127 réponses à ce sujet

[Esbatty]

As I've said before, now that Dragon Age 2 is out, they already have the bulk of the assets completed for another sequel to be developed. Dragon Age 3 or whatever new DA game they put out, can now benefit from system and story refining. As much as people decry preordering or even buying a new DA sequel, I only have more confidence the next game will be so much better. Dragon Age 2 wasn't perfect but neither was Origins. Both had their awesomes and their flaws, at least to me. I can't say I've enjoyed them both equally since I stepped into DAO with the bulk of its expansions/dlc purchsed for my playing experience and DA2 only has a small amount of DLC released so far. But I like the core games of both equally, for different reasons.

So sign me up for Dragon Age 3, for me its not the individual games that "make" Dragon Age for me, its the story of Thedas and I wan't see whats in store for the peoples and nations that inhabit it. Speaking of which where is my DA2 novels and DA Anime?

[Persephone]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Because this is so tactful and respectful.

Yes, hate campaigns, brainwashing and diatribes are powerful. Nothing new. They have killed entire franchises before, often undeservedly so. (Gabriel Knight, anyone? If I ever get that "core fanbase" within arm's reach I'll give them a pat on the back for shooting themselves in the foot and having a hand in killing an entire genre. You "true" RPG fans think your genre is in danger? At least you still get yearly releases while we adventure fans are living on bloody scraps) All this will accomplish is to get one of the best recent RPG franchises dropped in favor of ME and more KOTOR clones. Damaging Sales via hate campaigns will kill the franchise. Giving constructive criticism might improve it. But hey, fanaticism calls, right?

Ah, adventure games were already nearing the end of their rope by the time Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned was released. 

I hardly think a negative reaction to one release that everybody knows was rushed out the door is going to kill a franchise, much less a genre. 

GK3 was a HUGE hope for us back then. Many hoped it would save the genre they loved. And constant delays and revamps (Curse you, 3D) did not help. It ended on a cliffhanger. People went berserk and badmouthed it wherever they could. What was the result? A cliffhanger never to be solved, a brilliant franchise dead, many fans hating themselves for damaging the sales "to make sure Sierra learned that 3D Adventures are not what we want". GK3, or rather its reception, had a major hand in destroying the genre. Did it do it alone? No, the "core fanbase" certainly helped.

[Huntress]

Persephone wrote...

Dracotamer wrote...

Well DA2 sales are plummeting, so hopefully Bioware will realize that it's core fan base has the power to make or break their sales simply with word of mouth and will put Mike Laidlaw on a leash until he learns tact and respect for Bioware's fans.

Because this is so tactful and respectful.

Yes, hate campaigns, brainwashing and diatribes are powerful. Nothing new. They have killed entire franchises before, often undeservedly so. (Gabriel Knight, anyone? If I ever get that "core fanbase" within arm's reach I'll give them a pat on the back for shooting themselves in the foot and having a hand in killing an entire genre. You "true" RPG fans think your genre is in danger? At least you still get yearly releases while we adventure fans are living on bloody scraps) All this will accomplish is to get one of the best recent RPG franchises dropped in favor of ME and more KOTOR clones. Damaging Sales via hate campaigns will kill the franchise. Giving constructive criticism might improve it. But hey, fanaticism calls, right?

Adventures games died after Quest For Glory V. at least for me.

I like dragon age world and all but, where is all this going?; Hero of ferelden gone, champion gone.. can we finish one of them? if no, can we at least know if they are coming back? I don't think people buy/read a serie where the main character changes in every chapter. New character's to help the hero's? yes of course, but changing the main character.. is just not compute.

None of you can tell me the champion story is done after saving mages or templars.. because that sound compleatly crap:sick:
at least US player knew they couldn't adventure with a dead Hero, but in DA2,  the main character is alive and kicking.

DA2 doesn't end in a possitive way, DA2 is not a possitive game, so what are the feeling from the players, negativity in general.

It doesn't matter that mages in DA2 respond to an attack way better than origen's, doesn't matter that the hero can speak, it doesn't matter that armor looks better, nope, all the game get is negativity, bioware doesn't like it but, that is what they sold to us.

