179 réponses à ce sujet

[MonkeyKaboom]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

stoicsentry2 wrote...

Unfortunately, the Call of Duty crowd hasn't signed in to vote. If they did, I'm sure DA2 would only be trailing DA:O by 20% or so.

I don't think the "Call of Duty Crowd" really enjoy DA2,  there's no multiplayer.  Which is what the shooter crowd is truly based on.

This.  FPS are about the multiplayer.  The campaign modes are ok.  But the real meat comes from multplayer.  That's where the replay value is at.  DA2 left out the most important aspect of FPS so if that's they crowd they were going for they missed the boat completely.  Which makes me wonder why so many people here seem to think that's who they were trying to attract.  But then most of you probably don't play these games either.  Still I'd expect the devs to have done better homework.  On another tangent, its amazing how many people seem to think FPS is "dumbed down."  RPG AI can never match the difficulty in playing against another human being(s).  That's why the heart of FPS is multiplayer.  

[Eurhetemec]

I honestly don't understand people who "hate" DA2.

It seems to be an entirely irrational position, and the more I read on these boards, as people try and rationalize it, the more irrational it seems to be.

By any rational standards, DA2 was a good CRPG. Reviews reflect this. It had serious quality problems in a few departments that significantly impacted the scores it received, but it was not by any means a "bad" game. All the most extreme criticism seemed to be from extremely niche publications which would normally have been given little weight by gamers.

Preferring DA:O is perfectly rational, note, but there's a gigantic leap from preferring one game to hating another, one that takes a lot of rationalization and leaps of logic (or even active illogic) to make.

Indeed, almost everything that's wrong with DA2, I would suggest, really wrong, comes down to the near-18-month development cycle. The wild overuse of the same locations, the lazy spawning-in of some enemies, the questionable balance in combat (esp. before patch 1.03), and the rather undeveloped plot (which leads to be people suggesting that Hawke is "reactive" - it's not a strong argument but that the plot is seemingly missing obvious choices is, as is the poor setting-up of certain bits and over-cooking of others). That's the real lession the BioWare need to take from this. Not that they did the combat "wrong". Not that the setting was "wrong". Certainly not that the characters or personalities or interaction were "wrong". But that the game was underdeveloped, under-polished and really just seemed rather unfinished, especially with it's extremely abrupt ending, and almost out-of-nowhere villains. I genuinely think that with six or twelve months more of development, opinions on DA2 would be very different.

So I really hope BioWare don't get the wrong end of the stick. The big problems with DA2 are not the ones many "fans" here on the boards complain endlessly about - those are simply rationalizations of a greater disappointment, and in some cases are actually fine design choices. The take-away is that the DA games are not "One every eighteen months" shooter-type affairs, that rather they require greater polish and time and content to receive the same sort of approval.

Modifié par Eurhetemec, 11 juillet 2011 - 05:21 .

[erynnar]

Eurhetemec wrote...

I honestly don't understand people who "hate" DA2.

It seems to be an entirely irrational position, and the more I read on these boards, as people try and rationalize it, the more irrational it seems to be.

By any rational standards, DA2 was a good CRPG. Reviews reflect this. It had serious quality problems in a few departments that significantly impacted the scores it received, but it was not by any means a "bad" game. All the most extreme criticism seemed to be from extremely niche publications which would normally have been given little weight by gamers.

Preferring DA:O is perfectly rational, note, but there's a gigantic leap from preferring one game to hating another, one that takes a lot of rationalization and leaps of logic (or even active illogic) to make.

Indeed, almost everything that's wrong with DA2, I would suggest, really wrong, comes down to the near-18-month development cycle. The wild overuse of the same locations, the lazy spawning-in of some enemies, the questionable balance in combat (esp. before patch 1.03), and the rather undeveloped plot (which leads to be people suggesting that Hawke is "reactive" - it's not a strong argument but that the plot is seemingly missing obvious choices is, as is the poor setting-up of certain bits and over-cooking of others). That's the real lession the BioWare need to take from this. Not that they did the combat "wrong". Not that the setting was "wrong". Certainly not that the characters or personalities or interaction were "wrong". But that the game was underdeveloped, under-polished and really just seemed rather unfinished, especially with it's extremely abrupt ending, and almost out-of-nowhere villains. I genuinely think that with six or twelve months more of development, opinions on DA2 would be very different.

