454 réponses à ce sujet

[Khayness]

nicethugbert wrote...

Your bias is not helping your cause.

I thought you would be happy to see a kind soul like yourself.

[Zeevico]

I think this article says it all.

[calis_riakel]

When i said not a Bioware quality game that's what i meant. In an interview just after DA2 launched Mr Laidlaw said that generally speaking they aim for a 90 for their games on metacritic.
... snip...

"...If the Metacritic isn't where we want it to be, and honestly our goal as a studio is to try and aim more for 90,..."

Taken from a Eurogamer article.here:
http://www.eurogamer...nterview?page=2

So, they've obviously not hit the bar they themselves strive for and what's more (and in spite of your opinion on Metacritic) they obviously do value it as a measuring tool and this is part of why many people who've criticised DA2 refer to it. So if Bioware acknowledge they didn't hit their own bar for quality i'd say it's fair for me to offer my opinion that it's not a (usual) Bioware quality game/

In regards to your second point, VO talent and work in and of itself does not a game make. The article in the OP which is what we're discussing i might add, even acknowledges that the VO work is solid. But again, there are so many other things that detract from the game weaker plot, inevitable outcomes with player choices making no - or very little impact (at best)  on the overall story and so on.

You're going out of your way to accuse every man and his dog in this thread of being ignorant because you don't like what they're saying. Yet when confronted with facts, you again spout your OPINION
" Opinion:  Metacritic = Assss."
and use it to dismiss something that is factual - Metacritic reviews have been a lot lower for 2 than Origins and part of the reasons for that can be attirbuted by reviewers both professional and amateur alike to the kinds of issues detailed in the OP's article.

It doesn't seem to matter what proof you're offered, you just shout it down and throw the word bull**** around in a dramatic attempt to mask your own lack of constructive arguments.

[nicethugbert]

Khayness wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

Your bias is not helping your cause.

I thought you would be happy to see a kind soul like yourself.

If I were kind I would be quite when people say Bioware is lazy because of multi-wave encounters, or that the game/Thedas is gay when there are at most maybe possibly 4 gay characters if you ignore a technically, or that the game has no story/plot/choices, or refer to DA:O as if the two games have no similarity at all.  Instead, I say bull****! to all that.

[nicethugbert]

calis_riakel wrote...

When i said not a Bioware quality game that's what i meant. In an interview just after DA2 launched Mr Laidlaw said that generally speaking they aim for a 90 for their games on metacritic.
... snip...

"...If the Metacritic isn't where we want it to be, and honestly our goal as a studio is to try and aim more for 90,..."

Taken from a Eurogamer article.here:
http://www.eurogamer...nterview?page=2

So, they've obviously not hit the bar they themselves strive for and what's more (and in spite of your opinion on Metacritic) they obviously do value it as a measuring tool and this is part of why many people who've criticised DA2 refer to it. So if Bioware acknowledge they didn't hit their own bar for quality i'd say it's fair for me to offer my opinion that it's not a (usual) Bioware quality game/

In regards to your second point, VO talent and work in and of itself does not a game make. The article in the OP which is what we're discussing i might add, even acknowledges that the VO work is solid. But again, there are so many other things that detract from the game weaker plot, inevitable outcomes with player choices making no - or very little impact (at best)  on the overall story and so on.

You're going out of your way to accuse every man and his dog in this thread of being ignorant because you don't like what they're saying. Yet when confronted with facts, you again spout your OPINION
" Opinion:  Metacritic = Assss."
and use it to dismiss something that is factual - Metacritic reviews have been a lot lower for 2 than Origins and part of the reasons for that can be attirbuted by reviewers both professional and amateur alike to the kinds of issues detailed in the OP's article.

It doesn't seem to matter what proof you're offered, you just shout it down and throw the word bull**** around in a dramatic attempt to mask your own lack of constructive arguments.

Proof?  Proof for what assertion specifically? 

Weaker plot?  Weak plot is an opinion.  You can't prove an opinion.  But, you guys insist that you can.  It's a dishonest insistance.

