204 réponses à ce sujet

[StableZaner]

Why are people hating so hard, on your character having a voice? =/

Do you not find that having your character actually have an audible conversation makes dialogue interaction slightly better/more fun that just the text telepathically speaking to companions whilst your character stands there looking like an unamused plank of wood?

[Monica83]

infurious wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Stanley Woo's response is exactly what worries me the most.

He still make it sound like the backlash of DA2 is fear of change, when the main complaint is that DA2 feels like half a game, unpolished, unfinished and with big visible holes where parts of the game were supposed to be.

The other titles he mentioned had a lot more experimentation going for them, and they certainly caused worry and uncertainity as change inevitably does. DA2 has very little change or experimentation, thats mainly an excuse for leaving large parts of the game in the prototype phase.


Of course you can choose who you listen to, but if you visibly put your fingers in the ears and scream "nanananana" don't be surprised if you lose credibility.

This.

Some changes are good, and some are bad, however DA2 felt more like a commercial/marketing experiment than a game experiment. 

It's mostly the older (aging) community that will always make noise, because with each generation, BW games lose more and more complexity, depth and soul in order to market a larger, younger crowd - all comes down to $$, sad.

I agree.. Its like first have a tastefull cake... and then refuse eat a rancid cake full of worm and someone tell's you you are afraid to change!

[CaolIla]

StableZaner wrote...

Why are people hating so hard, on your character having a voice? =/

Do you not find that having your character actually have an audible conversation makes dialogue interaction slightly better/more fun that just the text telepathically speaking to companions whilst your character stands there looking like an unamused plank of wood?

Right and wrong. It's better to have a voice, I agree with that, but since you barely use it and just have like 1/10 of dialogue options in comparison to DA:O, I still prefer the DA:O way.
DA:O didn't just take up that much space because there were more than 3 different dungeons...

[SoR82]

Lets be honest here people was the largest problem with DA2 the voiced pc? Its a sympton of the problem not THE problem.

[sphinxess]

StableZaner wrote...

Why are people hating so hard, on your character having a voice? =/

Do you not find that having your character actually have an audible conversation makes dialogue interaction slightly better/more fun that just the text telepathically speaking to companions whilst your character stands there looking like an unamused plank of wood?

I don't mind voice - but they need to be a lot more careful to make the paraphrase close to what is said 100% of the time

Modifié par sphinxess, 14 avril 2011 - 05:57 .

[AlanC9]

infurious wrote...
It's mostly the older (aging) community that will always make noise, because with each generation, BW games lose more and more complexity, depth and soul in order to market a larger, younger crowd - all comes down to $$, sad.

Do you have any data to back that up? 

From what I've seen on these boards, it looks to me like the really older gamers aren't as attached to RPG conventions as the cohort a bit younger than ours is. Though it's much more obvious on the ME2 boards than on this one, mostly because people try to play the age card there more often.

Though I suppose there aren't enough of us fortysomethings to make a difference one way or another.

[TemplarLord]

Herbie_Hind wrote...

You know you've self sabotaged any hope this series or any other game you make has of being purchased.
I mean, just look at it this way.

You
create a game where your characters backstory is even selected by the
player, with a good long story and a clear motivation. You had the best
combat of any PC game released that year, and the only characters I've
cared about in a long time.

Then you say the dreaded word streamlined which, basically means "We're removing the good parts in favour of dumber versions of them." that was not shagadellic.
THEN you go on to say, we're making the main character voiced, removing
the epic journey, and removing the ability to chose your race.
You removed all the things that made me and the people I've recommended it to love Origins.

I
mean, every part of Origins sucked you in, i only realised i should
have stopped playing hours ago when i got up to go to the toilet and
realised it was 5 in the morning. But with DA 2 i always stopped playing
early.

When you have a game that someone can play till 5AM and not realise ti, you know you've made a good game.

You removed so much and added so little, how didn't you think this would bomb?

I had a pretty similar experience, woke up one Saturday morning, fired up DA:O, not expecting much since I never played BG or NWN and was absolutely amazed at the game! I played non-stop since like 7am to 10-11pm.

DA2? Had hopes, expecting the game to be at least in the same class as Origins, thinking 'They can't ruin this, it's Bioware!'