So I really hope BioWare don't get the wrong end of the stick. The big problems with DA2 are not the ones many "fans" here on the boards complain endlessly about - those are simply rationalizations of a greater disappointment, and in some cases are actually fine design choices. The take-away is that the DA games are not "One every eighteen months" shooter-type affairs, that rather they require greater polish and time and content to receive the same sort of approval.

I don't hate DA2. I also don't think it is a bad game, nor  is it a good game (not for a BioWare game). It's okay.  Did some enjoy it? Yep. Did some hate it? Yep. It's not necessarily irrational, it is what it is to each individual. Just because there is vitriol, does not negate the complaints of the "fans," as you put it (which I find very dismissive of you btw). You may not like it, nor understand it, but it doesn't make it less valid. Nor does someone who loves it and is able to overlook its flaws. Those fans are just as valid too.

[Addai]

Eurhetemec wrote...
So I really hope BioWare don't get the wrong end of the stick. The big problems with DA2 are not the ones many "fans" here on the boards complain endlessly about - those are simply rationalizations of a greater disappointment, and in some cases are actually fine design choices.

"Rationalizations of a greater disappointment"- and this is not legitimate how?  If fans of the original are disappointed, is that not a problem?

You sound like you're from the EA marketing department, after the memo came out telling them not to use the word "innovation."

[The Elder King]

I voted now on the second and the third poll. I can't vote on the first poll because I neither love or hate DA2. It's a normal game for me (my personal vote is 6.5).
In my opinion this type of polls could work better if there is a third option, in the middle between Yes or No.

[Wusword77]

Addai67 wrote...

Eurhetemec wrote...
So I really hope BioWare don't get the wrong end of the stick. The big problems with DA2 are not the ones many "fans" here on the boards complain endlessly about - those are simply rationalizations of a greater disappointment, and in some cases are actually fine design choices.

"Rationalizations of a greater disappointment"- and this is not legitimate how?  If fans of the original are disappointed, is that not a problem?

You sound like you're from the EA marketing department, after the memo came out telling them not to use the word "innovation."

He's saying that many of the fans magnify their disappointment of certain aspects of the game because they didn't get DA:O again with a slightly changed story.  I agree with this, because it's happened to me with other titles, Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 being good examples.  When I first got the games I was expecting something different from what they were, Warcraft 3 to be more like Warcraft 2 and Starcraft 2 to be more like Warcraft 3, and I was disappointed by what I found.  After my initial disappointment wore off I found many of the changes were good for the franchise and I enjoyed the games much more.

Then again I've come to the understanding that when I play a new game I want there to be something new/different about it.

[Addai]

Wusword77 wrote...
He's saying that many of the fans magnify their disappointment of certain aspects of the game because they didn't get DA:O again with a slightly changed story.  I agree with this, because it's happened to me with other titles, Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 being good examples.  When I first got the games I was expecting something different from what they were, Warcraft 3 to be more like Warcraft 2 and Starcraft 2 to be more like Warcraft 3, and I was disappointed by what I found.  After my initial disappointment wore off I found many of the changes were good for the franchise and I enjoyed the games much more.

Then again I've come to the understanding that when I play a new game I want there to be something new/different about it.

If so, I consider that a dead and rotting red herring, which Laidlaw also tried to play in the interview where he said "we could have stapled two archdemons and had a superblight."

Granted, some people wanted the Warden to return, but I doubt that many of us wanted exactly the same story or exactly the same setup.  What we did want and expect was a game that was up to par with the original in terms of quality and replayability.  This was supposed to be a sequel, after all, a second game- not just a glorified expansion, which is more like what we got in reality.

[stoicsentry2]

Eurhetemec wrote...

I honestly don't understand people who "hate" DA2.

It seems to be an entirely irrational position, and the more I read on these boards, as people try and rationalize it, the more irrational it seems to be.

By any rational standards, DA2 was a good CRPG. Reviews reflect this. It had serious quality problems in a few departments that significantly impacted the scores it received, but it was not by any means a "bad" game. All the most extreme criticism seemed to be from extremely niche publications which would normally have been given little weight by gamers.

