Pacifien wrote...
1000questions wrote...
Why not ? Why isnt continuity important whether it is setting or gameplay design ? I am not saying make a copy of it but it should not feel drastically different or atleast shredded or ripped off version !
I am fine if you change some design aspects of gameplay but that should really add to the over all experience. It should ENRICH the environment , the quality of game, compliment the story.
Incase of DA2 , it wasnt the case. Moreover as you said the "2" after DA and the way it was all presented to the gamers made a false impression that it is a successor or sequel to DA:Origins where it actually is a different chapter in history of DA universe
Continuity of gameplay design actually isn't important to me. But this is coming from someone who actually does not like genre labeling of games. I understand that people like to have a label like "RPG" to give them an idea of what to expect in their game, but I'd rather the developers concentrate on designing the game in any way they see fit regardless of how much or less it makes it fit into any given genre.
The thing is, in spite of the 2 added to the name, none of the interviews actually seemed to promote the game as being very much like Dragon Age: Origins at all. So what was I going to believe, the 2 they tacked onto the game or what the developers were saying and showing me? I went with the latter. But to be fair, not every consumer goes looking for development news, interviews, and videos, and so calling it Dragon Age 2 specifically is misleading. It is, however, still a Dragon Age game. Just as Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter is as much a Star Wars game as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, because they share the same setting if not the same gameplay. A bad decision in naming a game doesn't automatically make it a bad game, however. It makes the decision on what to call the game bad.
As for the experience of the game itself, it's criticized for lacking the depth of Dragon Age: Origins in some way. I wouldn't say it's in the design of Kirkwall or its outlying settings, as I find the developers applied more care into the details in some ways versus others. The repeated use of the same setting however whereas Origins had very little, however, is something I can see another person not liking much at all. I've played dungeon crawler games like Diablo, though, so it doesn't immediately jump out as being wrong to reuse a setting. Not optimal, but not necessarily wrong. I'd rather they didn't, but the fact that they did doesn't detract from a story I find personally superior to its predecessor.
Also, having just played Origins prior to DA2, I'm really not buying into the argument that the game is too buggy for release. This is because I had to reload the game half a dozen times to get through the Fade in the first game and never had to reload the game once with DA2. I do know the game has bugs in it, but there are so many games I have purchased over the years that have been buggy in one way or another. I mean, Knights of the Old Republic 2 was pretty bad, but I stuck with it bugs and all because I thought it had a pretty damn good game somewhere in there.
But for all of this, I am giving my own personal opinion. Not just about DA2, but about game design in general. I mean, in my mind, DA2 pisses off all the right people for the right reasons. Because a game shouldn't be judged by its predecessors, it should be judged on how it plays on its own as a game. And I'm specifically talking gameplay here, and not story, in case anyone thinks I have some aversion to continuity of story across multiple games. If someone wanted to tell a story in three parts, that'd be grand, but not something that any game ever has really hit just right for me.
Here I will appreciate if you can clearify or throw some light on expectations front. In case of DA2 , the naming played its part in setting the expectations.Infact in advertisements the very first statement started something like
"
Experience the epic sequel to the 2009 Game of the Year from the critically acclaimed makers of Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2" .
Another thing said about DA2 was
"
Go deeper into the world of Dragon Age with an entirely new cinematic experience that grabs hold of you from the beginning and never lets go. "
Now I after playing DA2 with Warrior class, I am not able to fathom what does this "Go deeper into the world of Dragon Age " reflects to ? You said that developers applied more care into the details apparently they are not very apparent. Could you explain in which ways they did and how all the repeating dungeon decision actually made DA2 superior to its predecssor ?
As far as buying the arguement of that game is too buggy for release. Well ,it is buggy and so was DA:Origins, given that now for me it is more rational that a publisher or developer improves the quality in forthcoming titles. Somehow I dont appreciate defending of the successor in a franchise stating that its predecessor was buggy and you accepted it so why not this one... it doesnt go well.
The sales, pre-orders, marketing alot has to do with success or failure of predecessor. DA2 enjoyed the jumpstart, initial attention because of its predecessor. Sequels or different chapters or different games in same settings or within same franchise etc all comes down to meeting the expectations set according to its predecessor. If DA2 was whole new title things would have been different but that is not the case here.
Any successor has to carry weights of its predecessors. It may write a new story for itself altogether,deal with things differently but it can not escape the expectations or people analyzing it with it's predecessor in mind.
Modifié par 1000questions, 06 avril 2011 - 10:15 .
Retour en haut