[MikoDoll]

Honestly, the sales of DA2 don't necessarily have to reflect the merits of the game entirely. I for example didn't consider the game anywhere close to annoying me as  Fable II but I found a lot I disliked. Still, I bought it because of DA:O's reputation and I bought that due to stellar reviews. Most people don't buy a game with an actual knowledge of the story, gameplay, mechanics, etc. So many others are probably in the same boat. Doesn't mean they'll stick around next game. So IMO we'll have to wait until next game to see how DA2 shaped the DA franchise.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 25 avril 2011 - 08:20 .

[Dracotamer]

I'm of the opinion it is a sign of things to come.

[Viyu]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Sareth Cousland wrote...

Laidlaw says the game is now open to a much wider audience. May be true, but the narrow audience bought more copies - at least in Germany, DA2 sales are experiencing a nosedive. In the end, it all comes down to revenue, and it appears that DA2 will perform a lot worse than DA:O, despite being based on a hugely successful and established IP.

Btw, this thread should be in the general discussion forum.

Maybe they fail in germany, but from the statements I saw DA2 sold even better and faster then DAO. At least thats what Boware claims.

Thanks to gamers like you, Dragon Age II is off to a great start – breaking the 1 million mark in less than two weeks and faster than Dragon Age: Origins. We appreciate your support.

So even with all the hate the game gets in forums and on sites like metascore, they make good money with it. No reason to change anything for DA3

You're wrong. What happened was that they cashed in on DA:O and DA:A's success because people had the expectation that it would have the level of quality of its predecessors. So it is still a huge risk for them to think they shouldn't be cautious and shouldn't win back people's trust. A similar situation happened at SEGA where they thought Sonic Adventure was a success, but come Sonic Adventure 2, it was clear fans were not impressed with the new direction of the franchise according to sales figures. Sales usually dip the game after a mediocre game.

Modifié par Viyu, 25 avril 2011 - 11:01 .

[knarayan]

Dracotamer wrote...

I'm of the opinion it is a sign of things to come.

This is what scares me.

Look, its completely unrealistic to expect Laidlaw to say "Hey, we screwed up". While it may be his baby - the only one who can say that without consequence now will be the biggest shot in EA (and he or she is not going to do that). Even Greg and Ray will only talk about how they've heard so much from people who love it, about how it outsold DAO within its first week etc.

Wasn't Mike at the helm of DAO as well? Wasn't that a great game? (I certainly think so).

The thing to worry about is where the feedback that was incorporated in the making of DA II came from. How much of it was from these forums? How much of it was from people like Gabe and Tycho or Yahtzee - the gaming cognoscenti, so to speak. Was it from internally put together focus groups?

The feedback on these forums - based on my rough skim throughs in the past - on ME2 was by and large positive.  DAO, had its share of detractors - I mean there were enough people going on about the whole "Spiritual successor to BG" crap - but there was a majority who seemed to like what they had. With DA II - its been slanted negative. There are great things in the game.  And there are screw ups - quite bad ones.
 
The best thing to hope for is that some of the feedback here is being heard. The trouble, though is, as has been pointed out several times, is that haters are vocal, and tend to post more often, and its possible that the gang at Bioware have grown used to the whining and now ignore it as a matter of course. And if its being heard, the thing to do is to hope that the team will be able to diagnose the reasons for the dissatisfaction accurately and come up with something that shuts most of us (as in people who are prepared to love Bioware and will forgive a multitude of sins for a game that we can love) up

On another note, one of the most positive things that I've heard about DA II has come as a result of David Gaider's by now legendary response to the "straight male gamer" than anything regarding gameplay or the reception the game has received. And that - while its heartwarming as a statement of principle - is not enough to redeem the game from being one of Bioware's less satisfactory efforts.

[All subjectivity, no objectivity ]

[Fruit of the Doom]

It's a crappy sequel that was rushed out to capitalize upon the success of the original.

Nothiing more, nothing less.

[In Exile]

knarayan wrote...
The feedback on these forums - based on my rough skim throughs in the past - on ME2 was by and large positive.  DAO, had its share of detractors - I mean there were enough people going on about the whole "Spiritual successor to BG" crap - but there was a majority who seemed to like what they had. With DA II - its been slanted negative. There are great things in the game.  And there are screw ups - quite bad ones. ]

It really wasn't. ME2, I mean. There was such a polarized reaction and such a massive outcry it was ridiculous. Even now you have many on the ME2 forum that describe the game as a failure. ME2 was critically acclaimed because it was well done, and DA2 wasn't. More than that, it kept the direction the same.

