207 réponses à ce sujet

[elearon1]

MrTijger wrote...

Persephone wrote...

You know, I remember this being said about NWN and its sequels, DAO, ME, The Witcher and now DAII....and yet....given all these amazing titles, I have never loved the RPG genre more.

Purists might argue those are not proper RPG's anyway so they do not matter. Then again purists have thick books with rules and tables and dice .

Purists should start substituting RPG with CRPG in their minds anytime they read that term on a gaming forum - no Computer Roleplaying Game is ever going to compete with a Pen and Paper rpg for depth and flexibility, we can just agree to agree on that.

That said, all those games were good crpgs (well NWN original campaign sucked imo, but the mods and later expansions made it worth owning) dispite the naysaying which surrounded them.  I have been at this hobby a long time and heard all the "sky is falling" cries to come through the loop ... yet we're still getting crpgs with good stories and interesting characters.  Change isn't always bad - often it is just change, and since we can't stop it we need to learn to embrace it.  

Is DA2 "Baldur's Gate"?  No, of course not, but then neither was DA:O.  People should hold on to their good memories of previous games, but not let them poison you to new experiences in the process.

[NedPepper]

^

Well said, my friend.

[Statulos]

Serpieri Nei wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Dridengx wrote...

"Dragon Age 2 marks the end of the RPG genre of old. For gamers such as me who grew up on a diet of dice rolls and D&D lore it may come as a bitter pill to swallow"

lol what I've been saying for weeks now. all the whiners can't accept change.I imagine them being like those who couldn't live without records, vhs tapes, black and white tv, and typewriters lol

You're welcomed to your opinon. Here's mine

I love how this whole "you're old and outdated philosphy" keeps getting regurgitated over and over. I guess the idea is if people repeat it enough times, maybe someone might actually believe it?  Funnier still is the 'whinners can't accept change" slogan. Honestly. As an independent thinker who is immune to corporate jargon and catch phrares, I wish you well in that new and exciting world of rpgs...where choices don't matter, customization is unheard of, exploration is limited, and playing a role is irrelevant. But hey, at least you'll have super duper fast combat! Yippie! 

If this is the new direction for Bioware's rpgs,  then I'll gladly take my old rocking chair, old loyalty, and more importantly, my old money,  elsewhere. 

 Side note

It's ironic to suggest that people who are no longer teenagers can't deal with change. Last time I checked, being older means you've actually witnessed and lived through change. If that isn't the best example of dealing with change, I don't know what else is.

With age comes Wisdom.

Very well said.

Regarding change, I can tell you I have Death Metal records from the very birth of the genre in LP and Cassete, I have them in CD and I have them in VHS and DVD. Surprisingly, it´s all Death Metal, no matter if it comes from Carbonized, Kaamos or Paganizer.

I have also been playing pen and paper RPG for more than two decades, from 1st ed. D&D to more recent games such as Heavy Gear or All Flesh Must be Eaten. They are all RPG´s.

For DA : O and DA2 the experience is quite, quite different.

Comparisons like that are simply ridiculous.

[DraconisCombine]

Unfortunately old school rpg's have been replaced by the computer genre of games.I tried about two years to try and find anyone who would take one day a week to play the old paper and dice model and its like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Then if you do happen to find some, you have to actually like the people your playing with.No easy feat.

[BY-TOR STORMDRAGON]

Bullshyt. RPG's began on paper and then Japan perfected them with the initial Final Fantasy series released in America- namely 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9- then it got weird with 10 and 10-2. There are superb RPG's out there, or I wouldn't be a gamer. Star Ocean on the X-Box is a superb RPG, Fable and Mass Effect are pathetic action/adventure games. On the PS2 some of the greatest RPG'S ever released are on that platform, of course none have touched Final Fantasy 7- nor likely ever will.
The true RPG is alive and well...and always will be, once you sift through the labelled games that claim to be RPG's...that AREN'T. With Dragon Age I waited 2 years to touch "Origins:Ultimate". I expected something like "Oblivion." Instead- it is my 2nd favorite game of all time, right behind FF7! What a stroke of genius. DA2 is great, but much less of a true RPG, and if there is a DA:3, I worry it will be mor KOTOR bullshyt. That's when I hop off the BioWare train.

[erynnar]

elearon1 wrote...

MrTijger wrote...

Persephone wrote...

You know, I remember this being said about NWN and its sequels, DAO, ME, The Witcher and now DAII....and yet....given all these amazing titles, I have never loved the RPG genre more.

Purists might argue those are not proper RPG's anyway so they do not matter. Then again purists have thick books with rules and tables and dice .

