158 réponses à ce sujet

[sympathy4saren]

Origins was built and founded upon traditional rpg roots. Why did BioWare feel the need to progress the Dragon Age series? It ruined many things about the franchise.

[BestAlgorithm]

Mass market appeal, to help stop stagnation, test new waters, etc? I don't know, there are lots of reasons.

It's too bad that the things they changed are what made Dragon Age Origins so great and Dragon Age 2 so... okay.

[Cobrawar]

because of stupidity, greed and bad management

[kcman5]

Imo DAO 1 had a pretty linear ending to it with the exception of Morrigan, whereas DAO2 left ample routes for expansion. Meaning that the storyline wasn't cut and dry and had many alternative routes mapped out for later.

[Cobrawar]

kcman5 wrote...

Imo DAO 1 had a pretty linear ending to it with the exception of Morrigan, whereas DAO2 left ample routes for expansion. Meaning that the storyline wasn't cut and dry and had many alternative routes mapped out for later.

DA2 is even more linear then DAO

[kcman5]

Dunno how you can even say that with the many unresolved issues mapped out ingame. I 'll Just name a few. 1) Flemeth on Sundermount 2) Merryl remaking the mirror 3) The Templar/Mage War
4) Asherok saying "We shall return." 5) Hawke disappearing at the end. As for the exception of Morrigan in DAO, really what is there?

[Baelyn]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Origins was built and founded upon traditional rpg roots. Why did BioWare feel the need to progress the Dragon Age series? It ruined many things about the franchise.

Risk.

I personally liked the direction, just thought some aspects weren't implemented well (resued maps).

[neubourn]

I applaud them for taking a chance and trying to make something different. I loved DA:O, but it was always kinda boring to me...it was all typical "traditional" stuff, and i didnt really feel excited because none of it was "new." It was simply the same rehashed stuff from other, older RPGs and fantasy stories. And yes, this may be comforting to some, "if it aint broke dont fix it" crowd, but not everyone feels that way.

[TheJist]

Because of what cobraman said plus some people aren't content with having 95%+ of the market catered to them so they decide they need to come into the games that cater more to the older mechanic loving crowd and complain enough so that it will become just another game in the crowd.

Modifié par TheJist, 03 avril 2011 - 06:30 .

[Baelyn]

neubourn wrote...

I applaud them for taking a chance and trying to make something different. I loved DA:O, but it was always kinda boring to me...it was all typical "traditional" stuff, and i didnt really feel excited because none of it was "new." It was simply the same rehashed stuff from other, older RPGs and fantasy stories. And yes, this may be comforting to some, "if it aint broke dont fix it" crowd, but not everyone feels that way.

Very much agree with this post.

[Sp3cia1]

when you see a key lead leave during the development something is going gone.
Seeing the game at pax prime and hearing that the internal stat were one of the reasons for the changes(removal of the overhead camera view), showed that they are willing to change the game system to fit the mainstream which DA:O was not marketing as a console RPG 

We will more then likely never these "Stats" or at what key point Knowles left development (due to trade secerts and countless nda)
.

Modifié par Anime Falcon, 03 avril 2011 - 06:35 .

[kcman5]

I personally feel that if they didn't reuse map sequences ingame and did fix the weapon swap issue, I think this game would of been heralded in as the new style/format for future RPG's.

[orbit991]

kcman5 wrote...

Imo DAO 1 had a pretty linear ending to it with the exception of Morrigan, whereas DAO2 left ample routes for expansion. Meaning that the storyline wasn't cut and dry and had many alternative routes mapped out for later.

This was a filler episode, fillers have cliffhangers, the story is already written out by Bioware. Here you have the same conclusion with the difference of which of the two parties you supported. DAO you have a similar ending that differs if you lived or died(sort of a biggie), are you king/queen or whom did you put on the throne. Similar splits really, but this one just had a setup ending so you can buy DA3.

[neubourn]

orbit991 wrote...

kcman5 wrote...

Imo DAO 1 had a pretty linear ending to it with the exception of Morrigan, whereas DAO2 left ample routes for expansion. Meaning that the storyline wasn't cut and dry and had many alternative routes mapped out for later.

