454 réponses à ce sujet

[ostemanden]

Very good review. Totally agree with his POW (Prisoner of War)

[KLUME777]

Best review of Dragon Age 2.

[Dan UK]

'Let’s retitle it, “Dragon Age: Kirkwall”, and BioWare can take a lot more time making the real Dragon Age II'


Please?

[nicethugbert]

optimates0193 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

Which is much the same as DAO’s combat, except executed in such a way that there’s less need for tactics.

That is pure 100% unadulterated crack ho bull****.  It is the same combat with only two differences: it is faster, instead of spell combos you get cross class combos.  How can the same basic thing be not tactical this time but tactical the last time?  It can't.  Walker is bullshtting.

I wanted to comment on this part here. The combat absolutely requires less tactics, regardless of the difficultly level. You are correct in that the basics have essentially changed in those two ways. What you've missed (or ignored) is the drastic difference in the design of encounters.

Nearly every fight has waves that spawn in on top of you at random locations. This means you can't possibly strategically position and move your characters,. The only feasible strategy is to keep everyone lumped together in a blob and focus fire bad guys down. Not to mention some of the special abilities of lieutenants. I want to form a chokepoint with my two warriors to keep my mage safe? Oh, that assassin just teleported right past everyone and backstabbed him anyway. I want to stealth my rogue in behind the enemy line and take out that mage? Oh, the mage just bubbled up and/or teleported away. These things completely change the way the game plays, and not for the better.

Were there winning stratgies in DA:O? Absolutely. But at least in that game I had the freedom to choose how I'd approach the fight and the game rewarded me for taking a tactical approach. In DA:2, my only choice is to keep everyone in a blob moving together and focus fire targets. There's not even a point in using cross class combos really, because the speed of the combat is so fast that everything dies pretty quick anyway.  When you realize you're going to be doing the same thing fight after fight after fight, it starts to become boring.  

Bull****!

tactical
...
of or pertaining to a maneuver or plan of action designed as an expedient toward gaining a desired end or temporary advantage.
....

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.

Incidentally, every game I play, there are winning moves that I use over and over again the whole game through with few exceptions.  DA2 is no different in this regard, neither was DA:O.  As a matter of fact, I use basically the same winning moves in DA2 that I used in DA:O.  Freeze or Petrify elite/boss, debuff and curse them, concentrate heavy attacks on them, lay down crowd control, concentrate entire party fire on one spawn at a time.  At least DA2 attempts to fubar my well worn plans and gives me much much better combat movement than any other RPG ever.  As usual, pause button = WIN snd adjust difficulty to taste.

Khayness wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

If you don't like the game, by all means, say you don't like it, elaborate until you die.  But don't make **** up.

I also think because of the dreadful encounter design that the combat is less tactical. I don't mind the waves, but I mind the few types of auto attacking cannon fodders and the one trick pony lieuteants, repeated nearly every damn time.

Am I making things up? No, it's just my bull**** opinion.

Bull****!  Most of the mobs in DA2 are recycled DA:O mobs.

DTKT wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

planed scaped wrote...

It's funny how it's mostly the Biodrones who get unnecessarily hostile on the forums. >___>

I'm allergic to bull**** and DA2 haters can't make their case without it.

It seems that no matter what someone post criticizing DAII, you are very quick to jump to it's defence.

Bull****!  I don't argue with people saying they don't like the game.  I argue with the lies they use to rationalize their dislike of the game and justify their supposed solution.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 01 avril 2011 - 09:21 .

[Dubya75]

Sure this review does mention a lot of valid points.
What I do however find absolutely ridiculous is him mentioning that he's tuned combat down to Casual and then complains about it not being tactical or much of a challenge.
Clearly, that would not have been his opinion had he chosen Hard or Nightmare.

[TJSolo]

Bull****! Most of the mobs in DA2 are recycled DA:O mobs.

And most of the recycled mobs in DA2 have lost most of their class relevant abilities(lol@mage/rogue/demon teleports) and are just using the DAO basic attacks but slower. Shouldn't DA2 enemy warriors be using DA2 warrior attacks? The mobs in DA2 are all set on faceroll mode.

Modifié par TJSolo, 01 avril 2011 - 09:18 .

[LilyasAvalon]

Hey! A non biased reviewer that bothered to point out both good and bad things with DAII!