Inevitable outcomes with player choices making no - or very little impact (at best)  on the overall story?  I never disputed that, I only said that DA:O has that too.  Just like DA:O, DA2 has it's "Archdemon" and it's "Loghain".  You can't avoid the "archdemon" and you can kill or recruit "loghain" in both DA:O and DA2.

You get offended when I say bull****!  But, I don't see anyone getting offended when Bioware is called lazy.  Screw that!  If you masters of sanctimonious righteousness can call Bioware lazy I can say they suck and I can call bull****!

Modifié par nicethugbert, 02 avril 2011 - 12:33 .

[_- Songlian -]

I agree with him on some points, on others not so much.

But where he really hit the spot, in my opinion, was here:

Where BioWare’s wonderful Knights Of The Old Republic offered the illusion of choice, changing the way you behaved in the fixed events, Dragon Age II offers not even an illusion. Do you want to open door A or door B? Both open up into a fight where you kill someone, but door A meant you wanted to. And this, tragically, even applies to the game’s floppy, hapless ending.

And here:  

The trouble is, each time the game jumps forward three years, any sense of having connected to anything that’s going on is torn from you. Suddenly you’re not who you were before, with the seemingly interesting bits happening while we were off watching an animated cutscene. Oh, I’ve got my own place now? I’m rich now? Then how come I have the same amount of gold as before, the same equipment, and so on? Oh, I’m the Champion now? That little fight was enough? Really?

On the other hand, I really don't agree with him on the characters. Aveline monotonous? Leandra a shell of a character?  Not in my playthrough.

[Persephone]

- Songlian - wrote...

 Oh, I’ve got my own place now? I’m rich now? Then how come I have the same amount of gold as before,

On the other hand, I really don't agree with him on the characters. Aveline monotonous? Leandra a shell of a character?  Not in my playthrough.

Someone wasn't paying attention there. After the DR my Hawke sure had a lot more cash added to her purse. (60 sovereigns are added at the beginning of Act II alone) 

And I agree, Aveline wasn't monotonous nor was Leandra a shell of a character in my playthrough. But hey, different strokes etc.

[Cybermortis]

calis_riakel wrote...

When i said not a Bioware quality game that's what i meant. In an interview just after DA2 launched Mr Laidlaw said that generally speaking they aim for a 90 for their games on metacritic.
... snip...

"...If the Metacritic isn't where we want it to be, and honestly our goal as a studio is to try and aim more for 90,..."

Taken from a Eurogamer article.here:
http://www.eurogamer...nterview?page=2

So, they've obviously not hit the bar they themselves strive for and what's more (and in spite of your opinion on Metacritic) they obviously do value it as a measuring tool and this is part of why many people who've criticised DA2 refer to it. So if Bioware acknowledge they didn't hit their own bar for quality i'd say it's fair for me to offer my opinion that it's not a (usual) Bioware quality game/

In regards to your second point, VO talent and work in and of itself does not a game make. The article in the OP which is what we're discussing i might add, even acknowledges that the VO work is solid. But again, there are so many other things that detract from the game weaker plot, inevitable outcomes with player choices making no - or very little impact (at best)  on the overall story and so on.

You're going out of your way to accuse every man and his dog in this thread of being ignorant because you don't like what they're saying. Yet when confronted with facts, you again spout your OPINION
" Opinion:  Metacritic = Assss."
and use it to dismiss something that is factual - Metacritic reviews have been a lot lower for 2 than Origins and part of the reasons for that can be attirbuted by reviewers both professional and amateur alike to the kinds of issues detailed in the OP's article.

It doesn't seem to matter what proof you're offered, you just shout it down and throw the word bull**** around in a dramatic attempt to mask your own lack of constructive arguments.

It isn't just Metacritic that is giving lower scores. All the sights I've run across in passing are give DA2 a lower score than DAO.

The IMdb scores go like this;

Dragon Age 2; 8.4

Dragon Age Awakenings; 8.6

Jade Empire; 9

Dragon Age Origins; 9.5

Mass Effect; 9.6

Mass Effect 2; 9.8


These rating are in line with what I'm seeing elsewhere - DA2 is considered roughly equal to Awakenings, ME and DAO are more or less equal but better than DA2 and ME2 is considered the best of the (fairly) recent Bioware titles. Even Jade Empire is being considered better than DA2, and JE was the worst selling title BW had up to this point. (I'm guessing that the higher score for JE might be because it didn't pretend to be something it wasn't, even by assosiation).