Purists should start substituting RPG with CRPG in their minds anytime they read that term on a gaming forum - no Computer Roleplaying Game is ever going to compete with a Pen and Paper rpg for depth and flexibility, we can just agree to agree on that.

That said, all those games were good crpgs (well NWN original campaign sucked imo, but the mods and later expansions made it worth owning) dispite the naysaying which surrounded them.  I have been at this hobby a long time and heard all the "sky is falling" cries to come through the loop ... yet we're still getting crpgs with good stories and interesting characters.  Change isn't always bad - often it is just change, and since we can't stop it we need to learn to embrace it.  

Is DA2 "Baldur's Gate"?  No, of course not, but then neither was DA:O.  People should hold on to their good memories of previous games, but not let them poison you to new experiences in the process.

No, one should not let the memories of a really great game experience in the past sully new experiences.  However, DA2 was promoted, advertised, and chatted up as the sequel to DAO, not a stand alone adventure game with light RPG in the DA universe.  This was made to be the sequel to a well done, RPG of the same vein as BG, BG2, and DAO. What we got instead was a game that tried to be ME2 in DA drag. It tried to wear too many hats (console, hack & slash, MMORPG, CRPG, anime...the list goes on) and thus failed to shine with the brilliance that it should have. As I have said in other threads (full official reviews on the reviews and feedback threads) before, and I'll say it here, that I don't hate the game, and from any one else this would be a very good game from a mediocre or smaller studio. But this is a BioWare product, and in that light, it flamed out spectactularly.  Are there good things about it, yes. Is it a great CRPG? Unfortunately, no. 

And despite the hue and cries that I should STFU and crawl back with my pen and paper and my D& D books, or that I am a hater, or a whiner, or I just can't take change....pffft. Those who do, don't know me except what I presume to show of myself here. I refuse to resort to name calling or allowing myself to be defined by such tactics. Want to debate? Great. Want to agree to disagree? Fantastic!  But do not belittle those of us who know this is not a CRPG. It isn't. And I will not think less of those of you for loving it as it is...a hack and slash, cinematic with some diet RPG.

edited for the accusatory "you" which sounded hostile when I didn't mean it that way. *Gibbs smacks self*

Modifié par erynnar, 06 avril 2011 - 02:43 .

[Morroian]

erynnar wrote...

No, one should not let the memories of a really great game experience in the past sully new experiences.  However, DA2 was promoted, advertised, and chatted up as the sequel to DAO, not a stand alone adventure game with light RPG in the DA universe. 

Yep but those changes were advertised well in advance if you choose to buy it despite that well thats on you.

erynnar wrote...

But do not belittle those of us who know this is not a CRPG. It isn't. 

You KNOW its not an rpg, so your definition is the only valid definition? My definition of an rpg is creating a character or my version of a character, defining that character and role playing it in a game. We do that in DA2. 

[cljqnsnyc]

nedpepper wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Change for the sake of change is unnecessary. Change when it is required...something else entirely. I don't recall any fan outcry to change DAO into DA2...a game that is not receiving anywhere near the same sort of praise by the fans, critics, and most importantly, the intended COD crowd. So, with all of this. Was "change" a good thing? Removing the elements of customization, exploration, role playing, and real choice in an rpg is indeed change. It effectively changes it into something else. DAO? Decay? Really? I think the sales figures of that game would render your opinon irrelavant.

About this 'byers never got past Ostagar nonsense'.

This defies logic! If it were true, how could DAO possibly sell the amount of copies it did, which were largely based on word of mouth? Are you really going to recommend a game to someone that you couldn't complete? i'm just not that guliable. Logic and histroy blow that argument out the window. If I wanted to form a focus group of people who like Coke over Pepsi then asked them which was better? I'd get the answer I was hoping for. You get the idea.

I personally know two people who quit after Ostagar.  I didn't get it, but they did.  It was too slow, or they didn't like the combat style.  Hoping for more of an Oblilvion style.....

I love Dragon Age because it's NOT Oblivion....there's an actual plot.

Point is: if I know two gamers myself, and I imagine there are others as well, and Bioware has information on this...I'm gonna guess it was common.

Obviously not common enough. If you refer to my statement, the point I made is clear. If the majority or even half the buyers of DAO quit after Ostagar, how is it possible to sell so many copies? As I said, word of mouth sold DAO. If the general word of mouth was...."I can't get past the first few hours" then the game couldn't possibly be the hit it was and continues to be.  That's a fact.

[TJSolo]

Morroian wrote...

Yep but those changes were advertised well in advance if you choose to buy it despite that well thats on you.

