454 réponses à ce sujet

[nicethugbert]

Bull****!
You people are doin it wrong!
Get a clue:
What the Writers did completely right!
Dragon Age II’s New Dialog System (And Those That Hate It)
Dialogue wheel

[huwie]

AgenTBC wrote...

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.

The reviewer doesn't want them to return to Save the World storylines either; his issue is more with how the innovative story was delivered in practice:

The idea is, and I love this idea in concept so much, that you’re not
playing as the last hero in the land, saving the universe. You’re just
some refugee, trying to survive in a city that has no fondness for
Fereldens, working you way up through the ranks from villainy to
nobility, seeing the city change shape through time. I wish I could have
played that game.

I thought it was a very insightful review, the kind of detailed, thoughtful feedback that is invaluable to storytellers -- even if they ultimately reject the ideas. So I do hope the relevant people from Bioware will read it.

Modifié par huwie, 01 avril 2011 - 12:28 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Corto81 wrote...

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. 

Not all RPG fans think the same and likes the same things. It had a lot of depth sure and that was great but for me there was never much replayability in DAO. The story got rather boring after the first time and I'm not the biggest fan of 'you're the hero that saves the world' stories. That's what I loved about Hawke who didn't end up saving the world from the big great evil but still managed to be an important character.

Corto81 wrote...
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.

Yes, DA2 has flaws and I really wish they'd had more time to work on it but no game is perfect. How are the heroes and villains immature? 
Heh, I thought the same thing about the story in DAO. No matter what you have to kill the big bad evil and you can never fail. I loved that I could "fail" in DA2 without it ending with a reload. My first Hawke wanted nothing to do with the conflict and tried to stop it but due to events out of her hand she failed was forced to pick a side. 

Corto81 wrote...
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....

I will not argue how you feel as a customer, that's how you feel. 
I on the other hand loved BG (Baldur's Gate II being my favorite game ever) and I don't see DA2 as dumbed down. It's trying to do a lot of things and trying out new things, some of them works for me and some doesn't. 

[Wyndham711]

I very much agree with every single point John Walker makes. In particular with the absolute disconnect, even disregard I too felt as regards to Hawke.

[Zmajc]

A very good review. I agree with almost all points and he didn't even mention re-used maps.

I really hope BioWare reads and learns something from it.

[Rockpopple]

My $.02

I read the article. I didn't agree with everything he said. For example, what he thought of Aveline, the sibling's death, and the dialogue wheel and the way he overstated the merits of DA:O, what he said as the ease of combat, what he said about not feeling anything for the characters, what he said about Leandra primarily was pretty much dead wrong. In my opinion. Huh.... that actually makes the bulk of what he said disagreeable.

But the rest... well he had some very good points.

I loved the game, but it was definitely a different turn from DA:O. Then again, it was never meant to be DA:O II.

But he did say it was a good game, so... meh.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 01 avril 2011 - 01:49 .

[culletron1]

Excellent Article. I agree with all of it apart from the Dialogue Wheel... There was such a lack of depth and attention to detail in DA2 that it really left me feeling quite numb.

[Vast_Girth]

nicethugbert wrote...

blah blah blah

Mate, when  the vast majority clearly disagree with you and even the lead designer of the game has said it was a good article, is there really any point in continuing your trolling?

Modifié par Vast_Girth, 01 avril 2011 - 01:48 .

[Rockpopple]

LukaCrosszeria wrote...

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?

I actually found this a more insightful review than the one linked. 

[nicethugbert]

Vast_Girth wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

blah blah blah

Mate, when  the vast majority clearly disagree with you and even the lead designer of the game has said it was a good article, is there really any point in continuing your trolling?

The vast majority?  Lame.  The vast majority are not known for excellance.  Be careful with what they say.

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.

[Kimberly Shaw]

The lead designer said the article was well written, he didn't say it was a good article

*sigh* There is no reasoning with this one.

[FellowerOfOdin]

Good read. The last paragraph stands out though: I don't know why Biwoare decided to call this game "Dragon Age II". It has nothing to do with the previous game despite being part of the same universe. If they would have called it "Dragon Age: Rise to Power", people would have complained about preferring to get "Dragon Age 2" first, but it would have been fair to choose a fitting title instead of trying to fool people into thinking that this game they called "Dragon Age 2" only bears the same name to lure them into buying a totally different and, obviously, worse game.

[flexxdk]

I have to agree with this.

Yeah, DA2 is an enjoyable game. But it isn't what I hoped it would be.

Perhaps my expectations were too high. I knew that it rarely happens that a sequel of a game is just as good or even better than the previous game.

I certainly hope that BioWare will read and learn from this and other feedback.

[CarlSpackler]

Agree with a lot of his criticisms. I'd quibble over a few points, but don't really have the inclination or time to address them in detail.

So yeah, good game, had fun, expected better, here's to hoping the team at Bioware takes the a lot of the criticism seriously and the next game is better.

[JaegerBane]

This is probably the best article I've read on this subject.

I don't agree with everything that was said. I personally found the Mass Effect-style conversation interface to be a great addition. Hawke's script varied between bland and awful for a majority of the time, but the actual implementation of it I found to be very good. I also disagree that the idea of setting the game entirely within a small city was a good concept - I've no problem with stories that a less save the world and more trials of a character, but intentionally restricting the scenery and scope was a flatly stupid idea, and it was never going to work in a title like this.