The sales figures we can get show an interesting picture. DAO sold fewer copies than DA2 in its first week, but in the following weeks the DAO sales picked up while those for DA2 have taken a nose-dive on all platforms. This is not the sign of a well received game - especially not on consoles where people can rent before buying and decide for themselves if they want the game. That retailers have also allowed refunds of the game (and I've never heard of this happening before) and in some places have almost halved the price of the game is also telling.

DAO sold some 4 million copies, and was intended to have some 2 years of DLC until poor sales brought and end to them. DA2 was predicted to have sales of some 4.5 million, and clearly a lot was expected from the DLC. However going off the sales figures it seems unlikely that it is going to come close to the sales of DAO (and indeed DAO is outselling DA2 in many places even now), and if the DLC sales for DAO were low I really can't see DA2 managing to do anything but worse.

Again, this is not the sign of a game that has been well received or that is well thought of.


Voice overs and/or acting really don't make for a good game. There was a time in the mid 1990's when live action games were ten a penny. Some of these used expensive sets and good actors - indeed there have been at least two Star Trek games that used both actors from the series and the same sets used in the series, and even Star Wars got two such games.
The only games of this date that proved to be any good were the later wing commander games - which ironically had far more choices than DA2 even down to being able to pick particular mission lines, and more concequences if you made the wrong choice. 

The later WC games were quite good, but not because of the acting itself rather the live action helped set the scene and added to a decent combat flight sim. It may seem wrong to compare a flight combat sim to DA2, but the point is that the games that relied on the live action and acting to cover for a lack of choice or plot did not do well no matter how good the acting and sets were.
DA2 has fallen into a similar trap, in that it seems to be trying to hide a lack of depth (almost certainly a result of the games short development cycle rather than any intrinsic problems with the team making it) behind flashy graphics.
Bioware should take note that the companies who tried this trick back in the 1990's went bankrupt - even Origin, who made the Wing Commander series, went down this route and their games were by far the best of the litter.

Modifié par Cybermortis, 02 avril 2011 - 01:22 .

[Galad22]

Persephone wrote...

Someone wasn't paying attention there. After the DR my Hawke sure had a lot more cash added to her purse. (60 sovereigns are added at the beginning of Act II alone) 

And I agree, Aveline wasn't monotonous nor was Leandra a shell of a character in my playthrough. But hey, different strokes etc.

That is like plus minus 0.

You do remember you used 50 sovereigns to get to deeproads in the first place.

[nicethugbert]

Galad22 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Someone wasn't paying attention there. After the DR my Hawke sure had a lot more cash added to her purse. (60 sovereigns are added at the beginning of Act II alone) 

And I agree, Aveline wasn't monotonous nor was Leandra a shell of a character in my playthrough. But hey, different strokes etc.

That is like plus minus 0.

You do remember you used 50 sovereigns to get to deeproads in the first place.

And you ended up with a mansion and bribery works wonders in Kirkwall, especially useful that bribery with mages in the family and Kirkwall's nobility "shanking each other for sport".  Other games would give you the coin to buy a new super suit of badness and have you live under the stars.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 02 avril 2011 - 01:38 .

[Galad22]

nicethugbert wrote...
And you ended up with a mansion and bribery works wonders in Kirkwall.  Other games would give you the coin to buy a new super suit of badness and have you live under the stars.

And what do I do with a mansion exactly? It is not like anything ever happens there nor does it have any relevance to the game.

If I had been given choice whether to buy that mansion or not, I would have saved those sovereigns to buy some more swords or something. Besides that mansion was ours from the start, why did we have to buy it again? What happened about Leandra talking to Viscount about it. Nothing thats what, it was just forgotten.

[Cybermortis]

Galad22 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Someone wasn't paying attention there. After the DR my Hawke sure had a lot more cash added to her purse. (60 sovereigns are added at the beginning of Act II alone) 

And I agree, Aveline wasn't monotonous nor was Leandra a shell of a character in my playthrough. But hey, different strokes etc.