I think he pretty much outlined the EXACT THOUGHTS of a lot of people who played this game. It was a good game, it could've been a great game, but the simple fact is, it wasn't. The corner cutting, the already set in motion expectations of Hawke as a champion

It was a far cry from Origins and had it been a game series of it's own and wasn't the sequel of something like Origins, maybe it would've been different. It still would've been disappointing from Bioware, but not as disappointing as it wouldn't be the first game that they made that I felt fell short.

The only thing I really disagree with was the views of Aveline, who (I felt anyway) isn't really as flat as the reviewer thought of her. But that's just me. But if you replace Aveline with Anders, that pretty much sums it up.

[ckolsen]

Great review, agree 100%

[nicethugbert]

TJSolo wrote...

Bull****! Most of the mobs in DA2 are recycled DA:O mobs.

And most of the recycled mobs in DA2 have lost most of their class relevant abilities(lol@mage/rogue/demon teleports) and are just using the DAO basic attacks but slower. Shouldn't DA2 enemy warriors be using DA2 warrior attacks? The mobs in DA2 are all set on faceroll mode.

Bull****!  Mobs are not slower in DA2 than DA:O, the party is faster in DA2 than in DA:O. 

Yes, the party should be mobbed and surrounded with warriors all hitting your party with scatter attacks, whirlwinds, mighty blows, shield bashes, pommel strikes, assualts, claymores, beseiges, scythes, tremors, all fully upgraded for extra bad assness and win,  because fortitude checks with each attack are not enough interrupt lock.  Then the nerd rage will be truly exquisite.

[ostemanden]

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.

Lmao, a military person? Do you have any idea of the diversity of expertise there is in an army?
So a military person is someone employed by the military? So when I ask a webmaster from the army, about a tactical question, I would get just that response?

I am a Corporal in the Danish army, and while I do agree with your overall statement, using a logical phallacy as obvious as an argument from authority, and at the same time just making a crude generelisation is not helping your cause.

While we do train for the unknown, and use murphy's law as an example in our training, we would never try to account, for soldier popping out of thin air, in the middle of a combat situation. Or teleporting around or going invisible infront of our eyes.
Do not try to use military experience as an argument, in a fantasy game filled with magic and monsters.
The key ability in a soldier is to use rational thought, and have a realistic world view. 

[fchopin]

Dubya75 wrote...

 
What I do however find absolutely ridiculous is him mentioning that he's tuned combat down to Casual and then complains about it not being tactical or much of a challenge.

I did exactly the same thing in my game, i changed it to casual at the end because i was so bored that all i wanted to do was just finish the game.
 
I have never changed the difficulty in any game before in my life as i don't believe in changing the difficulty, if the game is to hard then i start a from the beginning.
 
I changed it not for the difficulty but because i stopped caring at the end.

[LilyasAvalon]

Dubya75 wrote...

Sure this review does mention a lot of valid points.
What I do however find absolutely ridiculous is him mentioning that he's tuned combat down to Casual and then complains about it not being tactical or much of a challenge.
Clearly, that would not have been his opinion had he chosen Hard or Nightmare.

He only turned down the setting because he was getting bored of playing tatically since it wasn't much of a challenge and he just wanted to get through it. I commonly had this feeling as well, especially when an additional 6 enemies would just pop out of no where. So much for no filler combat.

[vitae-vixi]

I very much agree with this review! =)

[nicethugbert]

ostemanden 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.

Lmao, a military person? Do you have any idea of the diversity of expertise there is in an army?
So a military person is someone employed by the military? So when I ask a webmaster from the army, about a tactical question, I would get just that response?

I am a Corporal in the Danish army, and while I do agree with your overall statement, using a logical phallacy as obvious as an argument from authority, and at the same time just making a crude generelisation is not helping your cause.

While we do train for the unknown, and use murphy's law as an example in our training, we would never try to account, for soldier popping out of thin air, in the middle of a combat situation. Or teleporting around or going invisible infront of our eyes.
Do not try to use military experience as an argument, in a fantasy game filled with magic and monsters.
The key ability in a soldier is to use rational thought, and have a realistic world view. 

Corporal, how you choose to carry out the assignment can only express your ability to suceed.  So, by all means, show us what you've got.  Visit the brig if you choose.  Take you pick of the litter if you wish.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Ariella wrote...