Boy, was I wrong.

[StableZaner]

Apart from the game needing more interaction, intergrating your DA:O saved file transfer a bit better and a few other tidbits....I loved DAII.

I'm not entirely sure why it's getting a bashing moreso on the Bioware forums than other forums and gaming sites =/
That might just be me though...

[Embargoed]

Can anyone here say that they remember any memorable or awesome dialogue that the Warden had? I can't, and its mostly because It was hard caring what I had to say when the voiced characters in DA:O were so much more interesting.

Roleplaying falls flat when the other characters in the game can blow yours out of the water without even trying. I mean, Alistair's "Swooping is bad." line was far more memorable than anything the Warden had to say. Sure, I could roleplay him all I wanted, shape and bend him to my will without a care in the world. But that was hardly interesting. The only reason to play as my character in DA:O was because I made him look awesome and he was the vehicle through which I could learn more about my party.

Had all the characters remained voiceless, I'm sure it would've been easier for me to care about my Warden and his backstory. Why? Because it's fair. No other character can outshine the other.

[Tirigon]

Stanley Woo wrote...

The point was mainly that fans prefer the safe and known quantities, and, like humans in general, fear the unknown because they have no control over the advertising that surrounds it or their own reactions to it. Change is generally bad unless there is a lot of reassurance and continual communication, which we can't always provide but we do try. We communicated the changes between DAO and DA2 much better than we communicated the cahnges between ME2 and ME, but it still wasn't enough for some people, and that's understandable.

Change can be good, but it shouldn´t be done in the sequel. The difference to the examples that you posted is:
Jade Empire was a new game. It *was* a "RPG lite", that´s for sure, but I for one didn´t mind because it was ALSO a good game, and because you didn´t expect an RPG if you got it.
The changes between ME1 and ME2 weren´t drastic - both had the same basic concept, ME2 only took it a bit further. But the RPG-shooter hybrid, voiced main char and all that were already present in ME1.
(Can´t comment on KotoR and BG because I didn´t play them).

With DA2 however, you disappointed many because after DAO what you expected was a real RPG, not this Mass Effect with swords.

Even worse, however, was it being rushed. One might accept the changed formula if it was at least a good GAME, if not a good RPG. Alas, it wasnt, on account of the area reuse and many many other things that have been said so often I don´t need to repeat them here.

[UltiPup]

StableZaner wrote...

Why are people hating so hard, on your character having a voice? =/

Fans have and always will nitpick on forums because they have to whine to someone.

[Tirigon]

UltiPup wrote...

StableZaner wrote...

Why are people hating so hard, on your character having a voice? =/

Fans have and always will nitpick on forums because they have to whine to someone.

It is better than to get a bad haircut, wear black and pink and start cutting one´s wrist, isn´t it?

[infurious]

AlanC9 wrote...

infurious wrote...
It's mostly the older (aging) community that will always make noise, because with each generation, BW games lose more and more complexity, depth and soul in order to market a larger, younger crowd - all comes down to $$, sad.

Do you have any data to back that up? 

From what I've seen on these boards, it looks to me like the really older gamers aren't as attached to RPG conventions as the cohort a bit younger than ours is. Though it's much more obvious on the ME2 boards than on this one, mostly because people try to play the age card there more often.

Though I suppose there aren't enough of us fortysomethings to make a difference one way or another.

No data backup needed. It's common sense. DA2 was clearly not made for the same market that enjoyed previous generations of more complex BW games (exceptions apply of course) 

I find it interesting however that those games were made for people of similar age as they are now. Does today's younger generation needs to have more simplified games? 

[Eterna]

Zayle79 wrote...

Exactly. All we're asking for is depth, and they're just taking it away incrementally game by game. Remember Baldur's Gate? And KotOR? Depth!

 Take off those glasses bro.

Modifié par Eterna5, 14 avril 2011 - 10:05 .

[aries1001]

AlanC9 wrote...

infurious wrote...
It's mostly the older (aging) community that will always make noise, because with each generation, BW games lose more and more complexity, depth and soul in order to market a larger, younger crowd - all comes down to $$, sad.

Do you have any data to back that up? 