That is like plus minus 0.

You do remember you used 50 sovereigns to get to deeproads in the first place.

The biggest problem with this was always that Hawke him/her self notes to Varric that if they had the money to go into the deep roads they wouldn't need to go into the deep roads.

It is bad when the protaganist points out major flaws in the logic of the plot, then goes along with it anyway.

If we are being charitable we could assume that a lot of the money made off the Deep Roads trip went into buying the family home, and most of the rest went into the vault/bank. (That would presumably be the vault it took you five minutes to break into).

Of course something is wrong when you have to make such assumptions to explain gaping holes the plot.

At least in DAO you could reasonably explain why of the two surviving Grey Wardens one just happens to have a strong claim to the throne without much thought. (Calian specifically asked for Alistair to light the signal, you could assume he did so either because he thought Alistair was Arl Eamons son or knew he was his brother - Both would make sense using the information you are clearly given in the game).

[calis_riakel]

"Proof? Proof for what assertion specifically? "

Again, you miss the point entirely and take the conversation off topic from the thread. Proof = Metacritic (and as another poster just above pointed out, other sites) giving lower scores for their reviews than almost every other Bioware game to date.
Proof = Bioware acknowledging they did not hit the bar they aspire to with DA2.
Proof = threads like this coming in to being because passionate gaming fans were disappointed in a game that did not live up to it's prequel.

Regardless of whether or not 2 is intended to be a sequel to Origins , the fact is has a 2 on the end of it PROVES that Bioware were intending it to be considered the second of a series and therefore people have a right to be dissatisfied with this game based on the expectations and quality bar set by the first game.

You not liking those opinions does not make them any less valid, or in fact this case wrong. No matter how many times you claim bull****.

As for Inevitable outcomes, again you're missing the point in Origins it was NOT inevitable that you killed Loghain. You could have Alistair do it, or you could do it or you could let him live.
In Origins it was not inevitable that Alistair became King. Anora could have become Queen and Alistair go into self imposed exile.

The above examples are significant plot elements the player can directly impact and alter the game with. But in 2 All you can do is hold on for the ride, it's all pre-determined and you cannot move outside of the plots stated outcomes regardless. You still have the same endgame encounters regardless of who you choose.

As for me being offended, you don't know me but you make an aweful lot of baseless assumptions about me. I'm not offended one bit. You have you're opinion, i have mine. I however can see both sides and i am not rabidly and derrogatorily derriding people for having a opinion differing to my own.

I am making my arguments based on what has been published and ACKNOWLEDGED both by Bioware (as in the game not meeting their quality bar) and reviewers both professional (ie they get paid to write reviews) and amateurs, who write reviews for several reasons varying from hate, to trying to be informative for other players or to praise a game.

Again, just because you don't like the proof i am offering you, does not make it any less valid.

[Cybermortis]

calis_riakel wrote...

The above examples are significant plot elements the player can directly impact and alter the game with. But in 2 All you can do is hold on for the ride, it's all pre-determined and you cannot move outside of the plots stated outcomes regardless. You still have the same endgame encounters regardless of who you choose.

It's not just the main quests. I turned down on quest only for the NPC to step forward and give me the quest anyway...and the only options I had were basically 'This guy is pushy so I'll take the quest anyway'.

[calis_riakel]

Exactly Cybermortis and it's this type of different approach to choice that has been traditional in the CRPG that is upsetting players. But nicethugbert adamantly refuses to acknowledge that 2 is weaker in several key CRPG areas that a lot of fans consider to be "meat and potatoes" of the genre, because he doesn't agree with the evidence both factual and opinionated as presented by others in this thread. When you combine the above with all the other detractions from the game like those presented in the article linked by the OP, it's easy to see how Bioware missed their own quality bar if you look objectively.

For me, customisable race and character options, meaningful, plot impacting choices as part of an overarching, player driven story which demonstrate the players choices actually impact on the games outcome as opposed to the cinema style story 2 offers - as in 2's outcome is inevitable regardless of the choices you make is what drives me to play this genre of game more than any other. I have played origins for roughly 580 hours so far and i know for a fact that 2 will not even get close to 1/4 of that play time unless Bioware buck their DLC record and produce some godly DLC.

