454 réponses à ce sujet

[Horus Blackheart]

well put TheKnave69 It killed any joy in trying to have a tactcal aprouch I found it far easer just to run about clicking madly screaming arghhhhhhhhh. Thats just not tactcal or engaging or i dare say the point of the changes but the fact remains.

[nicethugbert]

Cybermortis wrote...

Ganondorf2002 wrote...

There is one thing I do not understand about the criticism for DA2 and that is why people are upset that the game ended on a cliffhanger. There has been no set in stone ending for DAO or DAA either. Plus this is not really a sequel just part 2. The DA games are like playing a book in books you read about events that are both open ended and closed, very similar to the game. Personally I do think DA2 needs improvment but I was glad to see it not be a DA:O2 which would have been worse. I'm guessing that there will be an expansion(s) and dlc that will take place after the main game which may further the story line. Also it seems that people are to worried about instant gratification when it comes to playing the DA games and not appreciating the fact that the games are based on various events happening in the Age of Dragons in the world of Thedas.

I think the point about the games ending is that we should not be required to buy DLC to get it. Imagine DAO if after the archdemon is killed you are automatically taken back to the party camp and asked to buy a DLC to get the corronation scene. Or if you just had to talk to Arl Eamon and pick 'Support Alistair' or 'Support Anoura' instead of doing the Landsmeet itself...unless you bought a DLC that added that part of the game in.

DLC should add to a game certainly. But it should not feel like you HAVE to get it to get the game you paid for - which so far the feeling DA2 gives...and indeed seems to be telling you when you finish it. I feel like I've bought a novel and discovered the last 1/3rd of the book has been removed and if I want to read the ending I have to pay for the missing chapters.

Even Dan Brown books don't give me that feeling, which is REALLY saying something.

Even the ME2 and DAO DLC don't give you the feeling that you have somehow missed something if you don't get them - which in the case of ME2 is rather ironic since two of them are fairly important for the series.

I'm also not interested in 'instant gratification', I want to feel as if my choices have an impact on the world around me even if that impact is only on the local level. I want to feel that events would not have turned out the exact same way if that flaming ogue had killed Hawke rather than one of my siblings. I want to sit back and revel in a world that feels real within itself, that has its own history and logic too it.

What I get instead is a world in which not only do things end up exactly the same regardless of what I've done, but also has people handing me quests I just turned down. The history is...well so transparant as to be invisible and often lifted directly from DAO for codex entries on the few occasions I get them. The world doesn't change, doesn't feel real and abandons its own logic five seconds after noting something - the case in point being when you point out to Varric that if you had the gold needed in act one you wouldn't need to go into the deep roads. We even get 'Teleportation is not possible using magic', only to find every second mage in the game can...errm...teleport.

In DA:O you don't get to side with the Archdemon and The Warden disappears anyway.  So the world ends exactly the same no matter what you do.  And the world has to end exactly the same no matter what you do if there is to be a series written by someone other than you that you only get to play through.  You only get to change the less important details.  You don't get to change the world because it's not yours.

[Horus Blackheart]

nicethugbert pardon me but I think you are missing somthing fundamental here: in games/ rpgs set events must happen thats usal, but you have a freedom to map out how you get there. If somthing happens thats imperitive for the story its typcaly explaned better than 'we wanted to be dark and edgy and stuff' and in that intent da2 droped the ball. Insted of dark and edgy I was left going WTF blah alot of the time.

[TJSolo]

nicethugbert wrote...


In DA:O you don't get to side with the Archdemon and The Warden disappears anyway.  So the world ends exactly the same no matter what you do.  And the world has to end exactly the same no matter what you do if there is to be a series written by someone other than you that you only get to play through.  You only get to change the less important details.  You don't get to change the world because it's not yours.

Talk about oversimplification and demoting various key decisions as "less important details."
My Warden living or dying is an important detail to me at least.

[nicethugbert]

TheKnave69 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...
Contact a military person and tell them that battle is less tactical because of waves of enemies, especially the ones that get behind your pretty little lines and chokepoints.  Video tape the look on his/her face as you say that and post it on youtube.  I want to laugh and rec it up.