From what I've seen on these boards, it looks to me like the really older gamers aren't as attached to RPG conventions as the cohort a bit younger than ours is. Though it's much more obvious on the ME2 boards than on this one, mostly because people try to play the age card there more often.

Though I suppose there aren't enough of us fortysomethings to make a difference one way or another.

Heh, I'm 45+ and have been playing game since 1998 or 1999, and most Bioware games since 1999, Baldur's Gate was my first, so to speak --- rpg, I mean. And if I have to play one more game where I join a secret organization, defeat an ancient evil or save the world, I do think I'll - ahem- do something very dramatic (no, not that --- ). I realize that some older games, like Utimate IV (4), didn't have you do this. [Right now, I kind of tired that everygame I see has - you guessed it - dragons - in them...). And in the older save the world games, it is nearly always presented as 'eh, you must save the world; why I asked; written it is, usualluy is the answer. Well, maybe they shouldn't write so much, then.

As for rpg convetions being turned upside-down, topsey-turvey style, look at a game like Planescape: Torments. Granted it was set in sort wacco place, but it did make normally useless stats usefull, Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom were actual useful, as well as dying actually meant you did get 'do over'. Just start from the starting dungeon again, and have tno (the nameless one) remember some more of his past. And it did have companion specfic armor, too, just as DA2 does, it maybe just implemented it a lot better...PS: Torment, I mean.

From what I've seen, there seems to be small, yet very vocal minority that do like to play games the way they were back in 1989 or 1994 or 1999 or 2004 or x,yz year. They haven't still quite recovered from losing Westwood, Origins, Troika, Black Isle/Interplay back in the day, forever waiting for a day that probably never comes. The closest we and they have gotten is DA: Origins.

Also, many of these people have bought DA: Origins because they felt it was a return to the rpg-roots of the past. And it is  - and was. However, it also suffers from the same issues those great ©rpgs of the past had: much too slow combat, even for me, overpowered end level bosses, way too long to get to the point. The Origins were a great idea, it just took to long to get on with the story (even for me). And don't get me started on The Deep Roads - it felt like forever down there.

Also this:
Please keep marketing out of any design decisions for any game....

When you have been playing games for as long as I have, and are as old as I, or have been playing longer or maybe are way older than I am, you have sort of seen everything ( at least in games, I mean). And you long for the game that does not have you e.g. join a secret organization or have you save the world. NWN2 main campaing (OC) seems that way, Mask of the Betrayer and Storm of Zehir also seems that way, so does, as I can hear, DA2. And to be frank, I really don't care much for an rpg having the nicest graphics around, some of the areas being re-used or that the combat might not be that great - if the story is great, the characters are well written and the dialogue is top notch. I've even learned to like the (new) cinematic look...but that's because to me video games are a visual medium for telling stories....

[Raphael diSanto]

AlanC9 wrote...

infurious wrote...
It's mostly the older (aging) community that will always make noise, because with each generation, BW games lose more and more complexity, depth and soul in order to market a larger, younger crowd - all comes down to $$, sad.

Do you have any data to back that up? 

From what I've seen on these boards, it looks to me like the really older gamers aren't as attached to RPG conventions as the cohort a bit younger than ours is. Though it's much more obvious on the ME2 boards than on this one, mostly because people try to play the age card there more often.

Though I suppose there aren't enough of us fortysomethings to make a difference one way or another.

As a gamer who won't ever see 35 again, and a roleplayer and GM of 20 or so years experience - I have to say, I -far- prefer DA2 and ME2 for a roleplaying experience than their predecessors. The arguments have been hashed and rehashed here, so I won't go over them. It's just my opinion. It's not going to change, just as I'm not trying to change anyone else's opinion.

I just wanted to throw it out there that not -all- of us older gamers like dealing with spreadsheets of meaningless numbers and page after page of useless vendor-trash inventory items, and playing dress up with companions who should know how to dress themselves. I'm not roleplaying a quartermaster, here.

[Raphael diSanto]

aries1001 wrote...
And you long for the game that does not have you e.g. join a secret organization or have you save the world. 

Unfortunately, my friend, if gamers don't get to be the hero and save the day, they get all whiney and complaining..... as evidenced by these boards.