Virtually everything else mentioned I 100% agreed with. DA2 is a competent RPG in of itself, but as the author points out, being the sequel to one of the greatest RPGs in the world demands a little more than just not being rubbish.

I would hope that the developers take a long, hard think about the myriad stupid mistakes made in the development of this game. Recycled areas, Hawke's bystander syndrome, lack of variety in gameplay, minimalist plot development, god-awful multi-year comas that Hawke goes through. I don't think I've ever seen a company do such a fantastic job on a game, and apparently disregard so much done right and replace it with amateur mistakes in the sequel. Bioware *know* how to make great RPGs. They've proved it over and over. They know how to make great sequels, too - they proved that one with Mass Effect 2.

How on earth they managed, with such a level of expertise in this field, to regress to the extent we see with DA2 is beyond me. I just hope that they put a *lot* more thought into the next one, and actually sanity check what they're doing throughout.

I mean, seriously, did *no-one*, at any point during development, speak up and say 'uh, guys... we've used this cave level 30 times now, isn't that a little lame?'

Modifié par JaegerBane, 01 avril 2011 - 03:12 .

[jaikss]

Pretty good read,and I agree with most of it,although I think the writer got a bit carried away with subjectivity at times(such as the bit about Avelines voice).

optimates0193 wrote...

There's a Coeterie mage over there? No point in me really going after
him yet, cause he's just going to bubble up and become invulnerable
while I slaughter everyone else. Assassin running around? No point in me
going out of my way to kill him first or CC him, cause he's just going
to  teleport and backstab whoever he feels like.

These are horrible mechanics because the player has no way to stop them

Mage bubble ->dispel
Assasin using stealth ->Correctly aimed&timed AOE and poof goes the stleath=no backstab

Theres pleanty of flaws in DA2 combat,but not being able to do anything against the various enemy abilities is not one of them .

Modifié par jaikss, 01 avril 2011 - 03:29 .

[TJSolo]

nicethugbert wrote...

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.

I said the enemies attack slower in DA2 than DAO, it has nothing to do wit hthe speed of the party.(which is obviously faster) You can verify it by playing both games, the slower attack speeds are obvious. Well obvious enough if one can stop being in awe of Hawke's cirque du soleil performance on the battlefield.

Right, without all the extreme exaggeration what you describe sounds like DAO combat where some enemies were specialized and used(not stagger locked) their abilities along with basic attacks in parity with the player. But hey sacrifices must be made so that the player feel powerful and get the Thermopylae experience.

Modifié par TJSolo, 01 avril 2011 - 03:28 .

[Cyras. Knight-Errant]

This article is great, well written and sums up most of the concerns i had with DAII, especially when i read about the lack of connectedness. When starting DAII the first thing i thought was: "Why haven't they started in Lothering, why start mid-run?". Also the jump between the years without a real summary what happend in between, especially to the companions and no a codex entry isn't enough. Another thing that bugged me the whole game, was the lack of emotional connection to the family. They die and Hawke moves on. Only Avaline only really tries to comfort you over the loss. I could go on, put RPS summed the whole thing up very well. Not a bad game, but disappointing.

Please, BW read this article and learn it by heart, so you remember it, while developing future games.

[nicethugbert]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

The lead designer said the article was well written, he didn't say it was a good article

*sigh* There is no reasoning with this one.

Keep in mind The Lead Designer makes fantasy games for a living.

[TyDurden13]

I just posted in the thread discussing this in one of the other DA2 forums, but I'll reiterate here:

This is the best review I've seen of DA2, and I hope if there's one review BioWare takes to heart, it's this one. I diagree with them only on 3 poits:

-I liked Aveline
-I did care about how my companions felt toward me (this is not to say there's no room for improvement here - there is - but I think they continue to head in the right direction)
-I prefer the voiced protagonist to expressionless mute in DAO.

Other than that, I agree with just about every word. DA2 is not a bad game -they did enough things right and i am sure I will replay it again one day - but it is a disappointing one.

The criticisms I agree with the most:

-How poorly the prologue was handled
-Not even the illusion of choice (when it comes to the narrative - I do like how varied our companions' fates can be).
-Game essentially ends on a cliffhanger (NOT cool)
-Kirkwall is static and inert

[Galad22]

Rykoth wrote...

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

There is no story in DA2.

You fiddle around doing nothing but sidequests for years.

Edit. I hope Bioware takes rps criticism to the heart.

Modifié par Galad22, 01 avril 2011 - 03:39 .

[nicethugbert]

Cyras. Knight-Errant wrote...
When starting DAII the first thing i thought was: "Why haven't they started in Lothering, why start mid-run?"

[JaegerBane]

Galad22 wrote...

Rykoth wrote...

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

There is no story in DA2.

You fiddle around doing nothing but sidequests for years.

Edit. I hope Bioware takes rps criticism to the heart.

Same here. Most of all, I hope, during the early stages of development on Dragon age 3, that someone, anyone, actually poses the question 'What did we do right before, and what can we do better?'.

Presumably it never got asked during the dev of DA2. Or if it did, it wasn't answered.

[JaegerBane]

nicethugbert wrote...

Cyras. Knight-Errant wrote...
When starting DAII the first thing i thought was: "Why haven't they started in Lothering, why start mid-run?"

Uh... what's your issue with that?