166 réponses à ce sujet

[Statulos]

Cybermortis wrote...

I think 'Casual' games really means games that you can pick up and get the hang of quickly, rather than games with no depth to them. ME and ME2 are in this regards 'Casual' games to some degree.

Bioware has clearly been moving towards this type of game for a while. Fewer people have the time or desire to spend the first two hours trying to understand how to play the game and what all the skills and stats mean. Neverwinter Nights, for example, was designed to be easier to get to grips with than Balders Gate - and the system was further refined for DAO - which is in many respects a faster playing and streamlined version of NWN.

I suspect that this is what the 'streamlining' and 'future direction' that BW was talking about in regards DA2, and it is nothing new.

I got how to play BG/BG2/TOB in seconds. Same for NWN. Yes, being a long time D&D player helps a lot.

However, hardcore is not necessarily about tons of crunchies, its about mechanics, plot and both coming together to give you a deep and embracing experience.

There is no need to show how much damage you're dealing (the bar getting depleted is good enough) or some poster yelling critical! (you can do that with much more class using a special animation or a character yelling something), or having a character sheet full of permutations and modifiers. In that sense, I have no problem on DA2 showing just the information clear and simple.

The problem is streamlining stuff. If I wanted a point and click adventure, I'd go for lovely old classics such as Fate of Atlantis, Monkey Island or Maniac Mansion. This is an RPG and things can go wrong in RPG. Combat is the most evident, but also conversations, crafting and other elements need a chance to go wrong.

[aftohsix]

ejoslin wrote...



I spent several hundred hours modding DA:O.  IOW, I volunteered my own time to actually do some tedious work, QA, fixing, etc. because I felt it needed doing and that DA:O was worth it.  Had I worked for the minimum wage, it would have come to several thousands of dollars donated.  Had I worked for my usual billing rate, I would have had the braces paid for for three or even all four of my kids.

Point being, there is a difference between someone playing a lot of video games and someone being willing to put in their own time and effort to make the game better, which in turn makes it more appealing to more people which in turn makes even more people buy it.

I never said modding a game wasn't "hardcore."  What I said is it's a joke to call a game like Call of Duty "casual."

From the wikipedia article on "Dwarf Fortress"

Several reviews praise Dwarf Fortress for its deep and rich content and gameplay.[2][14][15][16] Some of those reviews also state that one first has to overcome the quirky interface/graphics and extremely steep learning curve to really appreciate the game.[14][15][17] One review argued that the text-based graphics actually add to the game: it helps the player mentally visualize game events, making the game more immersive.[16]

Explain to me how it is good business sense for Bioware to create a game that is made for a clearly niche market, as opposed to making a fun game that is made for a wider range of gamers.

Call me silly but in 2011 I don't want to waste my time playing a text based RPG.

Modifié par aftohsix, 04 avril 2011 - 05:26 .

[ejoslin]

aftohsix wrote...

ejoslin wrote...



I spent several hundred hours modding DA:O.  IOW, I volunteered my own time to actually do some tedious work, QA, fixing, etc. because I felt it needed doing and that DA:O was worth it.  Had I worked for the minimum wage, it would have come to several thousands of dollars donated.  Had I worked for my usual billing rate, I would have had the braces paid for for three or even all four of my kids.

Point being, there is a difference between someone playing a lot of video games and someone being willing to put in their own time and effort to make the game better, which in turn makes it more appealing to more people which in turn makes even more people buy it.

I never said modding a game wasn't "hardcore."  What I said is it's a joke to call a game like Call of Duty "casual."

From the wikipedia article on "Dwarf Fortress"

Several reviews praise Dwarf Fortress for its deep and rich content and gameplay.[2][14][15][16] Some of those reviews also state that one first has to overcome the quirky interface/graphics and extremely steep learning curve to really appreciate the game.[14][15][17] One review argued that the text-based graphics actually add to the game: it helps the player mentally visualize game events, making the game more immersive.[16]

Explain to me how it is good business sense for Bioware to create a game that is made for a clearly niche market, as opposed to making a fun game that is made for a wider range of gamers.