This was a filler episode, fillers have cliffhangers, the story is already written out by Bioware. Here you have the same conclusion with the difference of which of the two parties you supported. DAO you have a similar ending that differs if you lived or died(sort of a biggie), are you king/queen or whom did you put on the throne. Similar splits really, but this one just had a setup ending so you can buy DA3.

Well i believe they made sure Hawke survived no matter what for two reasons...one because they wanted to use the Framed Narrative (which i really liked about this game), and it wouldnt make much sense for Cassandra to be searching for something who is dead, and secondl, because the game ALREADY draws alot of Comparison to ME2, so they definitely didnt want to fuel that fire by allowing your character to possibly die at the end.

[kcman5]

Exactly my point, but DAO really never emphasized on alternative routes as did DAO2.. Be it a "Filler" or not.

Modifié par kcman5, 03 avril 2011 - 06:45 .

[orbit991]

kcman5 wrote...

I personally feel that if they didn't reuse map sequences ingame and did fix the weapon swap issue, I think this game would of been heralded in as the new style/format for future RPG's.

Heh no, they wiped most the details and mechanics of an rpg. Not that I care(well I like detail in a game whatever the format) as Im not a true rpg player, but I can see what happened. In an analogy I used before, lets say they made sports games, long time Bioware fans line up for the sequel to their favorite football game, they fire it up...and it's cricket instead of fotball. So no its not much of an rpg, its half rpg half weak action game, to me at least. This sort of marrige will hardly work for most peeps. You have Johny twitchy fingers that hates to read and you have those who yawn at endless waves of mobs, not many are in between.

[orbit991]

kcman5 wrote...

Exactly my point, but DAO really never emphasized on alternative routes as did DAO2.. Be it a "Filler" or not.

Well they would have if they knew it was going to be as good of a hit as it was. WIth DA2 they already have concepts for part 3 written so much like mass effect they stretch the story and end this one with a cliffhanger. To me that was no great crime like some suggested, but its not anything special, just a to be continued.

[viverravid]

Laidlaw mentions here that a large number of people who bought Origins never got past Ostagar.

They interpreted this to mean there was something wrong with the game. A lot of the changes to the opening are an attempt to address these "problems".

Another interpretation is: We got a bunch of extra sales or rentals from people who bought Origins expecting something else (maybe they liked the Marylin Manson ad?) This was an unexpected bonus which may or may not happen again in future, so shouldn't distract us from building a game for our core audience.

Modifié par viverravid, 03 avril 2011 - 06:51 .

[neubourn]

orbit991 wrote...

kcman5 wrote...

I personally feel that if they didn't reuse map sequences ingame and did fix the weapon swap issue, I think this game would of been heralded in as the new style/format for future RPG's.

Heh no, they wiped most the details and mechanics of an rpg. Not that I care(well I like detail in a game whatever the format) as Im not a true rpg player, but I can see what happened. In an analogy I used before, lets say they made sports games, long time Bioware fans line up for the sequel to their favorite football game, they fire it up...and it's cricket instead of fotball. So no its not much of an rpg, its half rpg half weak action game, to me at least. This sort of marrige will hardly work for most peeps. You have Johny twitchy fingers that hates to read and you have those who yawn at endless waves of mobs, not many are in between.

Whats funny is that these forums had pretty much the SAME arguments going on after ME2 was released, countless threads went on debating "what is an RPG." DA2 is just like ME2...different then the original, some people HATE that about it, but others welcome the changes. Granted, DA2 shouldve been in Beta for a couple more months since there are way too many glitches, but the game also has some potential, especially through DLC and Expansion(s) perhaps.

[kcman5]

I'll just reply instead of quote Orbit991.. The biggest ingame technical gripes that are even worth mentioning on a game level is the reused mapping and lack of Weapon swapping.. The rest are just tidbits from people, which no matter how they did it , people are gonna gripe. Personally I don't think a True RPG legend as once was Bioware and EA( a Sporting Game Empire), is a match made in Heaven.
Yes, I'm sure they had a plotted out path for the future, but short of the Afore mentioned gripes, There would of been less complaining and more applauding.