Waves of enemies, especially them tricky little bastards that get around your well laid plans, means that you have to reposition.  In other words, you most definitely have to position, a lot, many times, not less positioning, but more.  In other words not less tactics, but more tactics.  Not less, but MOAR, lots MOAR.  DA2 is MOAR tactical than the rest of the entire genre combined, including the Oh Most Holy BG.

I'm an ex-military guy, and strategy and tactics don't work exactly the way you're describing it.  When we plan battlefield tactics, we generally consider things like interlocking fields of fire, using cover to advantage, avenues of approach and choke points, both natural (defilades, narrow approach, etc.) and manufactured (blockades, mine fields, etc.).

Generally, there is some advanced warning of enemy approach, both initial and reserve.  They don't materialize "inside the wire," as it were, during the middle of combat.

Constant repositioning, unless you're on the offense, is a sign of poor tactical planning and execution.  Look at it this way:  If I am constantly shifting my heavy weapons or fire support, I'm busy moving and not engaging the enemy.  I'm not exploiting weaknesses in the enemy's attack and counter attacking.  Again, if my heavy support units are constantly reacting to unanticipated events there are two problems:  I am receiving poor intelligence and I am going to have unacceptable and/or unnecessary losses, both of which are "NO-GO."

On another note:  This is a GAME.  For ENTERTAINMENT.  To compare it with the tragedy of real combat with real people is at the least ignorant, and offensive.  If you don't know what you're talking about, the best advice I can tell you is don't speak.

As an ex-military guy you wouldn't be ignorant to that fact that RPG combat is more like gang "warfare" than war.  As such, things like interlocking fields of fire, using cover to advantage, avenues of approach and choke points, both natural (defilades, narrow approach, etc.) and manufactured (blockades, mine fields, etc.), are irrellevant without the mechanics for it, which these games don't have.  So, for the claim that such games are not tactical to be valid you would have to define tactics in the context of the missing mechanics you mentioned.  In which case the DA2 haters would be correct in stating that DA2 is not tactical and at least ignorant for saying any other game in the genre is or for expecting it to be.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 02 avril 2011 - 03:00 .

[Horus Blackheart]

Wow I've been playing pen and paper crpgs for atleast 15 years. I have a good feel for what is tactcal with in those boundres and i'm sorry to say that waves out of thin air will never be considered a tactcal challange. Its a chalange sure al be it a weak one

[nicethugbert]

Horus Blackheart wrote...

No I got his point I just dont find telaporting waves engaging, chalaging or entertaining its lazy design simple as that.

Bull****!

They could have popped out of the nearest house behind you or rounded the nearest corner behind you.  The aesthetics would have been differnet but the gameplay would have been the same.  The Devs could have made made the enemies more varied and given them more powers and still done multiple waves.  Therefore, there is nothing inherently lazy about multiple waves.  But someone on the internet said lazy so we all say it now because bandwagons are fun. Weeeeeeeeee....................

[DTKT]

Here's the thing with wave base combat. The idea behind the waves is to throw as much filler mobs as possible. They die in one hit.

The second part of it is that the movement across the battlefield is totally unrestricted. There's no "physicality"

They could have popped out of the nearest house behind you or rounded the nearest corner behind you.  The aesthetics would have been differnet but the gameplay would have been the same.  The Devs could have made made the enemies more varied and given them more powers and still done multiple waves.  Therefore, there is nothing inherently lazy about multiple waves.  But someone on the internet said lazy so we all say it now because bandwagons are fun. 

Or they could have crafted for engaging combat scenarios instead of throwing filler at you.

Modifié par DTKT, 02 avril 2011 - 03:12 .

[AndreaDraco]

errant_knight wrote...

About the only think I have any real disagreement with was his (to me) overly harsh take on the voice acting for Aveline. I also think he missed some glaring problems, such as the lack of companion customization.

While I found his analysis really interesting, and even sharable, I disagree with his opinion about the story: he's right about Act 1, but Act 2 and Act 3 both had a clear goal and a distinct sense of direction. However, like you said, the thing I disagree the most with him is Aveline. I think the VA did a great job with her, from the very beginning with that "They will not have you"... Before the release I never thought I'd like Aveline so much and yet the prologue alone was enough to radically change my opinion. So much that her, Anders and Varric were my companions from the beginning to the very end (except for some brotherly bickering in Act 1:P)

[Horus Blackheart]

nicethugbert I think you are missing my point delibratly because you feel entitled and because some dont share your views all power to you but please don't railroad what was up to now a decent conversation.

thanks

edited for clarity

Modifié par Horus Blackheart, 02 avril 2011 - 03:14 .