Call me silly but in 2011 I don't want to waste my time playing a text based RPG.

I think you are referring to games as hardcore or not, while I'm referring to gamers.  People like me will improve the game for free, will buy DLCs as long as they're putting out decent quality, and will make the games actually more appealing to the niches within the target audience.  I know that I personally have caused many people to buy DA:O for the PC when they already owned it for a console.  So... yeh.  No real point here I guess, but an active modding community with weirdoes like me only helps the games.  But it has to be a game that I personally WANT to work on.

And fair enough that you don't want to play text based RPG.  Which may be why the developers of RPGs should focus on the people who DO want to play RPGs instead of the people who don't.  It just makes sense.  Just like I would not want CoD to become a deep, character-interaction driven game.

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 avril 2011 - 05:32 .

[Jelefant]

"a wider range of gamers" is the current analogy for "a bunch of casual clowns". Of course a 2 man dev team can't make both crysis graphics and a rich+interesting gameplay. A multimillion developer like Bioware can. However, they choose to cater to the casual and they virtually make a hollywood movie, putting most of the money into voice actors and marketing. Let's add a highly generic plot, huge ****** and endless hordes of rubber ninjas - there you have a new age AAA title

[aftohsix]

ejoslin wrote...


I think you are referring to games as hardcore or not, while I'm referring to gamers.  People like me will improve the game for free, will buy DLCs as long as they're putting out decent quality, and will make the games actually more appealing to the niches within the target audience.

And fair enough that you don't want to play text based RPG.  Which may be why the developers of RPGs should focus on the people who DO want to play RPGs instead of the people who don't.  It just makes sense.  Just like I would not want CoD to become a deep, character-interaction driven game.

I think it's fair to feel that way.  I'm a fan of RPGS.  I like the way the current generation is heading.  Am I happy with DA2 completely?  No.  I just don't think it's an atrocity either.  I sincerely hope Bioware learns from it's mistakes and releases a good combo of Origins and DA2 for the next one.

I just think this forum in general has a very skewed idea of what is and isn't a "hardcore game" and what is and isn't a "hardcore gamer."

I'm just saying I can go to literally any other gaming site, forum etc... and call COD a casual game and I'd get laughed right out of there.  In my experience dedicated COD gamers are more militant than some of the DA2 haters on these forums.

Jelefant wrote...

"a wider range of gamers" is the current analogy for "a bunch of casual clowns". Of course a 2 man dev team can't make both crysis graphics and a rich+interesting gameplay. A multimillion developer like Bioware can. However, they choose to cater to the casual and they virtually make a hollywood movie, putting most of the money into voice actors and marketing. Let's add a highly generic plot, huge ****** and endless hordes of rubber ninjas - there you have a new age AAA title

How can anyone have a reasonable debate with someone who insists liking any mainstream game makes you a "casual clown." 

Modifié par aftohsix, 04 avril 2011 - 05:38 .

[ejoslin]

aftohsix wrote...

ejoslin wrote...


I think you are referring to games as hardcore or not, while I'm referring to gamers.  People like me will improve the game for free, will buy DLCs as long as they're putting out decent quality, and will make the games actually more appealing to the niches within the target audience.

And fair enough that you don't want to play text based RPG.  Which may be why the developers of RPGs should focus on the people who DO want to play RPGs instead of the people who don't.  It just makes sense.  Just like I would not want CoD to become a deep, character-interaction driven game.

I think it's fair to feel that way.  I'm a fan of RPGS.  I like the way the current generation is heading.  Am I happy with DA2 completely?  No.  I just don't think it's an atrocity either.  I sincerely hope Bioware learns from it's mistakes and releases a good combo of Origins and DA2 for the next one.

I just think this forum in general has a very skewed idea of what is and isn't a "hardcore game" and what is and isn't a "hardcore gamer."

I'm just saying I can go to literally any other gaming site, forum etc... and call COD a casual game and I'd get laughed right out of there.  In my experience dedicated COD gamers are more militant than some of the DA2 haters on these forums.