Preferring DA:O is perfectly rational, note, but there's a gigantic leap from preferring one game to hating another, one that takes a lot of rationalization and leaps of logic (or even active illogic) to make.

Indeed, almost everything that's wrong with DA2, I would suggest, really wrong, comes down to the near-18-month development cycle.

Oh, well THAT makes me feel better about the game...

Riiiiiite....

The wild overuse of the same locations, the lazy spawning-in of some enemies, the questionable balance in combat (esp. before patch 1.03), and the rather undeveloped plot (which leads to be people suggesting that Hawke is "reactive" - it's not a strong argument but that the plot is seemingly missing obvious choices is, as is the poor setting-up of certain bits and over-cooking of others). 

Let's see: no choice, no plot, balance off, and tons of repetitive areas. Yeah, I agree with you, it's really irrational to call DA2 bad....

[Savber100]

This isn't a 70;30 where people liked DA2 to people that didn't. It's pretty much a 50:50..

Is it worth it, Bioware?

[Eurhetemec]

erynnar wrote...

I don't hate DA2. I also don't think it is a bad game, nor  is it a good game (not for a BioWare game). It's okay.  Did some enjoy it? Yep. Did some hate it? Yep. It's not necessarily irrational, it is what it is to each individual. Just because there is vitriol, does not negate the complaints of the "fans," as you put it (which I find very dismissive of you btw). You may not like it, nor understand it, but it doesn't make it less valid. Nor does someone who loves it and is able to overlook its flaws. Those fans are just as valid too.

If you don't hate it then I give your opinions my respect, but let me point out the problem I have with what you're saying with my bold text on your quote.

Not for a BioWare game, you say. And I think that's at the crux of this. DA2 has been judged far, far more harshly by fans and even by some paid critics, because it's a BioWare game. It's not like the same thing never happens to others, of course. Diablo 2, despite being a better game than Diablo 1 (which was buggy, completely un-secure thing) in every way, yet got much, much worse reviews. DA2 isn't a better game than DA:O overall (thought it is in many ways), so it got even more harsh treatment.

So, yeah, I'm sorry, I can't agree that "hate" is a valid opinion. I think it's a totally emotion-based one that isn't really possible to logically support.

Wusword77 wrote...

He's saying that many of the fans
magnify their disappointment of certain aspects of the game because they
didn't get DA:O again with a slightly changed story.  I agree with
this, because it's happened to me with other titles, Warcraft 3 and
Starcraft 2 being good examples.  When I first got the games I was
expecting something different from what they were, Warcraft 3 to be more
like Warcraft 2 and Starcraft 2 to be more like Warcraft 3, and I was
disappointed by what I found.  After my initial disappointment wore off I
found many of the changes were good for the franchise and I enjoyed the
games much more.

Then again I've come to the understanding that when I play a new game I want there to be something new/different about it.

That's exactly correct.

Addai67 wrote...

"Rationalizations of a greater
disappointment"- and this is not legitimate how?  If fans of the
original are disappointed, is that not a problem?

You sound like
you're from the EA marketing department, after the memo came out telling
them not to use the word "innovation."

Wusword77 explained this pretty well. Disappointment is a real and valid problem, and I agree, BioWare should totally be concerned about that.

What's bad on these boards, and what a lot of people spew out, which doesn't really benefit anyone, though, not even them, is rationalizations for that disappointment. You understand the difference, right? I'll explain anyway, in case anyone doesn't. Say you played DA2, and you came away with a general, strong sense of disappointment, but you couldn't pin it down. However, you did notice some specific flaws, and some general changes.

What a lot of people who disliked DA2 is, instead of saying "I found DA2 disappointing but I can't pin down why exactly", is they say "I found DA2 to be total crap and here are a bunch of reasons why!". Only those reasons aren't actually very well-reasoned, and basically amount someone desperately scrabbling to find reasons to dislike the game, and just digging up every possible criticism. Worse, sometimes someone will find a particular rationalization and just hold it up as everything that was wrong with the game and endlessly claim that this needs to be "fixed" for DA3. I'd give examples but I don't really want to start that fight here.