[orbit991]

neubourn wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

kcman5 wrote...

I personally feel that if they didn't reuse map sequences ingame and did fix the weapon swap issue, I think this game would of been heralded in as the new style/format for future RPG's.

Heh no, they wiped most the details and mechanics of an rpg. Not that I care(well I like detail in a game whatever the format) as Im not a true rpg player, but I can see what happened. In an analogy I used before, lets say they made sports games, long time Bioware fans line up for the sequel to their favorite football game, they fire it up...and it's cricket instead of fotball. So no its not much of an rpg, its half rpg half weak action game, to me at least. This sort of marrige will hardly work for most peeps. You have Johny twitchy fingers that hates to read and you have those who yawn at endless waves of mobs, not many are in between.

Whats funny is that these forums had pretty much the SAME arguments going on after ME2 was released, countless threads went on debating "what is an RPG." DA2 is just like ME2...different then the original, some people HATE that about it, but others welcome the changes. Granted, DA2 shouldve been in Beta for a couple more months since there are way too many glitches, but the game also has some potential, especially through DLC and Expansion(s) perhaps.

Well you can't put a lipstic on a pig and call it a ballerina. I cant see a DLC changing any mechanics. They needed at least a year more to make this game more "meaty". But oh well, what Im seeing is an experiment really, not really this not really that and it shows in how  polarized the community is, it's much worse then ME2 was regarding that, as its not just on this forum, and heck at least the motivational posters for ME2 were mostly positive, look at the ones on here.
Sales seem weak also, but will see, time will tell.

[kcman5]

Bioware has always been known to take its time on releasing quality RPG's. Is it just coincidence, when EA stepped into the picture that it had changed?

[orbit991]

kcman5 wrote...

I'll just reply instead of quote Orbit991.. The biggest ingame technical gripes that are even worth mentioning on a game level is the reused mapping and lack of Weapon swapping.. The rest are just tidbits from people, which no matter how they did it , people are gonna gripe. Personally I don't think a True RPG legend as once was Bioware and EA( a Sporting Game Empire), is a match made in Heaven.
Yes, I'm sure they had a plotted out path for the future, but short of the Afore mentioned gripes, There would of been less complaining and more applauding.

Yea , but I liked playing a dual weilding warrior for instance. I liked hooking up my crew with gear before a battle, hell I would have been happy if they at least changed their clothes a bit in ten years, for that matter the whole city in 10 years time. Also didnt care for the waves of the first airborne divisions dropping from nowhere. And there were many details they didnt have time to implement due to that rush job. I liked some things dont get me wrong, but oh well, we will have different oppinions as we look for differet things in games, so cheers, maybe they will make 3 something tighter.

[orbit991]

kcman5 wrote...

Bioware has always been known to take its time on releasing quality RPG's. Is it just coincidence, when EA stepped into the picture that it had changed?

Yes theres lots of talk about that and its likely true, EA's record with messing with the studios they buy is horrible.

[kcman5]

orbit991 wrote...

kcman5 wrote...

I'll just reply instead of quote Orbit991.. The biggest ingame technical gripes that are even worth mentioning on a game level is the reused mapping and lack of Weapon swapping.. The rest are just tidbits from people, which no matter how they did it , people are gonna gripe. Personally I don't think a True RPG legend as once was Bioware and EA( a Sporting Game Empire), is a match made in Heaven.
Yes, I'm sure they had a plotted out path for the future, but short of the Afore mentioned gripes, There would of been less complaining and more applauding.

Yea , but I liked playing a dual weilding warrior for instance. I liked hooking up my crew with gear before a battle, hell I would have been happy if they at least changed their clothes a bit in ten years, for that matter the whole city in 10 years time. Also didnt care for the waves of the first airborne divisions dropping from nowhere. And there were many details they didnt have time to implement due to that rush job. I liked some things dont get me wrong, but oh well, we will have different oppinions as we look for differet things in games, so cheers, maybe they will make 3 something tighter.

 Don't get me wrong, for I'm a big sticular when it comes to technical applications in game play. Yes the game should of been held back longer. Somehow, I really don't think Bioware is completely the blame. In regards to  the so called Match made in Heaven.