Well, the thing is, DA2 WAS supposed to appeal to a wider audience, which alienated many of the core audience.  It actually didn't make too much sense to me.  DA:O was a huge success -- HUGE.  Obviously just being a good quality RPG was enough to make millions of sales, both RPG devotees and new comers to the genre bought and loved it.  It really doesn't matter what focus groups and such said -- DA:O's success was an indicator of just how right they got it.

Edit: I think not listening to what their core base fans were saying was a gamble.  I also think just waving off the upsettedness (yay me new word I think) of people who actually cared for the franchise is a mistake.

They also have painted themselves into a corner given the direction of DA3.  No matter what they do, they're going to tick off the old time fans OR their new audience depending on which way they decide to tweak.  I personally am hoping for a game between DA:O and DA2.  I missed the dialog and the better-thought-out fights (waves is just a bit lazy and not really a substitue for well-thought-out encounters -- having the same fight repeatedly got boring).

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 avril 2011 - 05:43 .

[AkiKishi]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Loud minorty != important, just loud.

Westwood's game stopped selliing because they were endless rehashes and that **** got dulllllllllll, like Baldur's Gate games.

A minority that can tip the balance between success and failure is important.

Know your history.

Command & Conquer: Renegade (an action game, which mixed elements from first-person shooters and real-time strategy games) failed to meet consumer expectations and commercial goals Electronic Arts had set for it. In March of 2003, Westwood Studios (along with EA Pacific) was liquidated by EA, and all willing staff were assimilated into EA Los Angeles. Their last video game was the MMORPG Earth & Beyond.

Change the words first person shooter for Action and the real time strategy for RPG and you have DA2.

Change the Earth and Beyond for TOR and you may well have the future of Bioware.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 04 avril 2011 - 05:40 .

[aftohsix]

ejoslin wrote...



Well, the thing is, DA2 WAS supposed to appeal to a wider audience, which alienated many of the core audience.  It actually didn't make too much sense to me.  DA:O was a huge success -- HUGE.  Obviously just being a good quality RPG was enough to make millions of sales, both RPG devotes and new comers to the genre bought and loved it.  It really doesn't matter what focus groups and such said -- DA:O's success was an indicator of just how right they got it.

Edit: I think not listening to what their core base fans were saying was a gamble.  I also think just waving off the upsettedness (yay me new word I think) of people who actually cared for the franchise is a mistake.

They also have painted themselves into a corner given the direction of DA3.  No matter what they do, they're going to tick off the old time fans OR their new audience depending on which way they decide to tweak.

Agreed.  Overall I think Origins was the better game of the two.  However I enjoyed the combat more in DA2 (minus the waves) and I also enjoyed the characters more.

[ejoslin]

aftohsix wrote...

ejoslin wrote...



Well, the thing is, DA2 WAS supposed to appeal to a wider audience, which alienated many of the core audience.  It actually didn't make too much sense to me.  DA:O was a huge success -- HUGE.  Obviously just being a good quality RPG was enough to make millions of sales, both RPG devotes and new comers to the genre bought and loved it.  It really doesn't matter what focus groups and such said -- DA:O's success was an indicator of just how right they got it.

Edit: I think not listening to what their core base fans were saying was a gamble.  I also think just waving off the upsettedness (yay me new word I think) of people who actually cared for the franchise is a mistake.

They also have painted themselves into a corner given the direction of DA3.  No matter what they do, they're going to tick off the old time fans OR their new audience depending on which way they decide to tweak.

Agreed.  Overall I think Origins was the better game of the two.  However I enjoyed the combat more in DA2 (minus the waves) and I also enjoyed the characters more.

*grin* I loved the well-designed fights in DA:O, and I miss finishing moves tbh.  I liked the speed of DA2's combat better, however; but the same fight over and over and over got dull.  Characters...  I didn't feel that I could get to know them as well and there were many little touches missing (which, if they release a toolset, I'll work on putting in).  

But then that gets into quibbling.  