Then what about the folks that choose not to partake of the hype and fanfare as such a player all I want to know is a release date, general description, and maybe a demo. From the information I gathered before my purchase the names of Dragon Age and Bioware were enough to overshadow the combat in the demo and the name EA.  Brand recognition is important and it is not my fault the BW brand is not what it used to be.

You KNOW its not an rpg, so your definition is the only valid definition? My definition of an rpg is creating a character or my version of a character, defining that character and role playing it in a game. We do that in DA2. 

You have an odd defintion as many RPGs do not fit that.  The definition of action RPG is being blurred to the point games from EA Bioware are called action games with RPG elements from the developers themselves. Adding in RPG elements to an action game does not make an action game and RPG or even an action RPG. If merely having RPG elements were enough then games like Assassin's Creed and Bioshock would be considered action RPGs too.The biggest reason these games from Bioware are being place in the RPG genre is because EA Bioware wants to be considered an RPG game maker and want the term "RPG" for recognition.

[RamonIAm]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Change for the sake of change is unnecessary. Change when it is required...something else entirely. I don't recall any fan outcry to change DAO into DA2...a game that is not receiving anywhere near the same sort of praise by the fans, critics, and most importantly, the intended COD crowd. So, with all of this. Was "change" a good thing? Removing the elements of customization, exploration, role playing, and real choice in an rpg is indeed change. It effectively changes it into something else. DAO? Decay? Really? I think the sales figures of that game would render your opinon irrelavant.

About this 'byers never got past Ostagar nonsense'.

This defies logic! If it were true, how could DAO possibly sell the amount of copies it did, which were largely based on word of mouth? Are you really going to recommend a game to someone that you couldn't complete? i'm just not that guliable. Logic and histroy blow that argument out the window. If I wanted to form a focus group of people who like Coke over Pepsi then asked them which was better? I'd get the answer I was hoping for. You get the idea.

There could never be a fan outcry for change in a game (at least not a first in the series), if the game was bad enough that people wanted so many changes, it would have no fans at all.

Past that, the reason they tried to change was simple, stagnation kills everything, just look at what happens with most rpgs, after a while, usually 3 or 4 titles, they start to decay because it's all the same, it's hard to even be sure if something happened in the number 1, 2 or 3 of the series... the only really long lasting series in the RPG genre is Final Fantasy, which completely revamps itself everytime.

I think Bioware was incridibly bold, they could have just sat on DA:Os success and make 3 or 4 identical sequels of it, which would sell a couple more million copies, and then move on. But they seem to really like theDragon Age world and want to make it a long-term series, for that, change is necessary, everytime, even for the things that are going well.


By the way, despite some obvious problems, I really liked DA2 more than I liked DAO. It's true you have a bit less immersion, mostly because you are not on such an epic quest all the time as it happens in Origins, but I really loved the feeling of having a home in Kirkwall and watching the city change through what I did. Stop complaining and play the game for what it is, when you want to explore play Origins, I'm sure you still have it.

PS: Sorry for the rather aggressive ed, by then I was writing for everyone, not just for you so I got carried away.

[erynnar]

Morroian wrote...

erynnar wrote...

No, one should not let the memories of a really great game experience in the past sully new experiences.  However, DA2 was promoted, advertised, and chatted up as the sequel to DAO, not a stand alone adventure game with light RPG in the DA universe. 

Yep but those changes were advertised well in advance if you choose to buy it despite that well thats on you.

Links please?   And as to that, if they hadn't been chatting it up as the successor to DAO and then creating a stand alone game;  which used the rep of the company, the hype of from that company, the hype of paid reviews, and the reputation of its predecessor to get many (like me who trusted them) to buy the game.  Yes, it is on me, and I will not pre-order again, but wait for reviews from actual players. So, yes, my bad for trusting BioWare to make a few changes but not gut what made DAO fun and an RPG.

erynnar wrote...

But do not belittle those of us who know this is not a CRPG. It isn't. 

You KNOW its not an rpg, so your definition is the only valid definition? My definition of an rpg is creating a character or my version of a character, defining that character and role playing it in a game. We do that in DA2. 

Is not the classic definition of an  true RPG a game of interactivity  and role-playing in a fictional setting where the choices made affect the story? My Hawke did not affect the story. No matter what choices I made the overall story did not change, and the other story arcs were not allowed to be changed either (ie a certain needed amount of <spoiler> which you get no matter what to ensure your journey in Act 1. Or a certain ending to Act 2 <spoiler> which happens the way it happens including the ending of Act 3 no matter who you <spoiler> with).  Hell the whole disjointed story line (s) were told in flashback, so your impact was going to be gone from this game at the outset.

