that crate and stay in cover!" New Game+. And a lot of people who thought there was no way any version of Shepard should be allying with Cerberus.

[Catalyst38]

Yet peopls comapair games like da2 to RPGs like oblivion where none of your choices matter in the least to anyone or the lack of care I felt for my charictor and everyone I met in new vages. Also if 50 dollars is that much of a problem for you to come up that you need to rant I Hate this game and stop your feet. If I was unhappy with a game for example gothic 4 I would(and have) stopped buyin Jowood games. I believe the ultimate way to tell a company your unhappy is to just not buy there product.

Complaining and ranting won't change biowares minds, the best thing you can do is give them the points on what you didn't like about this game( as a adult and not rant like child) and mail/email or maybe even post it then just don't buy dlc at all or there games anymore.

[AkiKishi]

Icinix wrote...

Mass Effect 2 had choice, consequence and carry over decisions.

DA2 had a few different ways to say something different for the same outcome.

This.

Plus I enjoyed ME2's combat. When combat is a big part of the game, enjoying it or not will go a long way to determine overall feelings.

[Alex Kershaw]

I think the question isn't why DA2 failed, but why on Earth you are comparing such a mediocre game as DA2 to a genius game like ME2.

[Finnigan McBonk]

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?

Excellent question. And one I asked myself last week as I finished ME2... with a shrug. In my opinion, that game was highly over-rated. Highly. Over-rated.

Unfortunately, DA2 isn't looking much better 18 hours in.

[Finnigan McBonk]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

I think the question isn't why DA2 failed, but why on Earth you are comparing such a mediocre game as DA2 to a genius game like ME2.

"Genius?"  /giggles

[Clown No.9]

I feel DA team learned the bad thing from ME team. ME2 streamlined tons of things from ME1, but thats not why ME2 was success. Tons of fans cried already about not being able to change companions armor, not having much Citadel to explore, having less skills etc. I believe dev response was that ME3 will have more rpg features.

However ME2 did great job expanding and exploring their own universe, focusing on aliens and their unique viewpoints (because aliens are more interesting than humans, right?) and spending tons of cash and effort on companions to make them carry the game.

Now DA2 went even further with streamlining, to the point where it changed game's genre. At the same time, they didnt explore DAO universe at all. You learned nothing new about elves, all about dwarves was one short dungeon, darkspawn were scene decoration, mysterious Fade reduced to 10min long sidequest.. whole game was completely human-centric (as opposed to ME series), working with things you've seen million times on TV or in games – medieval city life, focus on petty squabbles of local townsfolk, myriad kill X/ fetch Y quests, very little fantasy environment, main hero's only motivation being cash/fame etc. Thus, it was boring. The reuse of everything and companions being battle-drones with one conversation per 6h of gameplay were just finishing touch.

So yeah, DAO fans cry because 'traditional' rpg became action slasher, and action games fans frown because DA2 isnt even good hack'n'slay game. Now the really scary part is devs claiming that DA2 is all they hoped to be and future Dragon age games should be more of DA2. That will only damage Bioware's name more.

[NotFrom4chan]

Are you implying that DA2 failed because it is so openly homosexual?

[Jean de Valette]

Clown No.9 wrote...

So yeah, DAO fans cry because 'traditional' rpg became action slasher, and action games fans frown because DA2 isnt even good hack'n'slay game. Now the really scary part is devs claiming that DA2 is all they hoped to be and future Dragon age games should be more of DA2. That will only damage Bioware's name more.

Apart from that they apparently don't care what "pc-gaming elitist" consumers (who remembers playing a decent Bioware cRPG game like BG) want, they of course have to say DA2 is all they hoped for. The game is only just released and they still need to make money. If they go about telling the truth (rushed game for juvenile console gamers, "streamlined" for the "awesome", which means its nothing more then a quick cash-in) then I don't think that would positively effect sales.

ME2 worked because the ME games were never intended to be western high-fantasy strategy cRPG games. They were always meant to be action adventure third person shooters centered on a super-hero single-handedly saving the universe.
That we occaisionally got to talk with the squaddies was an added bonus that added atmosphere between following the main plot where gradually the grand plan of the Reapers was unfolded. And the best character of the game, TIM, was just gravy.

If you look at what ME2 tried to be, it's a succes. Yes more and deeper skills would've been nice, as would be more customization of your squaddies. But overall the system is a succes from a third-person shooter point of view.