The point I'm trying to make, though, is that in all the "Oh this is what broke the game!" "Oh this needs to be fixed!" and so on, the REAL problems with DA2, the deep, deep problems which could potentially repeat, get ignored. The biggest one, which is hardly ever mentioned, is DA2's extremely short development cycle - 18 months, pretty much. Every other real problem DA2 has stems from this. Yet people would rather pretend stylized graphics, or Hawke having a voice, or mages not being OP are what's "wrong" DA2. They aren't. You may dislike them, but the central problem will remain whether they are changed or not - DA2 was a rush job (sorry BioWare  ), and that really shows.

[Eurhetemec]

stoicsentry2 wrote...

Let's see: no choice, no plot, balance off, and tons of repetitive areas. Yeah, I agree with you, it's really irrational to call DA2 bad....

I already mentioned tons of reptitive areas, dude, why are you repeating yourself? DA2 getting to your brain?

However "no choice, no plot, balance off", is an example of how people go beyond rational criticism into silly nonsense. DA2 had more choice than almost any CRPG in history, particularly in personal matters, and constantly presented the player with genuine moral dilemmas - moreso than DA1. Your decisions didn't have the impact of DA1, but to say "no choices"? That's like saying Mario 64 had "no jumping", because it had less than Super Mario World. Give me a break!

Same goes for "no plot". DA2 had a perfectly good plot. You just didn't like it. There's a difference between not liking something and it not existing. I mean, I really dislike most Thai food, but if someone puts a bowl of Thai Green Curry in front of me, I don't say "OMG NO FOOD? WHY IS THIS BOWL EMPTY!!?!?!" - but that's precisely what you're doing here.

Balance off is just plain funny. DA:O had like zero balance. Warriors and Rogues were simply little peons compared to Mages. That's balanced, huh?

More importantly, I'm not saying you should "like" DA2 or "feel better". I'm not a hippy. I don't think DA2 needs a hug.

What I'm saying is that DA2 had problems. DA3 and DA2 expansions need to fix those problems, but they need to fix the REAL problems, not imaginary ones or hyped ones. And the biggest problem DA2 had was it's dev cycle. Instead of people whinging about nonsense like "no plot" (rofl), they should be saying "18-month dev cycle is clearly unacceptable" or "The reuse of areas was ridiculous boring on the insulting", and so on. Real problems.

Modifié par Eurhetemec, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:27 .

[Tirfan]

... Sometimes I wonder why I bother..
So.. a voiced protagonist can't be a problem? I can't think it is a wrong way to go in a crpg? Can you tell me why? I can tell you why I view it as a wrong way to go - it doesn't allow me to RP. Which is the most important thing for me in RPG:s

[Ronin2006]

Eurhetemec wrote...


Wusword77 explained this pretty well. Disappointment is a real and valid problem, and I agree, BioWare should totally be concerned about that.

What's bad on these boards, and what a lot of people spew out, which doesn't really benefit anyone, though, not even them, is rationalizations for that disappointment. You understand the difference, right? I'll explain anyway, in case anyone doesn't. Say you played DA2, and you came away with a general, strong sense of disappointment, but you couldn't pin it down. However, you did notice some specific flaws, and some general changes.

What a lot of people who disliked DA2 is, instead of saying "I found DA2 disappointing but I can't pin down why exactly", is they say "I found DA2 to be total crap and here are a bunch of reasons why!". Only those reasons aren't actually very well-reasoned, and basically amount someone desperately scrabbling to find reasons to dislike the game, and just digging up every possible criticism. Worse, sometimes someone will find a particular rationalization and just hold it up as everything that was wrong with the game and endlessly claim that this needs to be "fixed" for DA3. I'd give examples but I don't really want to start that fight here.