Interactivity is the crucial difference between role-playing games and say a total hack and slash, or other genre, yes?  It could be argued that you had interactivity, but your impact in DA2 is nil.  A person who watches a television show, or in this case a cinematic movie with combat thrown in, is a passive observer. So if this was supposed to be truly role-playing... Hawke would have been able to save certain people, find diplomatic solutions to some of the happenings, and would have been the one to impact the world; not a certain someone else <spoiler> who did a certain action <spoiler> that blew the whole thing wide open while Hawke was along for the ride. In DAO your choices did impact the world, despite the ending being a forgone conclusion. They stripped that out of DA2.  I was left with a very nice vehicle, the ability to pimp my ride, and a lovely (albeit, sometimes boring repeated scenery) in which to drive to a set of predestined set of situations which nominally changed the world. Sort of as if I ran over a squirrel with my car (sad but not world shattering or altering), whiile someone else did the world changing actions.

Modifié par erynnar, 06 avril 2011 - 03:48 .

[Stuffy38]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Obviously not common enough. If you refer to my statement, the point I made is clear. If the majority or even half the buyers of DAO quit after Ostagar, how is it possible to sell so many copies? As I said, word of mouth sold DAO. If the general word of mouth was...."I can't get past the first few hours" then the game couldn't possibly be the hit it was and continues to be.  That's a fact.

I only know of one player who quit after Ostagar, but knowing him I would read absolutely nothing into it.  He completed all six origins twice as well IIRC.  Funny thing is, DA2 is probably something he would really enjoy because he has reading difficulties (something which I think might have edged him away from DAO).

And I tend to agree with Erynnar about DA2 not really being a classic RPG.  Somewhere in the process of making the game, enough essential bits of RPG gaming sort of... fell off.

Modifié par Stuffy38, 06 avril 2011 - 03:57 .

[Lord_Valandil]

This is old, but...

[RamonIAm]

erynnar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

erynnar wrote...

No, one should not let the memories of a really great game experience in the past sully new experiences.  However, DA2 was promoted, advertised, and chatted up as the sequel to DAO, not a stand alone adventure game with light RPG in the DA universe. 

Yep but those changes were advertised well in advance if you choose to buy it despite that well thats on you.

Links please?   And as to that, if they hadn't been chatting it up as the successor to DAO and then creating a stand alone game;  which used the rep of the company, the hype of from that company, the hype of paid reviews, and the reputation of its predecessor to get many (like me who trusted them) to buy the game.  Yes, it is on me, and I will not pre-order again, but wait for reviews from actual players. So, yes, my bad for trusting BioWare to make a few changes but not gut what made DAO fun and an RPG.

erynnar wrote...

But do not belittle those of us who know this is not a CRPG. It isn't. 

You KNOW its not an rpg, so your definition is the only valid definition? My definition of an rpg is creating a character or my version of a character, defining that character and role playing it in a game. We do that in DA2. 

Is not the classic definition of an  true RPG a game of interactivity  and role-playing in a fictional setting where the choices made affect the story? My Hawke did not affect the story. No matter what choices I made the overall story did not change, and the other story arcs were not allowed to be changed either (ie a certain needed amount of which you get no matter what to ensure your journey in Act 1. Or a certain ending to Act 2 which happens the way it happens including the ending of Act 3 no matter who you with).  Hell the whole disjointed story line (s) were told in flashback, so your impact was going to be gone from this game at the outset.

Interactivity is the crucial difference between role-playing games and say a total hack and slash, or other genre, yes?  It could be argued that you had interactivity, but your impact in DA2 is nil.  A person who watches a television show, or in this case a cinematic movie with combat thrown in, is a passive observer. So if this was supposed to be truly role-playing... Hawke would have been able to save certain people, find diplomatic solutions to some of the happenings, and would have been the one to impact the world; not a certain someone else who did a certain action that blew the whole thing wide open while Hawke was along for the ride. In DAO your choices did impact the world, despite the ending being a forgone conclusion. They stripped that out of DA2.  I was left with a very nice vehicle, the ability to pimp my ride, and a lovely (albeit, sometimes boring repeated scenery) in which to drive to a set of predestined set of situations which nominally changed the world. Sort of as if I ran over a squirrel with my car (sad but not world shattering or altering), whiile someone else did the world changing actions.

I had never realized people had such a big "I have to be the big bad main guy in video-games" complex, I thought playing Hawke was extremely rewarding and interesting, even if it was not me who caused the situations most of the time.