[nicethugbert]

Horus Blackheart wrote...

Even with in a fraimed naritive the progagonist had a freedom to act. all that happens is the deeds are being recounted later thats great. whare DA2 strips away any sense of engagement Is it seems to forget that during a timefraime you are ment to have influnce and shape events telling the why of how the events went down. Being lead by the nose is counter intuitiive to what was intended i think.

For all hawkes implyed influnce he rarly has any chance to express his will or shape much of anything. the end game is proof of this.
champ pick my side
um i dont want to pick a side your all nuts

I DEMAND you pick a side and it better be mine
uhhh ok then
(dam it)

thats the fundamental flaw with the naritive implamentation as i see it.

Bull****!

You have all the freedom to act in DA2 that you have in any other game.  You have lots of quests you can ignore, some you can't, same as any other game.  You can choose dialog lines.  You can choose friendship and rivalry if you pay attention to what makes people happy or angry, if you pay attention.  In DA:O, you have to fight the boss too or you just don't play the game.  You simply don't like the story and the choices you were given.  There is no need to say you have no choice when you do.  Not liking your choices and not having choices are not the same thing.  Flemet, Saarebas, and Ketojan have something to say about that.

[JBurke]

Very accurate analysis and one of the reasons I have decided to treat BioWare like the rest of EA and not purchase until I see some gamer reviews. Pre-order bonuses can go to hell, if I lose them I lose them. I fully regret not waiting until the 25% off on Steam deal that is inevitable.

In comparison to which game pulled me in more:
Dragon Age: Origins = Unknown hours, but likely 200 or even more!
Dragon Age II = Exactly 49 hours and not budging since I can't pull myself to play this again (2 playthroughs) since, similar to the article stated, I feel completely left out of the story compared to Origins or even Mass Effect since the only thing that can change at the end is who I picked to romance.

Modifié par JBurke, 02 avril 2011 - 03:17 .

[errant_knight]

AndreaDraco wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

About the only think I have any real disagreement with was his (to me) overly harsh take on the voice acting for Aveline. I also think he missed some glaring problems, such as the lack of companion customization.

While I found his analysis really interesting, and even sharable, I disagree with his opinion about the story: he's right about Act 1, but Act 2 and Act 3 both had a clear goal and a distinct sense of direction. However, like you said, the thing I disagree the most with him is Aveline. I think the VA did a great job with her, from the very beginning with that "They will not have you"... Before the release I never thought I'd like Aveline so much and yet the prologue alone was enough to radically change my opinion. So much that her, Anders and Varric were my companions from the beginning to the very end (except for some brotherly bickering in Act 1:P)

While I thought the story in act two was excellent, I did find the story as a whole undermined by the loss of momentum that he mentions (although in different words.) Any sense of building tension was lost, for me. But I found act three as waffley (oops, not a word ) as act one. While there was a vague sort of goal to keep things from getting out of hand, it was a bit like treading water without actually swimming anywhere.

[nicethugbert]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

randallman wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

The lead designer said the article was well written, he didn't say it was a good article.  Keep in mind The Lead Designer makes fantasy games for a living.

Not for long if they keep turning out like DA2 did...

--Randall

There are easier to please customers and DA2 is a step up for many people considering what they normally play.  Snap on that.

The thing is they've alienated both.

You're exagerating.  Lots of people enjoy this game.  They may see room to improve it.  But, they are not lying about it the way the DA2 haters are.

[DTKT]

nicethugbert wrote...

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

randallman wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

The lead designer said the article was well written, he didn't say it was a good article.  Keep in mind The Lead Designer makes fantasy games for a living.

Not for long if they keep turning out like DA2 did...

--Randall

There are easier to please customers and DA2 is a step up for many people considering what they normally play.  Snap on that.

The thing is they've alienated both.

You're exagerating.  Lots of people enjoy this game.  They may see room to improve it.  But, they are not lying about it the way the DA2 haters are.

I dont think anyone is blindly hating here. Everyone seems pretty level headed and willing to explain their opinion.