The point I'm trying to make, though, is that in all the "Oh this is what broke the game!" "Oh this needs to be fixed!" and so on, the REAL problems with DA2, the deep, deep problems which could potentially repeat, get ignored. The biggest one, which is hardly ever mentioned, is DA2's extremely short development cycle - 18 months, pretty much. Every other real problem DA2 has stems from this. Yet people would rather pretend stylized graphics, or Hawke having a voice, or mages not being OP are what's "wrong" DA2. They aren't. You may dislike them, but the central problem will remain whether they are changed or not - DA2 was a rush job (sorry BioWare  ), and that really shows.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you're trying to rationalise your own view of DA2 being a decent game by an objective inpendent measure?  Did you consider that it is actually possible that people think it's a "bad" game regardless of what came before it and people can do so rationally and objectively?

For me personally, I CAN "pin down" the things wrong with this game.  Most of these things would be a problem irrespective of whether DAO ever even existed, and I'd feel the same way about them and the game regardless of if DAO ever existed.

Modifié par Ronin2006, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:33 .

[Addai]

Eurhetemec wrote...
The point I'm trying to make, though, is that in all the "Oh this is what broke the game!" "Oh this needs to be fixed!" and so on, the REAL problems with DA2, the deep, deep problems which could potentially repeat, get ignored. The biggest one, which is hardly ever mentioned, is DA2's extremely short development cycle - 18 months, pretty much. Every other real problem DA2 has stems from this. Yet people would rather pretend stylized graphics, or Hawke having a voice, or mages not being OP are what's "wrong" DA2. They aren't. You may dislike them, but the central problem will remain whether they are changed or not - DA2 was a rush job (sorry BioWare  ), and that really shows.

You can't have read the forums much if you think people don't bring up the rushed development of the game.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:31 .

[Eurhetemec]

Tirfan wrote...

... Sometimes I wonder why I bother..
So.. a voiced protagonist can't be a problem? I can't think it is a wrong way to go in a crpg? Can you tell me why? I can tell you why I view it as a wrong way to go - it doesn't allow me to RP. Which is the most important thing for me in RPG:s

I'm saying it can't be the primary reason "why DA2 was bad", yes. DA2 had a lot of problems, and if you put that at the top of the list, you're just using a rationalization. If DA2 had had a two year+ dev cycle, no reused areas, and no enemies being teleported in by the Starship Enterprise, very few people would care about the voiced protagonist.

To be specific - if they took Hawke's voice out of the game and just gave him line-choices like DA:O, DA2 would not magically become a better game than DA:O. Most people would actually think it was worse than it already is!

[Eurhetemec]

Ronin2006 wrote...

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you're trying to rationalise your own view of DA2 being a decent game by an objective inpendent measure?  Did you consider that it is actually possible that people think it's a "bad" game regardless of what came before it and people can do so rationally and objectively?

For me personally, I CAN "pin down" the things wrong with this game.  Most of these things would be a problem irrespective of whether DAO ever even existed.

Yes, Ronin2006, I have considered that. At length, actually. It's totally fair and reasonable for you to bring that up, but I read these boards, and the vast majority of DA2 criticism is not rational, and based solely on the existence of DA:O.

If you're not guilty of that, I applaud you, but many people are, and the majority of the DA2 criticism I see now (and saw at release) amounts to "DA2 isn't DA:O!" or "I didn't like DA2 but I can't express why rationally so I will pick some random stuff and run with it!". If you're trying to tell me that you are able to pin stuff down, and that you don't see a lot of what I'm describing, then I don't quite believe you. Even as someone who disliked DA2, if you're able to criticise without relating to DA:O or making post-facto rationalizations for your dislikes, you must be able to see that a lot of other DA2 dislikers can't, right?

Addai67 wrote...

You can't have read the forums much if you think people don't bring up the time-rushed development cycle.

The amount it gets brought up is less than almost any other whine, and that's really sad. People bring up the stylized visual design or the voice for Hawke (both of which are minority axe-grinds, as surveys show) way, way more often than the dev cycle. That's kind of bad, because it might give BioWare the impression that what was really wrong with DA2 was like, the visual design and that they could rush DA3 out as long as they just returned to DA:O visual design and cut the voice for the lead. Which would be a disaster, I'd suggest.

[alex90c]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Tirfan wrote...