I really don't think it is necessary for everything to happen in the world because of my character, in fact, that annoyed me in DAO, the fact that a whole country couldn't grill a burguer without my help.

[tiernanls]

i guess ill just never understand what the general description of an rpg is. i know tis an acronym for role playing game, but then.... dont you kinda do that in every game you play? you assume a role.... you play it. lol.

i like dragon age 2 and very much consider it an rpg. with the limited categories you have for pigeon-holing any title that is where dragon age 2 most fits. its nothing like a god of war or a devil may cry. those are TRUE hack and slash titles. and those are awesome games fyi.

on the one hand there are people saying the rpg was perfected with final fantasy (an experience more akin to reading a book to me) and others that say it is only perfect on pen and paper (an experience more akin to collaboratively writing a book). if youre role playing in someone elses defined medium i really dont understand how kotor, dragon age, or mass effect dont qualify as role playing games. but thats just me.

[erynnar]

RamonIAm wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

erynnar wrote...

No, one should not let the memories of a really great game experience in the past sully new experiences.  However, DA2 was promoted, advertised, and chatted up as the sequel to DAO, not a stand alone adventure game with light RPG in the DA universe. 

Yep but those changes were advertised well in advance if you choose to buy it despite that well thats on you.

Links please?   And as to that, if they hadn't been chatting it up as the successor to DAO and then creating a stand alone game;  which used the rep of the company, the hype of from that company, the hype of paid reviews, and the reputation of its predecessor to get many (like me who trusted them) to buy the game.  Yes, it is on me, and I will not pre-order again, but wait for reviews from actual players. So, yes, my bad for trusting BioWare to make a few changes but not gut what made DAO fun and an RPG.

erynnar wrote...

But do not belittle those of us who know this is not a CRPG. It isn't. 

You KNOW its not an rpg, so your definition is the only valid definition? My definition of an rpg is creating a character or my version of a character, defining that character and role playing it in a game. We do that in DA2. 

Is not the classic definition of an  true RPG a game of interactivity  and role-playing in a fictional setting where the choices made affect the story? My Hawke did not affect the story. No matter what choices I made the overall story did not change, and the other story arcs were not allowed to be changed either (ie a certain needed amount of which you get no matter what to ensure your journey in Act 1. Or a certain ending to Act 2 which happens the way it happens including the ending of Act 3 no matter who you with).  Hell the whole disjointed story line (s) were told in flashback, so your impact was going to be gone from this game at the outset.

Interactivity is the crucial difference between role-playing games and say a total hack and slash, or other genre, yes?  It could be argued that you had interactivity, but your impact in DA2 is nil.  A person who watches a television show, or in this case a cinematic movie with combat thrown in, is a passive observer. So if this was supposed to be truly role-playing... Hawke would have been able to save certain people, find diplomatic solutions to some of the happenings, and would have been the one to impact the world; not a certain someone else who did a certain action that blew the whole thing wide open while Hawke was along for the ride. In DAO your choices did impact the world, despite the ending being a forgone conclusion. They stripped that out of DA2.  I was left with a very nice vehicle, the ability to pimp my ride, and a lovely (albeit, sometimes boring repeated scenery) in which to drive to a set of predestined set of situations which nominally changed the world. Sort of as if I ran over a squirrel with my car (sad but not world shattering or altering), whiile someone else did the world changing actions.

I had never realized people had such a big "I have to be the big bad main guy in video-games" complex, I thought playing Hawke was extremely rewarding and interesting, even if it was not me who caused the situations most of the time.

I really don't think it is necessary for everything to happen in the world because of my character, in fact, that annoyed me in DAO, the fact that a whole country couldn't grill a burguer without my help.

Okay I have been accused of wanting EPIC story all the time, with an evil baddie (two archdemons stapled together for a super Blight) and wanting ALL the world to just need me to wipe their ass for them. I didn't say that. I don't need a big baddie to fight and save the world, if the story telling is compelling enough. But this wasn't that story. Basically the story is Hawke is a rags to riches working your way up in the world from rock bottom. Hmmm, sounds my like my day job and my real life. True I don't have really cool armor and get to stab balloons full of exploding blood, or live in a place with elves, but the NPCs do resemble my co-workers in personality sometimes. If I want to play that kind of role in a armor and swords setting...I can play Medieval Sims.