While I doubt I'll be as vitrolic as Hugbert, I do have my issues with the review.

First is the comment on Bioware's opening companions, especially Aveline and Ashley. I've always found Bioware's companions (with the one exception of the original NWN) to have personality, even if it is sometimes understated. Aveline was supposed to be strong, and I never found her voice robotic in the least. As for certain actions at the beginning where the writer seeemed to expect her to cry, not in Aveline's character especially in the situation that the party finds itself in. That she mourns later off screen, and that the actions of that moment have reperccusions don't seem to make it into the review

Second: The review does seem to boil down to: this isn't DAO2. Something I believe is unfair considering we've been told since practically the announcement of DA2 it was NOT going to be a straight up sequel. We were told that by Bioware at every turn, so to say:

Of course it’s impossible to come to Dragon Age II with such a clean
slate. Because at the very least, you’re expecting Dragon Age: Origins.

... is uninformed at best. And the idea that just because one puts a 2 behind the name means it's going to be a straight up sequel died with Final Fantasy, especially when the developer has been screaming from the rooftops that that wouldn't be the case. I can accept that DAO was beloved by many, especially considering I'm one of the many. However, I did listen closely to Bioware when they started talking about Dragon Age 2. Originally a felt a small disappointment about this Hawke, but when it was confirmed I could play a female, I perked up. After that, I listened even more closely, and saw Bioware wanted to tell a different story in the DA universe in a different way. By the time DA2 went gold, I was ready to judge it on its own merits, rather than comparing it against DAO.

There are imperical problems: bugs and the overuse of same maps. Which I think are fair complaints, but I also believe that The Dragon Age is not going to be about one or two heroes, but that each game is going to be building on to the Panethon of heroes of the Age, which the players will give their own special touches. If I'm right or wrong we'll see in the next full release, but consider that Dragon Age is supposed to be different than D&D and other fantasy staples and give it a real chance to be its own gaming not the shadow of DAO.

Agreed with pretty much everything that's written above. 

DA2 isn't perfect by a long shot but DAO wasn't either. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and I feel that DA2 did a lot of things right where DAO did them wrong. I really wish they had more time to work on DA2. 

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...

I disagree about Aveline, but agree with everything else.

Amused that the blind fanboys ignored that the reviewer clarifies he's not saying DA2 is a bad game,

Interesting that the haters are ignoring this as well, how many of them would say the same. 

Agreed. One does not title their article: What went wrong in Dragon Age if one is going to give a review that is balanced. 

Erm, you do know a title tends to be written after the review is done right? The title is a reflection of his opinion after reviewing it.

Before or after the review, matters very little. The title is sensationalist, and his cavet about DA2 being a good game ring hollow.

[Ariella]

Inarborat wrote...

You're completely missing a lot of the keypoints in the article if you boil it down to Origins vs. DAII. There are so many problems and missteps highlighted in an article that go above and beyond that.

I read the article two or three times to make sure of my facts before going, and the take away was this isn't Origins nor was it up to Origins quality in writing etc. I really never saw any attempt to judge on its own merits.

[Corto81]

Yellow Words wrote...
DA2 isn't perfect by a long shot but DAO wasn't either. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and I feel that DA2 did a lot of things right where DAO did them wrong. I really wish they had more time to work on DA2. 

DA:O was an imperfect RPG with soul and depth to its world, characters, villains, heroes, etc.
WIth a whole bunch of grey characters and up-to-you choices how you treat them.
Yes, it had flaws, but you could see the effort that was put into that game, and again, if you're a RPG fan, it had immense depth and replayability and options.

DA2 is a an imperfect, rushed, flawed and badly tested action-adventure RPG, with a few obvious flaws most people agree on - same maps, linearity, etc. - and a story that features rather immature heroes and villians with the cognitive process of kindergarten children. Add to that the very Deux Ex Machina ending, where it doesn't matter if you sided with anyone in every confrontation throughout the three Acts, and it's not a very fullfilling story either.

I had fun big parts in DA2. I don't hate it. I'm just completely let down and disappointed at it being 1/10 of the game it should've been.
It's a deeply flawed game that doesn't know if it's an RPG or an action-adventure, and ends up being neither.