I think when people call themselves "hard core" here they're talking about how they are long time Bioware fans.  The problem comes in that even among the long time fans, different people think different things are important.

[Rockpopple]

I've seen cases where "hardcore fans" have absolutely tried to destroy something they claimed to love just because more people loved it now as well. Because it was getting popular, it had to be killed. It's amazing.

I remember the case of a song featured in Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, a song called "Black Sheep" by some indie band. It's a good song, but prior to the movie I've never heard it before. But like me, a lot of new fans were interested, and commenting on their Youtube page.

This one fan of the band who was a fan of theirs since the beginning went BALLISTIC. She just raged at not only the new fans, but the band for selling out. Just because they were now slightly more popular than they were before. It was amazing to watch.

Some people need to grasp on to things because it gives them identity. Once other people like those things, people who aren't like them, they feel their identity slip away and they lash out.

Or so the Sigmund Freud who lives in my basement says....

[ejoslin]

Rockpopple wrote...

I've seen cases where "hardcore fans" have absolutely tried to destroy something they claimed to love just because more people loved it now as well. Because it was getting popular, it had to be killed. It's amazing.

I remember the case of a song featured in Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, a song called "Black Sheep" by some indie band. It's a good song, but prior to the movie I've never heard it before. But like me, a lot of new fans were interested, and commenting on their Youtube page.

This one fan of the band who was a fan of theirs since the beginning went BALLISTIC. She just raged at not only the new fans, but the band for selling out. Just because they were now slightly more popular than they were before. It was amazing to watch.

Some people need to grasp on to things because it gives them identity. Once other people like those things, people who aren't like them, they feel their identity slip away and they lash out.

Or so the Sigmund Freud who lives in my basement says....

Except no one is begrudging DA:O's huge success.  I see people wondering why DA2 didn't built upon it seeing as how popular DA:O is and instead scrapping so much of what was DA:O in order to try to appeal to people who like a different type of game.

Edit: I cut out a lot of rambling redundancy.

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 avril 2011 - 06:08 .

[Rockpopple]

People aren't begrudging DA:O's huge success, they're begrudging the fact that other people who maybe never played Baldur's Gate or Jade Empire or Witcher or what have you, any other RPG, can also get into DA II. That's why the terms, "ADD" "casual" "console" and "COD" get thrown around like rice at a wedding here.

A really broad audience likes DA II too. And it's purely up to personal opinion whether in reaching out to a broader audience DA II sacrificed anything that made DA:O special. I've played and loved both games. I've lost very little going from DA:O to DA II.

[aftohsix]

Rockpopple wrote...

People aren't begrudging DA:O's huge success, they're begrudging the fact that other people who maybe never played Baldur's Gate or Jade Empire or Witcher or what have you, any other RPG, can also get into DA II. That's why the terms, "ADD" "casual" "console" and "COD" get thrown around like rice at a wedding here.

A really broad audience likes DA II too. And it's purely up to personal opinion whether in reaching out to a broader audience DA II sacrificed anything that made DA:O special. I've played and loved both games. I've lost very little going from DA:O to DA II.

I'd agree with this 100%.  I think Origins was a little bit better but both games are a ton of fun to play.  I really can't ask for much more than that from Bioware.

[ejoslin]

Rockpopple wrote...

People aren't begrudging DA:O's huge success, they're begrudging the fact that other people who maybe never played Baldur's Gate or Jade Empire or Witcher or what have you, any other RPG, can also get into DA II. That's why the terms, "ADD" "casual" "console" and "COD" get thrown around like rice at a wedding here.

A really broad audience likes DA II too. And it's purely up to personal opinion whether in reaching out to a broader audience DA II sacrificed anything that made DA:O special. I've played and loved both games. I've lost very little going from DA:O to DA II.

DA:O was a much bigger critical success than DA2.  DA:O was the first game in the series so DA2's sales can be at least partially attributed to DA:O.  You can't just read the forums and decide who's screaming the loudest is correct.  If you go by what the critics are saying, I would say that BW probably did not succeed in making a game that has a wider appeal than DA:O.  DA:O really did appeal to a broad audience -- probably broader than expected.