... Sometimes I wonder why I bother..
So.. a voiced protagonist can't be a problem? I can't think it is a wrong way to go in a crpg? Can you tell me why? I can tell you why I view it as a wrong way to go - it doesn't allow me to RP. Which is the most important thing for me in RPG:s

I'm saying it can't be the primary reason "why DA2 was bad", yes. DA2 had a lot of problems, and if you put that at the top of the list, you're just using a rationalization. If DA2 had had a two year+ dev cycle, no reused areas, and no enemies being teleported in by the Starship Enterprise, very few people would care about the voiced protagonist.

To be specific - if they took Hawke's voice out of the game and just gave him line-choices like DA:O, DA2 would not magically become a better game than DA:O. Most people would actually think it was worse than it already is!

The problem I and some other people have is that they don't like the actual voice of the actors used to play Hawke. If you find it painful to hear your own character, then of course it's a primary reason for disliking the game. It didn't help at all that the "funny" option just made Hawke sound like a bellend as he tried to be snarky.

Hey look, Mr Viscount's son died. "Oh well at least this day can't get any worse ... I mean it's getting pretty late".

Really Hawke? Really? 

[Addai]

Eurhetemec wrote...
The amount it gets brought up is less than almost any other whine, and that's really sad. People bring up the stylized visual design or the voice for Hawke (both of which are minority axe-grinds, as surveys show) way, way more often than the dev cycle. That's kind of bad, because it might give BioWare the impression that what was really wrong with DA2 was like, the visual design and that they could rush DA3 out as long as they just returned to DA:O visual design and cut the voice for the lead. Which would be a disaster, I'd suggest.

I think you can put your mind at ease.  The dev statements all seem to be that the franchise is not going to go back and that their "innovations" are here to stay, whether the minions like it or not.

ME3 and TOR have both been given extensions on their dev time, so perhaps EA/ Bioware got the message, though it still leaves DA fans with the short end of the stick.

Personally I dislike both the new visuals and the voiced PC, but I could put up with both of them if the other more serious problems are addressed, even though I'm not likely to ever enjoy a game as much with a voiced PC.  ME2 had both of these things, however, and it garnered overall praise.  As far as I'm concerned ME2 is a better game on almost every metric- and I say that even though I don't care about the MEverse nearly as much.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:54 .

[Eurhetemec]

Addai67 wrote...

I think you can put your mind at ease.  The dev statements all seem to be that the franchise is not going to go back and that their "innovations" are here to stay, whether the minions like it or not.

ME3 and TOR have both been given extensions on their dev time, so perhaps EA/ Bioware got the message, though it still leaves DA fans with the short end of the stick.

That's true, it does, and it sucks that we got to be the "experiment" to see if they could put out BioWare CRPGs as fast as they could put out "Generic Modern Military Shooter Sequel" (actually, the BF games are pretty good, I shouldn't be too mean).

Personally I dislike both the new visuals and the voiced PC, but I could put up with both of them if the other more serious problems are addressed, even though I'm not likely to ever enjoy a game as much with a voiced PC.

That's exactly what I'm saying, I think - that if the bigger problems were addressed, the issues like Hawke's voice or the stylization would be minor issues.

ME2 had both of these things, however, and it garnered overall praise.  As far as I'm concerned ME2 is a better game on almost every metric- and I say that even though I don't care about the MEverse nearly as much.

I think you mean overwhelming, not overall. Overall would mean "On average more people liked it than disliked it" like, 55 liked, 45% disliked or something, but that's not true. Almost no-one had anything bad to say about it - it's in the top-ten best-reviewed games on the PC (and I believe, it's respective consoles) in gaming history.

It's funny though, if you look at the ME3 board, even though ME2 was one of the best-scoring games in history, and amazing, when you do a poll "What was better, ME1 or ME2", ME1 still scores like 30%+ of the vote, because that's just how people on the internet are. You still see thread insisting that they have to change the combat system back to ME1, for example.

[Tirfan]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Tirfan wrote...

... Sometimes I wonder why I bother..
So.. a voiced protagonist can't be a problem? I can't think it is a wrong way to go in a crpg? Can you tell me why? I can tell you why I view it as a wrong way to go - it doesn't allow me to RP. Which is the most important thing for me in RPG:s

I'm saying it can't be the primary reason "why DA2 was bad", yes. DA2 had a lot of problems, and if you put that at the top of the list, you're just using a rationalization. If DA2 had had a two year+ dev cycle, no reused areas, and no enemies being teleported in by the Starship Enterprise, very few people would care about the voiced protagonist.