Also, compared to DA:O or BG series, it feels dumbed to a point I feel insulted as a customer.
Same areas, little icons next to your text choices like I'm iliterate, waves of mobs appearing from nowhere and then devs trying to spin it into this awesome mechanic , etc....

[Rykoth]

Another one of these? FFS.

Bioware, don't change your storytelling. Tell the story how you feel it needs to be told, not what some critic thinks.

Dragon Age 2 ain't perfect, but the story is better then DAO IMO

[AgenTBC]

I tend to agree with Rykoth. Deal with the obvious mechanical issues like the waves of enemies which spawn in virtually every single fight (as opposed to occasionally) or the constant re-use of dungeons. Don't give up on innovative storytelling. Not that there weren't some problems in that department but I'd rather Bioware's reach exceed their grasp than for them to give up and go with generic Kill Foozle and Save The World storylines to be safe.

[wikkedjoker]

You know what I think it it would have just been titled Dragon Age Rise to Power even at 60 bucks I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Because it would have felt more like it was setting up for something epic, not just felling short handed like "Oh THIS was all DA2 was, Oh er meh. . . it was Okay I guess."

[NKKKK]

The plot wasn't half bad, it's just the game itself muddled it down.

[LukaCrosszeria]

I find myself agreeing with almost all of this review. There are aspects of the game I really like. Edit: I like the game overall, but that doesn't mean you should be blind to its faults. If I didn't like it so much, I wouldn't bother pointing out its faults and I do it because it's a real shame that the game could have been so much better. I never expected it to be a sequel to Origins, more like it's second in the Dragon Age series to me. It stands separate from Origins and I don't compare the two, so the things that I list here that put me off aren't a result of comparing it with Origins. I hope BioWare reads these critiques and makes the third game using the best of Origins and DAII. 

Kirkwall

Kirkwall felt like I was running around in a very pretty movieset, not an actual living town. Aveline says at one point the market place is the heart of Kirkwall. What heart? It's one little square with four or five stalls with merchants that don't even move an inch over the course of ten years. Their stalls look exactly the same. It would require attention to detail to move some stuff around, yes, but if Hawke is supposed to watch the city change over the course of years then it has to actually change.
Isabela during her romance comments on the things that make Lowtown, well, Lowtown. Where are those things? I didn't notice them. Oh yes, there was a w h o r e (added spaces because it's okay to say it in the game, but not the forum) plying her trade, swinging her hips left and right when Hawke is not two feet away inflicting bloody carnage on a bunch of street thugs. At least make her cower in fear or something. Jeesh.
Aside from the lacklustre, there is also the problem of scale. Lowtown was tiny, Darktown was tiny, Hightown is tiny. If you're going to set your entire story in one city, make it bigger. The guy who wrote the article is right, Kirwall is not much bigger than Denerim. Anders at one point asks Hawke not to reveal the location of secret tunnels that have saved the lives of hundreds of mages. Seriously? Hundreds of mages in a city that has five merchant stalls to service people? Where's the market that sells food? Where are the banks mentioned in the letters? Why is there only one barracks area for the guards? Etc etc.

The recycled areas

I read somewhere, a quote by Mike Laidlaw, that Bioware knew it was a risk, using the same areas over and over again, but that they tried to artfully conceal it. Using different sections of the same area and suddenly placing concrete doors is not artful concealment. They didn't even bother to redirect corridors, nothing. It's exactly the same area you walk through and it's glaringly obvious. Whether you're in a cave on the Wounded Coast or in Sundermount, it matters not. It's all the same cave. These are intelligent people designing the game and yet they think using the same alley, the same cave, the same section of Deep Roads for every single encounter over ten years time was a good idea? Mind-boggling.

The house of static

Nobody ever moves in Gamlen's house, or Hawke's mansion. Assume your positions everyone, and stay there for the next [insert number] years. The only one who moves is the dog. Speaking of which, why did Varric and Fenris never come talk to the dog?

zero-impact Hawke

Edit: I liked the storyline, but so much spark and potential was lost because itt's forced on the player. Indeed, there is not even the illusion of choice.