DA2 was never going to please the original fanbase, and I think that Bioware/EA never intended to do anything like that. As said, partly because they don't care, partly because of the El Dorado image that EA marketing somehow came up with, of a vast prestine market in the consoles just waiting to be reaped. A market which isn't decerning and where you can unload your cheaply made, short button mashing games to an audience of unsuspecting drooling 15-years-olds with memories of house cats.

I really doubt that what EA thinks of the console market is true. Hopefully those who want decent length considerate indepth quality games will one day be rewarded for their perseverence. I just doubt Bioware will be the one who will deliver that. Judging from Crysis 2, EA has definitely said goodbye to the PC platform. Only time will tell if they're right.

Modifié par Jean de Valette, 27 mars 2011 - 03:04 .

[Fran-kiki]

Sentox6 wrote...

1000questions wrote...
You are beating around bush.Even in real life people have aims, goals of life anyways just move on.

I'm not beating around the bush. You essentially said you can't combine a more 'realistic' plot with a fantasy setting. That's a great idea if complete genre stagnation is the goal, but otherwise it's quite retarded. I like the change in narrative structure, and I like the fantasy setting. I refuse to accept that because I like the former, I should be playing GTA.

No the rediculous part is the execution of the agenda. I am sure it doesnt sound rediculous to you that how unlikely was the execution of the agenda if we take into the account of this companion's character in awakening and his role in DA2 before Act3.

I mean come on it is perfectly rational that a person who believes EXTREMELY in justice, who is a HEALER and helps poors will decide to blow up a building killing innocents... yeah thats perfectly sane.<_<

Right, because people never change. Their beliefs never become more extreme. Certainly someone possessed by a spirit of Justice and Vengeance would be perfectly stable.

This companion obviously perceives the Chantry to be an institution devoted to systematically oppressing, and perhaps even desiring the eventual eradication of, mages. And your argument is that because he shows compassion to individuals, he wouldn't sacrifice innocents to upset this status quo? You're going to have to convince me more than that.

I'm not saying it isn't shocking, but it's a long way from ridiculous.

Why would anyone want to play a game based on real-life? Isn't that the point of playing  a game to devoid yourself from doing the mundane things of life and essentially playing a person who purpose in life is far more fantastical than your own? Or is that just me?

[Jitter]

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.

From a moderator... 
Wow i think Bioware just gained respect from ME

Thank you for not blowing sunshine up my butt. 
You are right. 

 

[b00mQQ]

Ixalmaris wrote...

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.

They could do anything to Mass Effect 2 and people would still say it's amazing. I can't even count on my fingers and toes the elements that were stripped down in Mass Effect 2. To this date, I still despise Mass Effect 2 due to everything that was stripped down.

Is it a good game? Of course, but it's no where near the improvement critics try to make it out to be.

I just can't fathom how Mass Effect 2 is praised upon and Dragon Age 2 is frowned upon eventhough Mass Effect 2 was stripped down way more than Dragon Age 2.

So, people say Dragon Age 2 was streamlined for consoles? The same could be said about Mass Effect 2. They streamlined inventory, they got rid of loot pretty much all together -- weapons were turned into collectables found throughout the game. They got rid of being able to change up your companions gear. They got rid of grenades. They simplified squad management to make it more console friendly. They got rid of an epic story and turned it into a mindless chase going around collecting companions then going on an epic mission that really turned out to be not that epic.

There are TONS more things that were stripped down, but I *really* don't need to mention them at this point. So why is it that Dragon Age 2 is so frowned upon while Mass Effect 2 is still proclaimed one of the best BioWare games ever made?

[b00mQQ]

Clown No.9 wrote...


I feel DA team learned the bad thing from ME team. ME2 streamlined tons of things from ME1, but thats not why ME2 was success. Tons of fans cried already about not being able to change companions armor, not having much Citadel to explore, having less skills etc. I believe dev response was that ME3 will have more rpg features.

However ME2 did great job expanding and exploring their own universe, focusing on aliens and their unique viewpoints (because aliens are more interesting than humans, right?) and spending tons of cash and effort on companions to make them carry the game.