[nicethugbert]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

It's pointless to start the story at Lothering.

I disagree. Starting at Lothering even in your family house and just the backyard (where you start fleeing from) could have allowed you some connection to your family and allowed a great chance to interact with your mother and discuss Kirkwall and dad and mages and templars etc.

They also should have followed this with having the PC choose which of Bethany or Carver gets fed to the Ogre and which one lives. These two changes would have had a massive impact on the family plot lines of the game and I think not taken a huge amount of developer time. But since they re-used every darn cave/house/warehouse maybe that is asking way too much to develop a house in Lothering with a backyard and a small quest to go spider hunting before the panic sets in.

Um, it's family.  What's this about not being connected?  Are you telling me that being homeless with your family, with your mom, and hunted down by dark spawn, mom being hunted down by dark spawn, mom, the old lady stumbling, falling behind, getting tired as dark spawn try to kill her, was not captivating enough for you?  And you want to choose which one of your siblings you feed to the orge?  WTF is wrong with you???????????????

You do get to choose which siblings die by choosing your role. Taking them into the Deep Road without a Grey Warden is also a way you can affect the outcome. Seriously, I felt no connection to the family. It's a filler, like Fable. Maybe if we were given a chance to develop a relationship with them we would have cared. Nope, by the time the first sibling is offed you had all of 2 minutes of face time with them and it only goes down hill from there. People feel starting in Lothering would have helped you build a repertoire with them before the darkspawn came.

You are meta-gaming!  That is a cardianl RPG sin!

The game you are decribing is not DA2.  What you want is a different game. 

[nicethugbert]

TheKnave69 wrote...
Okay, I'll get off my soap box now.  Let's talk game.

I wasn't fond of the waves.  There was little thought involved, for me, to the combat.  Once I got rid of the first wave, the second wave dropped right on my mages (it seemed almost every time), making my melee fighters run clear across the screen to pull agro.  This made it more of a:
CLICK
run
run
"Aw crap my mage went down"
run
run
CLICK
att--
"WTF, where'd the assassin go? Never mind, he hosed my other mage."      
Forehead, meet keyboard.  Keyboard, meet forehead.

Pause monkey always wins in every game with pause, every single one.  Pause, move camera around, click, unpause, pause, move camera around, click, unpause, .... rinse and repeat.

[nicethugbert]

Horus Blackheart wrote...

nicethugbert pardon me but I think you are missing somthing fundamental here: in games/ rpgs set events must happen thats usal, but you have a freedom to map out how you get there. If somthing happens thats imperitive for the story its typcaly explaned better than 'we wanted to be dark and edgy and stuff' and in that intent da2 droped the ball. Insted of dark and edgy I was left going WTF blah alot of the time.

**** happens. Stab. Stab. Stab ...

That's the way I roll.

[Horus Blackheart]

its not bs its freedom on raills (thinly vailed rails in this case. so i'm going to try again to explane what I mean.

Endgame: during the game I was nutral I did not support party member A in everything result: views ignored forced to pick sides on very shaky logic just cause to do otherwise would brake the story. no matter that you do companion A always goes nuts and blows crap up. my point is not that the event happens but rather its always the same person setting it off irespective of my actions. you fight the same people urespective if the side you pick with a diffrent line or 2 its not even that the outcomes are the same its more that the motovations are the exact same. one side is bad!!
wow
imho both sides are nuts
and there was no way to express that.
in short I want a forget the lot of you i'm carvng my own path. the event can still play out the story ends as it should but my intent mattered. Thats what was missing.

[nicethugbert]

TJSolo wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...


In DA:O you don't get to side with the Archdemon and The Warden disappears anyway.  So the world ends exactly the same no matter what you do.  And the world has to end exactly the same no matter what you do if there is to be a series written by someone other than you that you only get to play through.  You only get to change the less important details.  You don't get to change the world because it's not yours.

Talk about oversimplification and demoting various key decisions as "less important details."
My Warden living or dying is an important detail to me at least.

Bull****!

It's still a cliffhanger.  You don't know at the end of DA:O what happens to the world regardless your warden's death or lack there of because the series is ongoing.  You simply did not like DA2.  You were cliffhung in DA:O just as much as in DA2.  You just liked the DA:O cliff better.