To be specific - if they took Hawke's voice out of the game and just gave him line-choices like DA:O, DA2 would not magically become a better game than DA:O. Most people would actually think it was worse than it already is!

Yet you don't give me a reason why it can't be. I gave my justification why it IS, had there not been the issues you mentioned, it would still have a bland, boring protagonist that I can't RP as, or even connect to. It would have been a better game, but still a bad game, of course, then, had Hawke been interesting and well-written and nearly completely set-in-stone character, like you know, Geralt, things might have been different, but as long as Hawke is like he is - a voiced protagonist that is not really written like a character, the problem remains, I can't rp as him, which would be required to make him an actual character with motivations, and it seems, that this too, was an intentional design choice and a bad design choice in my opinion and robs the game of any fun for me.

Had Hawke been silent and there had been a dialogue tree - I would not have minded the other issues of the game as much. It might not have been DA:O level, but it would have been far more closer to the great experience I had when playing DA:O.

[Demx]

Eurhetemec wrote...

I honestly don't understand people who "hate" DA2.

It seems to be an entirely irrational position, and the more I read on these boards, as people try and rationalize it, the more irrational it seems to be.

By any rational standards, DA2 was a good CRPG. Reviews reflect this. It had serious quality problems in a few departments that significantly impacted the scores it received, but it was not by any means a "bad" game. All the most extreme criticism seemed to be from extremely niche publications which would normally have been given little weight by gamers.

Preferring DA:O is perfectly rational, note, but there's a gigantic leap from preferring one game to hating another, one that takes a lot of rationalization and leaps of logic (or even active illogic) to make.

Indeed, almost everything that's wrong with DA2, I would suggest, really wrong, comes down to the near-18-month development cycle. The wild overuse of the same locations, the lazy spawning-in of some enemies, the questionable balance in combat (esp. before patch 1.03), and the rather undeveloped plot (which leads to be people suggesting that Hawke is "reactive" - it's not a strong argument but that the plot is seemingly missing obvious choices is, as is the poor setting-up of certain bits and over-cooking of others). That's the real lession the BioWare need to take from this. Not that they did the combat "wrong". Not that the setting was "wrong". Certainly not that the characters or personalities or interaction were "wrong". But that the game was underdeveloped, under-polished and really just seemed rather unfinished, especially with it's extremely abrupt ending, and almost out-of-nowhere villains. I genuinely think that with six or twelve months more of development, opinions on DA2 would be very different.

See this is where I have to disagree. You have to judge the game the way it is now. We don't know what Bioware would have done with the extra time. But we do know the company felt that this was enough for the game to be shipped out. Saying it would have been different is like judging DA:O after it has been moded by the community. Or thinking a TV show that killed off the majority of it's cast near the end of the series would have been better if given more time.

[Addai]

Eurhetemec wrote...
I think you mean overwhelming, not overall. Overall would mean "On average more people liked it than disliked it" like, 55 liked, 45% disliked or something, but that's not true. Almost no-one had anything bad to say about it - it's in the top-ten best-reviewed games on the PC (and I believe, it's respective consoles) in gaming history.

It's funny though, if you look at the ME3 board, even though ME2 was one of the best-scoring games in history, and amazing, when you do a poll "What was better, ME1 or ME2", ME1 still scores like 30%+ of the vote, because that's just how people on the internet are. You still see thread insisting that they have to change the combat system back to ME1, for example.

There certainly was criticism of ME2 from forumites.  These tend to be the hardened Bioware people, I guess, so they/ we are harder on the games than others.  Tough love, I suppose.
 
I myself prefer ME1 all in all, because I think ME2 went too far in shedding roleplay elements.  I brought up ME2 because it's the easiest comparison to DA2 and one that most easily shows how a game with similar design philosophy succeeded whereas DA2 fell short.  It doesn't mean there aren't legitimate criticisms of that design philosophy, especially from those who prefer RPGs to action games.  More people were willing to forgive ME2 because it was still a good game, maybe also because it's a shooter and started out with things like voiced PC and very limited tactical ability.  That doesn't mean those criticizing DA2 are "irrational."