No one minded DA:O being a huge success (as your post seemed to say -- people begruding a band for having a song that was successful and saying they sold out).  What they mind is that the second game in the DA world is so much different than DA:O.

I personally like both games.  But I found DA:O much more engrossing and engaging.  I'm hoping DA3, if there IS a DA3, has elements of both. 

[AkiKishi]

I'm not sure about this broad audience thing.

Look at the demo. We are told over 1 million downloads. DA2 gets 400k in pre-orders. Put some of those down to DA and you get a very poor take-up rate from the demo of at best 40% and at worst a lot lot lower.

[Rockpopple]

ejoslin wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

People aren't begrudging DA:O's huge success, they're begrudging the fact that other people who maybe never played Baldur's Gate or Jade Empire or Witcher or what have you, any other RPG, can also get into DA II. That's why the terms, "ADD" "casual" "console" and "COD" get thrown around like rice at a wedding here.

A really broad audience likes DA II too. And it's purely up to personal opinion whether in reaching out to a broader audience DA II sacrificed anything that made DA:O special. I've played and loved both games. I've lost very little going from DA:O to DA II.

DA:O was a much bigger critical success than DA2.  DA:O was the first game in the series so DA2's sales can be at least partially attributed to DA:O.  You can't just read the forums and decide who's screaming the loudest is correct.  If you go by what the critics are saying, I would say that BW probably did not succeed in making a game that has a wider appeal than DA:O.  DA:O really did appeal to a broad audience -- probably broader than expected.

No one minded DA:O being a huge success (as your post seemed to say -- people begruding a band for having a song that was successful and saying they sold out).  What they mind is that the second game in the DA world is so much different than DA:O.

I personally like both games.  But I found DA:O much more engrossing and engaging.  I'm hoping DA3, if there IS a DA3, has elements of both. 

Okay, I'm very sorry, but you're missing my point. The first mistake you're making is using the example I put up and thinking that it's PARALLEL to anything going on here. It's not, so put that to bed. I used that as an example of fans tearing something down because it's perceived to be popular. 

When you look at the forums here, the loudest voices complaining about the game complain about BioWare's attempt to reach the, and again, the codewords are usually the same, "casual, cod, console, etc. crowd."

My thoughts on the matter is that there are some out there who wanted DA:O to cater only to them, and because they even made the attempt to cater to a broader audience, it meant that they were taking something away from them, almost on a personal level, and they freaked the crap out.

Again, just my basement Freud talking.

[ejoslin]

Rockpopple wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

People aren't begrudging DA:O's huge success, they're begrudging the fact that other people who maybe never played Baldur's Gate or Jade Empire or Witcher or what have you, any other RPG, can also get into DA II. That's why the terms, "ADD" "casual" "console" and "COD" get thrown around like rice at a wedding here.

A really broad audience likes DA II too. And it's purely up to personal opinion whether in reaching out to a broader audience DA II sacrificed anything that made DA:O special. I've played and loved both games. I've lost very little going from DA:O to DA II.

DA:O was a much bigger critical success than DA2.  DA:O was the first game in the series so DA2's sales can be at least partially attributed to DA:O.  You can't just read the forums and decide who's screaming the loudest is correct.  If you go by what the critics are saying, I would say that BW probably did not succeed in making a game that has a wider appeal than DA:O.  DA:O really did appeal to a broad audience -- probably broader than expected.

No one minded DA:O being a huge success (as your post seemed to say -- people begruding a band for having a song that was successful and saying they sold out).  What they mind is that the second game in the DA world is so much different than DA:O.

I personally like both games.  But I found DA:O much more engrossing and engaging.  I'm hoping DA3, if there IS a DA3, has elements of both. 

Okay, I'm very sorry, but you're missing my point. The first mistake you're making is using the example I put up and thinking that it's PARALLEL to anything going on here. It's not, so put that to bed. I used that as an example of fans tearing something down because it's perceived to be popular. 