The above said, i again reiterate that while 2 is a solid game. It is lacking by Bioware standards and everything i am reading around the web supports this. Hopefully Bioware take the good and the bad on board and use it to make DA3 a step up from their DA2 offering.

[nicethugbert]

Galad22 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...
And you ended up with a mansion and bribery works wonders in Kirkwall.  Other games would give you the coin to buy a new super suit of badness and have you live under the stars.

And what do I do with a mansion exactly? It is not like anything ever happens there nor does it have any relevance to the game.

If I had been given choice whether to buy that mansion or not, I would have saved those sovereigns to buy some more swords or something. Besides that mansion was ours from the start, why did we have to buy it again? What happened about Leandra talking to Viscount about it. Nothing thats what, it was just forgotten.

You didn't just say that with a straight face.  You can't possibly have that much trouble paying attention.

Let me see if I can communicate this.

Bribery
Bribery
Bribery
Bribery
....

Got it?  No?

Corruption
Corruption
Corruption
...

Don't you remember how you even got into Kirkwall?  You don't remember what you did for a year to feed your family?  You don't remember what you did after wards?  The magistrate and his son?  Tal-vasoth?  Qunari?  Isabella?  Nothing?

Holy ****, how daft are you people???

Modifié par nicethugbert, 02 avril 2011 - 02:36 .

[Galad22]

nicethugbert wrote...
You didn't just say that with a straight face.  You can't possibly have that much trouble paying attention.

Let me see if I can communicate this.

Bribery
Bribery
Bribery
Bribery
....

Got it?  No?

Corruption
Corruption
Corruption
...

Don't you remember how you even got into Kirkwall?  You don't remember what you did for a year to feed your family?  You don't remember what you did after wards?  The magistrate and his son?

Holy ****, how daft are you people???

Since none of this has any actual proof in the game, you are just assuming stuff and fixing plotholes in your own mind.

[Persephone]

Galad22 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Someone wasn't paying attention there. After the DR my Hawke sure had a lot more cash added to her purse. (60 sovereigns are added at the beginning of Act II alone) 

And I agree, Aveline wasn't monotonous nor was Leandra a shell of a character in my playthrough. But hey, different strokes etc.

That is like plus minus 0.

You do remember you used 50 sovereigns to get to deeproads in the first place.

No, it is not, considering that Hawke used most of it to buy the Amell mansion back.

[Galad22]

Persephone wrote...
No, it is not, considering that Hawke used most of it to buy the Amell mansion back.

I asked this once already, but I'll do it again if you didn' see it.

Why do we have to buy that mansion, since it was ours already?

Leandra was supposed to talk to Viscount about it and he is rather reasonable guy.

So why do we have to waste money on something that rightfully belongs to us? Did you see any reasonable explanation for this in the game since I certainly didn't.

[neppakyo]

Galad22 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
No, it is not, considering that Hawke used most of it to buy the Amell mansion back.

I asked this once already, but I'll do it again if you didn' see it.

Why do we have to buy that mansion, since it was ours already?

Leandra was supposed to talk to Viscount about it and he is rather reasonable guy.

So why do we have to waste money on something that rightfully belongs to us? Did you see any reasonable explanation for this in the game since I certainly didn't.

I agree. Makes no sense, but there is a lot of DA2 that doesn't make sense.

I'll just wait for the master troll thughubert to call you daft and or other names

[Phex]

Excellent article. It explains the mistakes of the game very clearly without any bias one way or the other. I hope BioWare reads this and will take these things into consideration when making DA3. One of the best DA2 reviews I've seen!

[Galad22]

neppakyo wrote...
I agree. Makes no sense, but there is a lot of DA2 that doesn't make sense.

I'll just wait for the master troll thughubert to call you daft and or other names

He used daft already.

Perhaps he has more insults in his pockets.

[nicethugbert]

Cybermortis wrote...
It isn't just Metacritic that is giving lower scores. All the sights I've run across in passing are give DA2 a lower score than DAO.