Modifié par Addai67, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:09 .

[Wusword77]

Siradix wrote...
See this is where I have to disagree. You have to judge the game the way it is now. We don't know what Bioware would have done with the extra time. But we do know the company felt that this was enough for the game to be shipped out. Saying it would have been different is like judging DA:O after it has been moded by the community. Or thinking a TV show that killed off the majority of it's cast near the end of the series would have been better if given more time.

He's not saying you have to like DA2 because it would have been better given more time, he's saying that the majority of  complaints about DA2 could have been fixed and address'ed with a longer development cycle.

[erynnar]

Siradix wrote...

Eurhetemec wrote...

I honestly don't understand people who "hate" DA2.

It seems to be an entirely irrational position, and the more I read on these boards, as people try and rationalize it, the more irrational it seems to be.

By any rational standards, DA2 was a good CRPG. Reviews reflect this. It had serious quality problems in a few departments that significantly impacted the scores it received, but it was not by any means a "bad" game. All the most extreme criticism seemed to be from extremely niche publications which would normally have been given little weight by gamers.

Preferring DA:O is perfectly rational, note, but there's a gigantic leap from preferring one game to hating another, one that takes a lot of rationalization and leaps of logic (or even active illogic) to make.

Indeed, almost everything that's wrong with DA2, I would suggest, really wrong, comes down to the near-18-month development cycle. The wild overuse of the same locations, the lazy spawning-in of some enemies, the questionable balance in combat (esp. before patch 1.03), and the rather undeveloped plot (which leads to be people suggesting that Hawke is "reactive" - it's not a strong argument but that the plot is seemingly missing obvious choices is, as is the poor setting-up of certain bits and over-cooking of others). That's the real lession the BioWare need to take from this. Not that they did the combat "wrong". Not that the setting was "wrong". Certainly not that the characters or personalities or interaction were "wrong". But that the game was underdeveloped, under-polished and really just seemed rather unfinished, especially with it's extremely abrupt ending, and almost out-of-nowhere villains. I genuinely think that with six or twelve months more of development, opinions on DA2 would be very different.

See this is where I have to disagree. You have to judge the game the way it is now. We don't know what Bioware would have done with the extra time. But we do know the company felt that this was enough for the game to be shipped out. Saying it would have been different is like judging DA:O after it has been moded by the community. Or thinking a TV show that killed off the majority of it's cast near the end of the series would have been better if given more time.

This^. I agree they could have used more time. But supposing what could have been is like making an omlett and wondering what kind of chicken the eggs would have been had they hatched. It is useless enterprise.

@Eurhetemec And do you feel the same way about people who LOVE the game and defend it now matter what? Who make excuses for the flaws? Are they just as irrational to you?

Quite frankly, I put all the reasons of what I didn't like and what I liked in the appropriate threads for crits and reviews, so I am not going to list them here for you to prove my rationality.

Someone else said it best. DA2 was supposed to be a sequel. It varied too much from the original (and not that does not mean bring back the Warden, staple two archdemons together and get a super Blight, nor does it mean a carbon copy of DAO). But  DA2 changed too much from its wildly successful predecessor, the orginal was not in need of so much retconning.

Maybe (as LLPrince said) it would be more acceptable if this were DA4, but this is not that far from it's predecessor. ME2 didn't change so drastically from ME1 (some changes, yes, and people weren't happy with this true, but it didn't have the drastic changes DA2 had from DAO).

[Demx]

Wusword77 wrote...

Siradix wrote...
See this is where I have to disagree. You have to judge the game the way it is now. We don't know what Bioware would have done with the extra time. But we do know the company felt that this was enough for the game to be shipped out. Saying it would have been different is like judging DA:O after it has been moded by the community. Or thinking a TV show that killed off the majority of it's cast near the end of the series would have been better if given more time.

He's not saying you have to like DA2 because it would have been better given more time, he's saying that the majority of  complaints about DA2 could have been fixed and address'ed with a longer development cycle.

That's still judging the game based on a probability that those problems would be addressed given the extra time.