When you look at the forums here, the loudest voices complaining about the game complain about BioWare's attempt to reach the, and again, the codewords are usually the same, "casual, cod, console, etc. crowd."

My thoughts on the matter is that there are some out there who wanted DA:O to cater only to them, and because they even made the attempt to cater to a broader audience, it meant that they were taking something away from them, almost on a personal level, and they freaked the crap out.

Again, just my basement Freud talking.

When you use an analogy, I think that's the point you're making.  But ok, I will not respond to what you said in that post any further.  DA:O was not torn down at all -- it was wonderful, it was popular, and the fans rejoiced!  It was proof that not only could a well-made RPG be made, but that it could be an overwhelming success AND appeal to people who normally don't play RPGs.

The thing is, DA:O was not just popular to a small niche.  But that ended up being a double edged sword.  Because people who like different genres wanted RPG elements taken out, and many said so quite loudly.  People who loved DA:O for the rpg it is felt that they weren't being listened to -- that the people who were not RPG players opinions were more important than theirs.

When it comes down to it, people aren't criticising DA:2 because it is popular (if critical scores are anything to go by, it is not more popular).  It's because the series itself had many RPG elements removed to appeal to a different audience, but that removal did take away many elements that people who love RPGs miss greatly.  

Again, I like DA2.  But it's no Origins.

[Rockpopple]

Just out of curiosity's sake, what are the RPG elements from DA:O that were removed to appease the -insert codeword here- crowd. Not to be snarky, but I hear this all the time. A few examples would be nice. I'm not saying there weren't some, but you (and others) seem to think that the ones that were taken out were vital to the very essence of DA:O.

And please don't say "isometric camera". That's not an RPG element. Plenty o' RPGs get by without them.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 04 avril 2011 - 06:40 .

[ejoslin]

Rockpopple wrote...

Just out of curiosity's sake, what are the RPG elements from DA:O that were removed to appease the -insert codeword here- crowd. Not to be snarky, but I hear this all the time. A few examples would be nice. I'm not saying there weren't some, but you (and others) seem to think that the ones that were taken out were vital to the very essence of DA:O.

And please don't say "isometric camera". That's not an RPG element. Plenty o' RPGs get by without them.

The battles were better designed in DA:O imo.  The endless waves of mobs does not make for a well designed fight.  There were many different types of encounters in DA:O.  
Character interaction was more in depth in DA:O.  The conversations, despite having a silent protagonist, were longer.  You could actually initiate conversations with your companions when you wanted to talk to them, and there was more to talk about.  Being able to kiss Alistair/Morrigan (and Zevran and Leliana if modded) made the romances feel more real -- even unmodded all could be kissed at camp.  Going to your lover's house and getting an ambient line wasn't very immersive.  There were more overall conversations.  Even Jory and Daveth's interactions had quite a bit of depth to them, allowing you to get to know them a bit better.  HOWEVER, I did like that the conversations had some forced pace to them in DA2 -- something between DA:O and DA2 would be welcome (more and longer conversation, but some pacing enforced).
Different areas looked different.
Side quests were more relevant.
Item descriptions -- bleh, I hated the million variations of ring, ornate ring, whatever that had no relevance at all.

Edit: There's more, but those are biggies for me.

 Again, I LIKED DA2.  I'm not one of the people screaming about it.  But I liked DA:O much better.

And, umm, I never played BG2...

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 avril 2011 - 06:55 .

[Rockpopple]

ejoslin wrote...

The battles were better designed in DA:O imo.  The endless waves of mobs does not make for a well designed fight.  There were many different types of encounters in DA:O.  

There are many different types of encounters in DA II as well. About the same as in DA:O, if we really look at it. In any case, this isn't an RPG element, it's an design choice.

Character interaction was more in depth in DA:O.  The conversations, despite having a silent protagonist, were longer.

Nope. If you take an average DA:O conversation (and let's remind ourselves that in DA:O you can't choose EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION OPTION. Some will bar you from choosing others) and match it with the average DA II conversation, length-wise they were the same. There were more OF them in DA:O. 