  But Hawke was a passive character while all the things happened around them. Nothing they did, absolutely nothing seemed to impact the world at large at all.  It has been debated on other threads, but take Hawke out, and with the story telling as is, all would have happened the same way as it did. If that wasn't supposed to be the case, then it is a weakness of the storytelling. If I had been the one to set things in motion, and not save the world, but rather bring it to the brink of the precipice <spoiler>? Now that would have been cool.  Or at the very least having some impact on what happens to those closest to me <spoiler> and preventing certain outcomes at least in regards to them <spoiler>, even if I didn't get to be the one that blew the world apart. But I didn't. Really, the replay value of this game is nil for me since I know this. I wasn't asking to save the world, or grill them a burger, hold their hands, or wipe their noses. And being the hero that changes the world forever is how this game was advertised. It wasn't us, it was a certain someone else <spoiler> really.

[BounceDK]

I'd rather play a proper rpg "the old way" than this button mashing rpg wannabe. Also the wheel is the dumbest thing I have ever seen, in Mass Effect as well.

[Morroian]

erynnar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

erynnar wrote...

No, one should not let the memories of a really great game experience in the past sully new experiences.  However, DA2 was promoted, advertised, and chatted up as the sequel to DAO, not a stand alone adventure game with light RPG in the DA universe. 

Yep but those changes were advertised well in advance if you choose to buy it despite that well thats on you.

Links please?   And as to that, if they hadn't been chatting it up as the successor to DAO and then creating a stand alone game;  

This forum prior to release. And there's nothing to say that a sequel has to be exactly the same as the original. Franchises have to change or they will stagnate.

erynnar wrote...

Is not the classic definition of an  true RPG a game of interactivity  and role-playing in a fictional setting where the choices made affect the story? 

There are some rpgs without stories, just pure role playing. 

Modifié par Morroian, 06 avril 2011 - 06:10 .

[tiernanls]

erynnar wrote...

RamonIAm wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

erynnar wrote...

No, one should not let the memories of a really great game experience in the past sully new experiences.  However, DA2 was promoted, advertised, and chatted up as the sequel to DAO, not a stand alone adventure game with light RPG in the DA universe. 

Yep but those changes were advertised well in advance if you choose to buy it despite that well thats on you.

Links please?   And as to that, if they hadn't been chatting it up as the successor to DAO and then creating a stand alone game;  which used the rep of the company, the hype of from that company, the hype of paid reviews, and the reputation of its predecessor to get many (like me who trusted them) to buy the game.  Yes, it is on me, and I will not pre-order again, but wait for reviews from actual players. So, yes, my bad for trusting BioWare to make a few changes but not gut what made DAO fun and an RPG.

erynnar wrote...

But do not belittle those of us who know this is not a CRPG. It isn't. 

You KNOW its not an rpg, so your definition is the only valid definition? My definition of an rpg is creating a character or my version of a character, defining that character and role playing it in a game. We do that in DA2. 

Is not the classic definition of an  true RPG a game of interactivity  and role-playing in a fictional setting where the choices made affect the story? My Hawke did not affect the story. No matter what choices I made the overall story did not change, and the other story arcs were not allowed to be changed either (ie a certain needed amount of which you get no matter what to ensure your journey in Act 1. Or a certain ending to Act 2 which happens the way it happens including the ending of Act 3 no matter who you with).  Hell the whole disjointed story line (s) were told in flashback, so your impact was going to be gone from this game at the outset.

Interactivity is the crucial difference between role-playing games and say a total hack and slash, or other genre, yes?  It could be argued that you had interactivity, but your impact in DA2 is nil.  A person who watches a television show, or in this case a cinematic movie with combat thrown in, is a passive observer. So if this was supposed to be truly role-playing... Hawke would have been able to save certain people, find diplomatic solutions to some of the happenings, and would have been the one to impact the world; not a certain someone else who did a certain action that blew the whole thing wide open while Hawke was along for the ride. In DAO your choices did impact the world, despite the ending being a forgone conclusion. They stripped that out of DA2.  I was left with a very nice vehicle, the ability to pimp my ride, and a lovely (albeit, sometimes boring repeated scenery) in which to drive to a set of predestined set of situations which nominally changed the world. Sort of as if I ran over a squirrel with my car (sad but not world shattering or altering), whiile someone else did the world changing actions.

I had never realized people had such a big "I have to be the big bad main guy in video-games" complex, I thought playing Hawke was extremely rewarding and interesting, even if it was not me who caused the situations most of the time.

I really don't think it is necessary for everything to happen in the world because of my character, in fact, that annoyed me in DAO, the fact that a whole country couldn't grill a burguer without my help.