The IMdb scores go like this;

Dragon Age 2; 8.4

Dragon Age Awakenings; 8.6

Jade Empire; 9

Dragon Age Origins; 9.5

Mass Effect; 9.6

Mass Effect 2; 9.8


These rating are in line with what I'm seeing elsewhere - DA2 is considered roughly equal to Awakenings, ME and DAO are more or less equal but better than DA2 and ME2 is considered the best of the (fairly) recent Bioware titles. Even Jade Empire is being considered better than DA2, and JE was the worst selling title BW had up to this point. (I'm guessing that the higher score for JE might be because it didn't pretend to be something it wasn't, even by assosiation).

The sales figures we can get show an interesting picture. DAO sold fewer copies than DA2 in its first week, but in the following weeks the DAO sales picked up while those for DA2 have taken a nose-dive on all platforms. This is not the sign of a well received game - especially not on consoles where people can rent before buying and decide for themselves if they want the game. That retailers have also allowed refunds of the game (and I've never heard of this happening before) and in some places have almost halved the price of the game is also telling.

DAO sold some 4 million copies, and was intended to have some 2 years of DLC until poor sales brought and end to them. DA2 was predicted to have sales of some 4.5 million, and clearly a lot was expected from the DLC. However going off the sales figures it seems unlikely that it is going to come close to the sales of DAO (and indeed DAO is outselling DA2 in many places even now), and if the DLC sales for DAO were low I really can't see DA2 managing to do anything but worse.

Again, this is not the sign of a game that has been well received or that is well thought of.


Voice overs and/or acting really don't make for a good game. There was a time in the mid 1990's when live action games were ten a penny. Some of these used expensive sets and good actors - indeed there have been at least two Star Trek games that used both actors from the series and the same sets used in the series, and even Star Wars got two such games.
The only games of this date that proved to be any good were the later wing commander games - which ironically had far more choices than DA2 even down to being able to pick particular mission lines, and more concequences if you made the wrong choice.

The later WC games were quite good, but not because of the acting itself rather the live action helped set the scene and added to a decent combat flight sim. It may seem wrong to compare a flight combat sim to DA2, but the point is that the games that relied on the live action and acting to cover for a lack of choice or plot did not do well no matter how good the acting and sets were.
DA2 has fallen into a similar trap, in that it seems to be trying to hide a lack of depth (almost certainly a result of the games short development cycle rather than any intrinsic problems with the team making it) behind flashy graphics.
Bioware should take note that the companies who tried this trick back in the 1990's went bankrupt - even Origin, who made the Wing Commander series, went down this route and their games were by far the best of the litter.

I don't see the utility of metacritic.  Ultimitely, it is sales that counts.  The game is expected to have disastrous sales by all the DA2 haters.  But, DA2 and Awakenings have a similar score.  Is that an indication that they will have similar sales?  What do DA2 haters think of Awakenings?  If an 8.4 is correlated with bad sales, then what is the rest of the metacritic scale good for?

Clearly, the people who enjoy DA2 have a different pscycology then those who enjoy DA:O.  So, I'm not convinced that DA2 DLC will go the way of DA:O DLC.  But, if The Devs do think it will then they will not do a good job so they will fullfill the prophecy.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 02 avril 2011 - 02:50 .

[Persephone]

Galad22 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
No, it is not, considering that Hawke used most of it to buy the Amell mansion back.

I asked this once already, but I'll do it again if you didn' see it.

Why do we have to buy that mansion, since it was ours already?

Leandra was supposed to talk to Viscount about it and he is rather reasonable guy.

So why do we have to waste money on something that rightfully belongs to us? Did you see any reasonable explanation for this in the game since I certainly didn't.

My guess is that the Viscount, nice guy or not (Rulers work that way), will hold on to things he doesn't have to return. Will or no, Gamlen gambled it away. So Hawke shortened the red tape and bought the place. Probably to please Leandra. I don't need everything spelled out there.

[neppakyo]

Galad22 wrote...

neppakyo wrote...
I agree. Makes no sense, but there is a lot of DA2 that doesn't make sense.

I'll just wait for the master troll thughubert to call you daft and or other names

He used daft already.

Perhaps he has more insults in his pockets.

Hehe, if anything he is an amusing little troll.