Now DA2 went even further with streamlining, to the point where it changed game's genre. At the same time, they didnt explore DAO universe at all. You learned nothing new about elves, all about dwarves was one short dungeon, darkspawn were scene decoration, mysterious Fade reduced to 10min long sidequest.. whole game was completely human-centric (as opposed to ME series), working with things you've seen million times on TV or in games – medieval city life, focus on petty squabbles of local townsfolk, myriad kill X/ fetch Y quests, very little fantasy environment, main hero's only motivation being cash/fame etc. Thus, it was boring. The reuse of everything and companions being battle-drones with one conversation per 6h of gameplay were just finishing touch.

So yeah, DAO fans cry because 'traditional' rpg became action slasher, and action games fans frown because DA2 isnt even good hack'n'slay game. Now the really scary part is devs claiming that DA2 is all they hoped to be and future Dragon age games should be more of DA2. That will only damage Bioware's name more.

I found rising to the top of Kirkwall and becoming the Champion a hell of a lot more engaging than going around on a wild goose chase trying to find companion members to go on a quest that was at best, mediocre. I was expecting this so called "Suicide Mission" to be hours long, that was extremely grewsome with some amazingly tough boss fights, only to find out it was like any other basic mission in the game with an ending boss that was everything but impressive that left me thinking, "I spent 30 hours to get here for THAT?"

Y'know, I try to play Mass Effect 2 here and there because the combat is fun, but I don't have it in me to play it especially when I think of the dosens of features that were dumbed down. Yes. dosens.

At least I can play Dragon Age 2 and only think about a couple things that were dumbed down that affect the game as a whole.

And if people consider combat stripped down, welcome to the new age of RPG's. The days of turn based RPG"s are long gone.

[Haru Totetsu]

I think we might all be looking at the the wrong way. maybe if we look at the Dragon Age series as a whole it'll make be a better series for us.

I mean you can't deny that the ending of Dragon Age 2 hasn't kept us interested...right?

[Montana]

Marionetten wrote...

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.

This

[Mantaal]

The difference is:

If i go to my favorite Game Shop and ask the Vendor i trust for a good Shooter with RPG elements he says "We got Mass Effect 2 here its very cool"

If i ask him for an Epic RPG with Dragons he says "Well you have to wait for Skyrim"

[abaris]

b00mQQ wrote...

There are TONS more things that were stripped down, but I *really* don't need to mention them at this point. So why is it that Dragon Age 2 is so frowned upon while Mass Effect 2 is still proclaimed one of the best BioWare games ever made?

In one word, different genre, different expactations.

I think, the mod replying on the first page summed it up best.

[Bluumberry]

Ashr4m wrote...

Bluumberry wrote...

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?

Because we are not consume-sheeps? If we have to give money to get a product we want the product that we were supposed to get.

So why do we compre DA1 to DA2? 
Isnt it obvios EA and Bioware wanted to cash in DA1 fans while getting new gamers from the FPS croud while actually knowing that many people buying their product wont be pleased when they were thinking they would buy the successor of DA1.

Its not a problem of us consumers it's a problem in the gaming industry. Tricking more people into buying something by pretending that a new game is actually like an old game people liked is just fraud. If DA2 would have been called "DA: Hawks Adventure" or even got a nother name like "Dragon Effect" or "Dragon Slayer" no one would have been tricked here and no one would complain.

If you give a game the title of a sequel when you actually want to make a new game that shouldnt be compared to the old game calling it "old game 2" is obviously stupid ... (but thats exactly what they wanted, they wanted to cash in with the good name of DAO without caring what people actually wanted). Which would be called rip-off in most other industries not to mention false advertisment. Even if you say that they said that there would be more action it doesnt change the fact that the title "Dragon Age 2" was used to trick people that liked DA into buying it.

Just imagine Addidas selling its new soccer-shoe which turns out to be a ballet shoe when you open the box at home ...

People like you are the main problem of our society you obviously dont get that in the end consumers decide not the industry. Because of people like you companies can get away with almost anything. And i have to admit i dont understand how this got to be your point of view, since if you pay money for something you obviously can demand to get what you were supposed to get. Would you also say what you just said if someone sold you a broken car but said to you before "the car is a little different".

My point is that people are complaining not because the game is bad but because it's not Origins 2 and thus it is bad.

I buy a game, enjoy my fill of it, maybe offer my feedback on what needs improving and live my life. Others on the other hand complain like my 90 year old grandma about how things are changing and since it is not like it used to be, that it's bad.

Wether or not we enjoyed DA2 or not, the flaming is way over the top at the moment to be taken seriously.