Okay I have been accused of wanting EPIC story all the time, with an evil baddie (two archdemons stapled together for a super Blight) and wanting ALL the world to just need me to wipe their ass for them. I didn't say that. I don't need a big baddie to fight and save the world, if the story telling is compelling enough. But this wasn't that story. Basically the story is Hawke is a rags to riches working your way up in the world from rock bottom. Hmmm, sounds my like my day job and my real life. True I don't have really cool armor and get to stab balloons full of exploding blood, or live in a place with elves, but the NPCs do resemble my co-workers in personality sometimes. If I want to play that kind of role in a armor and swords setting...I can play Medieval Sims.

  But Hawke was a passive character while all the things happened around them. Nothing they did, absolutely nothing seemed to impact the world at large at all.  It has been debated on other threads, but take Hawke out, and with the story telling as is, all would have happened the same way as it did. If that wasn't supposed to be the case, then it is a weakness of the storytelling. If I had been the one to set things in motion, and not save the world, but rather bring it to the brink of the precipice <spoiler>? Now that would have been cool.  Or at the very least having some impact on what happens to those closest to me <spoiler> and preventing certain outcomes at least in regards to them <spoiler>, even if I didn't get to be the one that blew the world apart. But I didn't. Really, the replay value of this game is nil for me since I know this. I wasn't asking to save the world, or grill them a burger, hold their hands, or wipe their noses. And being the hero that changes the world forever is how this game was advertised. It wasn't us, it was a certain someone else <spoiler> really.

i dont get the sense that this is true personally.  sure the overall outcome of the event boils down to something happening you cannot stop, but i absolutely get the sense taht just about every decision made in this one will have a direct effect on the next one.  thats just the sense i get.  just like the decisions in mass effect had more of an effect on mass effect 2 than one but in the end still boiled down to the same conflict.  i think if the intent is for the third to tie both origins and 2 together than your concerns can be explained in several interviews given on mass effect two.  with the number of options given in the original there were too many variables to divirge everything that happened within one to a head and likewise from one to two.  however by limiting the number of variables in the secnd iteration, youre able to diverge 100's of variables into the third title. 

so while dragon age 2 is much much more linear in terms of outcome, i would hypothosize that that is only to make certain that any conclusion to the story being told would be able to divirge with finality in as many variables as possible.  thinking about how this will change everything down the road is what gets me excited about the decisions i make in 2. 

[cljqnsnyc]

RamonIAm wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Change for the sake of change is unnecessary. Change when it is required...something else entirely. I don't recall any fan outcry to change DAO into DA2...a game that is not receiving anywhere near the same sort of praise by the fans, critics, and most importantly, the intended COD crowd. So, with all of this. Was "change" a good thing? Removing the elements of customization, exploration, role playing, and real choice in an rpg is indeed change. It effectively changes it into something else. DAO? Decay? Really? I think the sales figures of that game would render your opinon irrelavant.

About this 'byers never got past Ostagar nonsense'.

This defies logic! If it were true, how could DAO possibly sell the amount of copies it did, which were largely based on word of mouth? Are you really going to recommend a game to someone that you couldn't complete? i'm just not that guliable. Logic and histroy blow that argument out the window. If I wanted to form a focus group of people who like Coke over Pepsi then asked them which was better? I'd get the answer I was hoping for. You get the idea.

There could never be a fan outcry for change in a game (at least not a first in the series), if the game was bad enough that people wanted so many changes, it would have no fans at all.

Past that, the reason they tried to change was simple, stagnation kills everything, just look at what happens with most rpgs, after a while, usually 3 or 4 titles, they start to decay because it's all the same, it's hard to even be sure if something happened in the number 1, 2 or 3 of the series... the only really long lasting series in the RPG genre is Final Fantasy, which completely revamps itself everytime.

I think Bioware was incridibly bold, they could have just sat on DA:Os success and make 3 or 4 identical sequels of it, which would sell a couple more million copies, and then move on. But they seem to really like theDragon Age world and want to make it a long-term series, for that, change is necessary, everytime, even for the things that are going well.


By the way, despite some obvious problems, I really liked DA2 more than I liked DAO. It's true you have a bit less immersion, mostly because you are not on such an epic quest all the time as it happens in Origins, but I really loved the feeling of having a home in Kirkwall and watching the city change through what I did. Stop complaining and play the game for what it is, when you want to explore play Origins, I'm sure you still have it.

PS: Sorry for the rather aggressive ed, by then I was writing for everyone, not just for you so I got carried away.

I've never taken issue with anyone for having their own point of view. However, telling me to "stop complaining and play the game for what it is," this indeed is a problem! 

I have just as much right to express my disastisfaction with DA2 as you do to sing it's praises. Whether we agree on DA2's merits....or lack thereof.....is besides the point. It's bad enough that you think your opinion is more valid than others...hence the "stop complaining" comment, but to have the nerve to tell me to go back to "Origins?" Your tone is unbeleiveably arrogant! 
 