You could actually initiate conversations with your companions when you wanted to talk to them, and there was more to talk about.

And in DA II, your companions have lives and interact with each other, as well as you. You (the Warden) are no longer the center of their Universe. Some people would see this as an even trade.

Being able to kiss Alistair/Morrigan (and Zevran and Leliana if modded) made the romances feel more real.

Being able to have an LI move in, or having them comfort you in times bad and celebrate with you in times good also feels more real. Again, a bit of a wash.

Going to your lover's house and getting an ambient line wasn't very immersive.

Of course, that's not all that was to it.  

There were more overall conversations.

I agree with that.

Even Jory and Daveth's interactions had quite a bit of depth to them, allowing you to get to know them a bit better.

TOTALLY subjective. You don't think there were loads of NPCs in DA II that you could get to know as well? Come on. 

HOWEVER, I did like that the conversations had some forced pace to them in DA2 -- something between DA:O and DA2 would be welcome (more and longer conversation, but some pacing enforced).

Okay, well all of this taken together doesn't seem like an RPG element being removed from DA:O. It seems like design choices and swaps. Some stuff taken out, some stuff added, mostly a wash.

Different areas looked different.

Sigh. Yeah, of course. Again, this isn't an RPG element. Different areas look different even in RACING games. This was a design choice, and a poor one, we ALL agree.

Side quests were more relevant.

Completely subjective.

Item descriptions -- bleh, I hated the million variations of ring, ornate ring, whatever that had no relevance at all.

So we have one. I'll agree that this is an RPG element, but how vital is it?

In the end, I gotta say that either we have wildly different opinions on what constitutes an "RPG element", or there just weren't that many removed from DA:O.



By the way, please don't feel like I'm fighting with you, here. I'm not. I actually find this an enjoyable conversation we're having. I totally don't see you as my enemy or rival, so no worries. :happy:

Modifié par Rockpopple, 04 avril 2011 - 07:03 .

[Persona]

Umm do you guys realize EA owns Bioware now? So you cant so its EAs fault Da2 was bad.

[FellowerOfOdin]

Maconbar wrote...


TOR will likely determine BW's fate.

This. If TOR should fail, and I am fairly sure that it does, this would mean the end for Bioware. The game's been such a huge cash grave and if it fails...someone has to pay. I'd be extremely sad if this went the way as Bioware once was a AAA developer who made the best games I'd ever played...but now that EA is slowly absorbing their talent, their games appear to suffer a lot and get worse.

It's all up to TOR. If it fails, Bioware will meet an untimely end. It would be a tragic loss, but it was asked for.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Maconbar wrote...


TOR will likely determine BW's fate.

This. If TOR should fail, and I am fairly sure that it does, this would mean the end for Bioware. The game's been such a huge cash grave and if it fails...someone has to pay. I'd be extremely sad if this went the way as Bioware once was a AAA developer who made the best games I'd ever played...but now that EA is slowly absorbing their talent, their games appear to suffer a lot and get worse.

It's all up to TOR. If it fails, Bioware will meet an untimely end. It would be a tragic loss, but it was asked for.

and then we will find something else to complain about,right? 

[ejoslin]

Rockpopple wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

The battles were better designed in DA:O imo.  The endless waves of mobs does not make for a well designed fight.  There were many different types of encounters in DA:O.  

There are many different types of encounters in DA II as well. About the same as in DA:O, if we really look at it. In any case, this isn't an RPG element, it's an design choice.

Character interaction was more in depth in DA:O.  The conversations, despite having a silent protagonist, were longer.

Nope. If you take an average DA:O conversation (and let's remind ourselves that in DA:O you can't choose EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION OPTION. Some will bar you from choosing others) and match it with the average DA II conversation, length-wise they were the same. There were more OF them in DA:O. 

You could actually initiate conversations with your companions when you wanted to talk to them, and there was more to talk about.