Like you, I found the DA2 story where you -don't- save the day (No one does. The day cannot be saved. The story is a tragedy of the classical tradition), refreshing and compelling.

Alas, I think we're in the minority.

[Everwarden]

Raphael diSanto wrote...
As a gamer who won't ever see 35 again, and a roleplayer and GM of 20 or so years experience - I have to say, I -far- prefer DA2 and ME2 for a roleplaying experience than their predecessors.

I don't understand how anyone -can- roleplay in DA2. You are force-fed a character, a background, a voice, and get to pick one of three response 'styles' without knowing what exactly is going to be said. So any 'roleplaying' done is limited to three characters. Nice Hawke, troll Hawke, and meaniepants Hawke. 

Unfortunately, my friend, if gamers don't get to be the hero and save the day, they get all whiney and complaining..... as evidenced by these boards.

Now you're just being ridiculous, but I hope you enjoy giving that straw-man you've built up a beating. I've seen a lot of hate threads, and a few that were founded on some really silly reasons to hate DA2 (like Bioware ignoring straight men), but I have yet to see one where someone complains about not being able to 'save the day'. 
Perhaps you're referring to people who don't like the plot railroad, and wish they could have an effect on it in any way? That's not the same thing. Hell, I wish I could have 'my' Hawke be a sadistic blood mage. Alas, no dice. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 avril 2011 - 08:50 .

[Everwarden]

Strangely Brown wrote...
Well I guess that depends on your definition of an RPG, which is a hopelessly circular conversation and all opinion based.

How about this: If Dragon Age 2 is an 'rpg', then the most recent Final Fantasy* would have to fit into the same 'rpg' catagory... which is something Bioware themselves denied and scoffed about prior to the release of DA2. 

*Haven't played it. I assume some skinny anime guy with a big sword broods and there are a few dialogue options that make no difference at all in the narrative and serve only to provide the illusion of choice. Then the androgenous protagonist kills the big bad who is severely underdeveloped and has no real personality aside from being evil.  Oh, and there are likely catgirls.

[Dave of Canada]

*Screw it, never mind*

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 15 avril 2011 - 09:01 .

[infurious]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

infurious wrote...
It's mostly the older (aging) community that will always make noise, because with each generation, BW games lose more and more complexity, depth and soul in order to market a larger, younger crowd - all comes down to $$, sad.

Do you have any data to back that up? 

From what I've seen on these boards, it looks to me like the really older gamers aren't as attached to RPG conventions as the cohort a bit younger than ours is. Though it's much more obvious on the ME2 boards than on this one, mostly because people try to play the age card there more often.

Though I suppose there aren't enough of us fortysomethings to make a difference one way or another.

As a gamer who won't ever see 35 again, and a roleplayer and GM of 20 or so years experience - I have to say, I -far- prefer DA2 and ME2 for a roleplaying experience than their predecessors. The arguments have been hashed and rehashed here, so I won't go over them. It's just my opinion. It's not going to change, just as I'm not trying to change anyone else's opinion.

I just wanted to throw it out there that not -all- of us older gamers like dealing with spreadsheets of meaningless numbers and page after page of useless vendor-trash inventory items, and playing dress up with companions who should know how to dress themselves. I'm not roleplaying a quartermaster, here.

Nobody claimed that all the older gamers think that way, but I'm sure that a large majority does. Also nobody is asking for spreadsheets and meaningless numbers, ME 1 and Origins were fine games and did not have any of those. But if you can't see the quality difference between Origins and DA2 or between ME1 and ME2 then I wish I could see things the way you do.

[SoR82]

Strangely Brown wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

aries1001 wrote...
And you long for the game that does not have you e.g. join a secret organization or have you save the world. 

Unfortunately, my friend, if gamers don't get to be the hero and save the day, they get all whiney and complaining..... as evidenced by these boards.

Like you, I found the DA2 story where you -don't- save the day (No one does. The day cannot be saved. The story is a tragedy of the classical tradition), refreshing and compelling.

Alas, I think we're in the minority.

No we aren't.  We just aren't as vocal about it. 

I freely admit I thought the idea of the story was good for me it comes down the rushed apathetic way it was done...