Anyway.....

Ideas are great...when they're fully realized. Boldness is admirable...if DA2 is really a case of being bold. Or is it pure a simple greed? By this I mean using this "change" argument to excuse what's actually happeneing. My opinion is something along these lines:

EA wanted more money.
COD has a larger fanbase
FPS fans by in large do not play rpgs
"Let's try and get the COD fanbase to buy DA2"
"How do we do this when they don't usually play rpgs?"
"Simple. Let's morph the rpg into something they might play....."
"How?"
"Change rpg into action adventure, more like ME2 with swords"
"What about the DAO fanbase?"
"A lot of them won't like it but it doesn't matter."
"Really?"
"Sure. We'll more than make up for them with the new COD fans we'll bring in"
"We can bill it "The changing face of rpgs"
"Okay, let's go for it......"

Bioware did what it was told.

They were given very little time and obviously not enough resources and then....

DA2 was born

This is what I think "change" really means.  My opinion.
The game came out in a matter of MONTHS! Why? MONEY!!!

As far as the writting goes, it was a good idea to try something new but it just didn't come tegether as a complete story. To many plot holes and inconsistencies.  The setting only works if it's a stop, not as a focal point over the course of several years. Nothing in fact actually changed. The same people in the same places doing and saying the exact same things. The Qunari left and Hawke changed homes. Other than that, nothing changed.


DA2 is neither an rpg or a sequel. It's an action game with a few elements of rpg....so the new COD fan they were hoping for wouldn't lose interest. True this is a very cynical viewpoint. It's my observation based on what I've read and seen. There are things to enjoy in the game but it has far to many problems to be called a Bioware game.


I also think this MIGHT be the feelings of others...which also might explain the firestorm of complaints, which for some isn't just about the game itself, but what it represents. But as stated, it's what I think is likely the case...at least to some degree.

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 06 avril 2011 - 08:25 .

[TheJiveDJ]

'Tis is a sad day indeed. Perhaps something can be done to stem this tide?  But alas, who am I in the grand scheme of things if only but one man?  Look closer and maybe you'll find your answer.

Modifié par TheJiveDJ, 06 avril 2011 - 06:17 .

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

It's comforting to know DA2 didn't set that first bar too high.

[cljqnsnyc]

Stuffy38 wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Obviously not common enough. If you refer to my statement, the point I made is clear. If the majority or even half the buyers of DAO quit after Ostagar, how is it possible to sell so many copies? As I said, word of mouth sold DAO. If the general word of mouth was...."I can't get past the first few hours" then the game couldn't possibly be the hit it was and continues to be.  That's a fact.

I only know of one player who quit after Ostagar, but knowing him I would read absolutely nothing into it.  He completed all six origins twice as well IIRC.  Funny thing is, DA2 is probably something he would really enjoy because he has reading difficulties (something which I think might have edged him away from DAO).

And I tend to agree with Erynnar about DA2 not really being a classic RPG.  Somewhere in the process of making the game, enough essential bits of RPG gaming sort of... fell off.

I have my own opinions on why that little tidbit came out. I think it was simply to downplay DAO and characterize it as slow, boring, etc, in order to play up DA2. It's a classic tactic of the desparate if you ask me. If a game is good, it stands on it's own merits and doesn't need someone to play it up for publicity ......and sales...sake.  But, the plan isn't exactly working as they would have liked. DAO is still selling and DA2's sales are falling off after the initial week, largely due to the success of DAO.

[Klimy]

The threads name is incorrect, or I disagree. Bioware is well respected company, and many will try to copy what Bioware does. But what OP called "RPG genre of old" can not die just because of Dragon Age 2.
There are lot's companies that still produce good "hardcore" RPGs. It's just happens so that their budget or skills are not enough to make insane graphics and professional VO. But on the other hand their price tag is under 30 Euros, so no one can complain.

Dragon Age 2 brought something new. And aside of copy-paste and cliff hanger, it has lot's of good innovations and bright ideas. It works fine for role playing, it's just feels like we start to forget what RPG abbreviation stands for.

As about old school hardcore things, then Dragon Age 2 can't do anything about it.

[Dubya75]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

This is old, but...

Funny how that works. Some people still prefer text-based RPGs (as tedious are they are). Now, while there is nothing wrong with that, I prefer the more...human approach, i.e. talking and such.

Also, since you've posted an "edited" image of Hawke all crooked-eyed, would it not also have been fair to depict the cumbersome nature of old-school RPGs? (Unless you are not being objective of course).