[nicethugbert]

JBurke wrote...

.....I have decided to treat BioWare like the rest of EA and not purchase until I see some gamer reviews. Pre-order bonuses can go to hell, if I lose them I lose them. I fully regret not waiting until the 25% off on Steam deal that is inevitable.

I think wait and see is always the wisest course of action at all times.  People are simply not reliable enough to be treated otherwise.  And, it keeps people honest if we all force them to demonstrate their claims in exchange for our money.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 02 avril 2011 - 03:38 .

[nicethugbert]

DTKT wrote...

Here's the thing with wave base combat. The idea behind the waves is to throw as much filler mobs as possible. They die in one hit.

The second part of it is that the movement across the battlefield is totally unrestricted. There's no "physicality"

They could have popped out of the nearest house behind you or rounded the nearest corner behind you.  The aesthetics would have been differnet but the gameplay would have been the same.  The Devs could have made made the enemies more varied and given them more powers and still done multiple waves.  Therefore, there is nothing inherently lazy about multiple waves.  But someone on the internet said lazy so we all say it now because bandwagons are fun. 

Or they could have crafted for engaging combat scenarios instead of throwing filler at you.

Bull****!  There is physicallity, it's called interrupted.  So, the filler does serve it's purpose.  They swarm and interupt the party's squishies.  And it is perfectly sensible, especially for street gangs.  DA:O had filler too.  You guys simply want the nice clean cut battles of DA:O where what you see is what you get.  You don't want to wonder about being able to endure the battle.  You guys like it all spelled out.

I like certain things spelled, like the game mechanics.  Damn lazy devs never ever document how the game really works.  But a sense of mystery, wonder, dread is fine in the story and fights.

[nicethugbert]

Horus Blackheart wrote...

nicethugbert I think you are missing my point delibratly because you feel entitled and because some dont share your views all power to you but please don't railroad what was up to now a decent conversation.

thanks

edited for clarity

I am The President.  I'm here to stop the bull****.

[nicethugbert]

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

randallman wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

The lead designer said the article was well written, he didn't say it was a good article.  Keep in mind The Lead Designer makes fantasy games for a living.

Not for long if they keep turning out like DA2 did...

--Randall

There are easier to please customers and DA2 is a step up for many people considering what they normally play.  Snap on that.

The thing is they've alienated both.

You're exagerating.  Lots of people enjoy this game.  They may see room to improve it.  But, they are not lying about it the way the DA2 haters are.

I dont think anyone is blindly hating here. Everyone seems pretty level headed and willing to explain their opinion.

I've documented many instances of bull**** in this thread alone starting with Walker's review of his own feelings vis a vis DA2.

[DTKT]

nicethugbert wrote...

DTKT wrote...

Here's the thing with wave base combat. The idea behind the waves is to throw as much filler mobs as possible. They die in one hit.

The second part of it is that the movement across the battlefield is totally unrestricted. There's no "physicality"

They could have popped out of the nearest house behind you or rounded the nearest corner behind you.  The aesthetics would have been differnet but the gameplay would have been the same.  The Devs could have made made the enemies more varied and given them more powers and still done multiple waves.  Therefore, there is nothing inherently lazy about multiple waves.  But someone on the internet said lazy so we all say it now because bandwagons are fun. 

Or they could have crafted for engaging combat scenarios instead of throwing filler at you.

Bull****!  There is physicallity, it's called interrupted.  So, the filler does serve it's purpose.  They swarm and interupt the party's squishies.  And it is perfectly sensible, especially for street gangs.  DA:O had filler too.  You guys simply want the nice clean cut battles of DA:O where what you see is what you get.  You don't want to wonder about being able to endure the battle.  You guys like it all spelled out.

I like certain things spelled, like the game mechanics.  Damn lazy devs never ever document how the game really works.  But a sense of mystery, wonder, dread is fine in the story and fights.

You dont get interrupted when moving. Only when queuing actions. There is no physicality in the sense that even with 25 dudes in front of you, you can run through them all without any trouble. They last under a seconds if any member as a single AOE spell.

If for god sake, are you calling DAII baltles mysterious, wonderful? DREAD? Really, dread in DAII?

I'm all for discussion but it seems you are just here to praise Bioware.