And in DA II, your companions have lives and interact with each other, as well as you. You (the Warden) are no longer the center of their Universe. Some people would see this as an even trade.

Being able to kiss Alistair/Morrigan (and Zevran and Leliana if modded) made the romances feel more real.

Being able to have an LI move in, or having them comfort you in times bad and celebrate with you in times good also feels more real. Again, a bit of a wash.

Going to your lover's house and getting an ambient line wasn't very immersive.

Of course, that's not all that was to it.  

There were more overall conversations.

I agree with that.

Even Jory and Daveth's interactions had quite a bit of depth to them, allowing you to get to know them a bit better.

TOTALLY subjective. You don't think there were loads of NPCs in DA II that you could get to know as well? Come on. 

HOWEVER, I did like that the conversations had some forced pace to them in DA2 -- something between DA:O and DA2 would be welcome (more and longer conversation, but some pacing enforced).

Okay, well all of this taken together doesn't seem like an RPG element being removed from DA:O. It seems like design choices and swaps. Some stuff taken out, some stuff added, mostly a wash.

Different areas looked different.

Sigh. Yeah, of course. Again, this isn't an RPG element. Different areas look different even in RACING games. This was a design choice, and a poor one, we ALL agree.

Side quests were more relevant.

Completely subjective.

Item descriptions -- bleh, I hated the million variations of ring, ornate ring, whatever that had no relevance at all.

So we have one. I'll agree that this is an RPG element, but how vital is it?

In the end, I gotta say that either we have wildly different opinions on what constitutes an "RPG element", or there just weren't that many removed from DA:O.



By the way, please don't feel like I'm fighting with you, here. I'm not. I actually find this an enjoyable conversation we're having. I totally don't see you as my enemy or rival, so no worries. :happy:

Ok, I'm going to disagree with you, STRONGLY about the conversations.  DAO's conversations are actually longer and there were more of them.  I'm not talking about dialog choices (though DAO's conversatoins had a lot more varied responses as well).  I'm talking about length of conversations.  Sheer number of conversations.  There are more, and they can happen at times other than when the game dictates they MUST.

What I would like is for some conversations to happen whenever, some conversations to only trigger if you've taken your companion places (much like Sten in DAO), some to be plot relevant (Alistair becoming King is a good example, or the warden marrying Royalty with Zevran or Leliana) and for there to be a bit more interaction with a romance partner.

As far as length, here's Fenris' declaration of love.  Here's Zevran's.  (warning about Zev's it's a breakup).  Fenris's I did cut out the beginning which wasn't romance related -- Zevran's is the entire conversation, but since he has a separate one for his friendship declaration which also lasts a couple of minutes (Fenris' are combined) I think that's fair.  Also, Zevran's ends up with the breakup, so it's a bit shorter than if you go the commitment route.  However, since it's a silent protagonist in Zevran's you don't have the cinematics and dialog of the warden which adds to the length of Fenris'.

And of course what I say is subjective.  It's only my opinion.

I fail to see how finding someone's remains and knowing exactly whom they belong to, and them replying, "OOOOH@!  This old thing! I never thought I'd see it again" has any plot relevance.  And there are quite a few of those!


Edit: DA2 fights were "get jumped, no matter what, by gangs and have endless waves," which is not that interesting after awhile.. It's the same fight, over and over.

I think this is getting into quibbling, however, and since my kids are on break, I can't devote the attention needed.

However, my opinions are not WRONG!  They're mine so neither right nor wrong.  And evidently they're shared by a lot.  Many reviewers have said what I feel far more articulately than I could.

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 avril 2011 - 07:28 .

[Persephone]

ejoslin wrote...

However, my opinions are not WRONG!  They're mine so neither right nor wrong.  And evidently they're shared by a lot.  Many reviewers have said what I feel far more articulately than I could.

Ejoslin, I have the highest respect for you (And your Mods are essential). And no, your opinions aren't wrong. But neither are those of the people who love the game. One can enjoy both DAO and DAII. And prefer one or the other, of course.

And AWWWWW, that Zev breakup is so.......