No matter how much my Hawke supported Anders, tried to mediate between templars and mages (like tempering Cullen's view, trying to get the Grand Cleric to act, taking a diplomatic stance on the subject), none of that mattered jack. Anders still did what he did, without Hawke having any chance to stop him. Your choices will shape the world? Bull, events turn out the same no matter what you do. you can't impact on your companions either. Anders aside, I tried to make Fenris see for ten years that mages aren't so bad, and yet he still harps on them like his conversations with Hawke never happened. No matter how hard you try to reason with Merrill to turn away from blood magic, she refuses to listen. She'll do her thing no matter what Hawke says because her fate is laid out for her. No matter how much you try to reason with the Grand Cleric to make her leave, she won't because she *has* to be in the Chantry so Anders can blow her up. Contrivance, thy name is Dragon Age II.

You can't even have conversations with your companions when you want to. This restriction ruins any bond you can form with them. A dozen conversations over ten years time and two romances scenes aren't enough to get me hooked on someone. Sorry. When Anders says that he's lain awake every night for three years aching for Hawke, I found the forcedness of the scene almost laughable. The three years were skipped. Anders talked to me, what, three four times? A few flirts? Sorry, but that's not enough.

broken (record) companions

* At one point, Hawke can take in an elf, either as a slave or a servant. Yet if you take the elf as a servant, Mother keeps telling you "an elven slave, I hope you know what you're doing." No, game, she's not a slave, she's a servant. I told Fenris i'd pay her. I made a choice. Oh wait, you don't care, game.
* Anders, dear me. He can dislike Fenris all he wants, but for him to actually approve if Hawke should turn Fenris over Danarius? The Anders who puts down milk for kittens, who fights against the slavery of mages, approves of an elf who's fought for his freedom for years being turned over to a Tevinter blood mage to be his mindless pet? The next time he said "I'm charming", I thought no, Anders, you're not charming. You're a cold-hearted evil bastard.
* Aveline: adorably dense about Hawke's flirting, but though Hawke can make Donnic aware of her feelings, he cannot make Aveline aware of his own feelings, should there be any. Hawke cannot at one point say, hey Aveline, I'm trying to get it on here. Get a clue. No. Because Aveline *has* to be dense. It is written. Sigh. Not everyone has to like Hawke, but she doesn't even have the option to turn him down.
* Bethany: alas poor Bethany. Having a family is supposed to make one care more about Hawke and about said family. Except Bethany exits stage left either before you even get to know her, or after you barely know her. Hell, Hawke's companions talk to her more than Hawke does.
* Carver: Aveline, he's not "a bit of a ******". He's a full ******. Carver has a chip on his shoulder the size of Montana. So at one point I thought, here Hawke, let loose on the little bastard, because if you're nice he hates you, if you're funny he hates you. He hates you, period. You can never have a full friendship with him. Ever. And then he's out of the picture to have some character development through token letters. Then when you rescue him after years, he still spits out the same garbage, along the lines of, I'm in your debt again. So what happened to joining the Grey Wardens/Templars and finally becoming a confident man, standing on his own, no longer in what he perceives is his brother's shadow? Go bite me, Carver.
* Fenris: As I mentioned either, nothing Hawke says or does over the course of ten years changes his opinon of mages in the slightest.
* Sebastian: he's Hawke's friend,  Yet as his friend and as a brother of the Chantry he will not support(/love female) Hawke unless Hawke coldly executes a companion Sebastian has known for nearly a decade. In fact, if Hawke doesn't execute Anders, Sebastian, who worries whether he will be a good ruler to his people, decides to wage war on all of Kirkwall, condemning all the innocent people who had nothing to do with Anders' choice, as well as his own people, to war. Is that why Hawke spent time supporting Sebastian, helping him to make the right choice for him? Well that sucks. 

Prude romance

After the love scenes in Origins, I was expecting more than this. Isabela jumps on Hawke and throws him on the bed. The end. Fenris pushes Hawke against the wall, gets pushed against the wall, kiss. The end. Anders kisses and lies down on the bed with Hawke. The end. Same for Merrill. Well that was exciting. I'm not asking for a porn movie, fade out when it's appropriate, but at least let me see Fenris' naked chest or something. Gosh. And why, dear game, does Merrill, a Dalish elf, wear the same underwear as the prostitutes in the Blooming Rose? Why after the tender lovemaking does Fenris stand at the fireplace with a freaking sledge hammer on his back?

Modifié par LukaCrosszeria, 01 avril 2011 - 12:47 .