Bioware switched up gameplay in ME2 but kept the core game the same. Bioware switched up their design philosophy and gameplay, and that create resistance, and then they went out and produced a subpar game relatively to the best possible game they could have made with that design philosophy. That's the issue;

Whatever criticism you can raise for the ME2 story or the changes from ME1, it was well done. And the suicide mission was ridiculously awesome, aside from the terminator boss, and that wins you brownie points over WTF Orsiono or Meredith.

[Bmeszaros]

Fruit of the Doom wrote...

It's a crappy sequel that was rushed out to capitalize upon the success of the original.

Nothiing more, nothing less.

Not exactly diplomatic, but right nonetheless.

This should make things difficult out of the gate for whatever the next DA game is.  I doubt it will sell as well at the beginning that 2 did, it will have to make up for it by returning somewhat to the roots that made DAO a fan favorite.

Bioware now needs to work much harder on 3 than they probably would have had 2 been received better, if they want to have respectable sales numbers.

Modifié par Bmeszaros, 25 avril 2011 - 02:58 .

[Fruit of the Doom]

Bmeszaros wrote...

Not exactly diplomatic, but right nonetheless.

Well, Diplomatic Hawke is my least favorite Hawke...

[knarayan]

In Exile wrote...
...
It really wasn't. ME2, I mean. There was such a polarized reaction and such a massive outcry it was ridiculous. Even now you have many on the ME2 forum that describe the game as a failure. ME2 was critically acclaimed because it was well done, and DA2 wasn't. More than that, it kept the direction the same.

Bioware switched up gameplay in ME2 but kept the core game the same. Bioware switched up their design philosophy and gameplay, and that create resistance, and then they went out and produced a subpar game relatively to the best possible game they could have made with that design philosophy. That's the issue;
...

Bang on.

Question, though - was the ME 2 reaction predominantly negative - as the reax to DA II seems?

[Fruit of the Doom]

knarayan wrote...

Bang on.

Question, though - was the ME 2 reaction predominantly negative - as the reax to DA II seems?

Look at the user scores:

Mass Effect 2:   http://www.metacriti...c/mass-effect-2

Dragon Age 2:   http://www.metacriti...c/dragon-age-ii


<_< ...I wonder how much better the game would have been if they had spent the money used to bribe the major reviewers on improving the game instead.

Modifié par Fruit of the Doom, 25 avril 2011 - 06:43 .

[Faroth]

Of course DA2 sold faster than DA:O...Origins was a new IP. All the fans who LOVED DA:O flocked to pick up DA2 and it had a year to gather those fans.

One review I read said it best. DA2 was changed to reach a group that wasn't drawn into Origins while alienating those who were.

[bossk-office]

4.3 at Metacritic? 4.3!? Holy cow that’s harsh. That is a seriously low score. If I had made a game that players rated at 4.3, I would cry myself to sleep. Even if it sold like gangbusters I would be crying all the way to the bank. 4.3 is way lower than I thought. I mean, I was disappointed too ... but not that disappointed. Such a score has got to hurt. Believe me, there’s no way they’re not taking this to heart.

Of course that doesn’t necessarily mean that DA3 will be a masterpiece. There may be any number of circmstances making further masterpiece RPGs impossible. Even so, this can’t be a fun number to look at.

[Everwarden]

panchamkauns wrote...

4.3 at Metacritic? 4.3!? Holy cow that’s harsh. That is a seriously low score. If I had made a game that players rated at 4.3, I would cry myself to sleep. Even if it sold like gangbusters I would be crying all the way to the bank. 4.3 is way lower than I thought. I mean, I was disappointed too ... but not that disappointed. Such a score has got to hurt. Believe me, there’s no way they’re not taking this to heart.

Of course that doesn’t necessarily mean that DA3 will be a masterpiece. There may be any number of circmstances making further masterpiece RPGs impossible. Even so, this can’t be a fun number to look at.

I'm sure they're sobbing big tears into their gold and diamond pillows.. tears of laughter at having sold this turd and having people defending it, I mean. 

[Viyu]

Persephone wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Because this is so tactful and respectful.

Yes, hate campaigns, brainwashing and diatribes are powerful. Nothing new. They have killed entire franchises before, often undeservedly so. (Gabriel Knight, anyone? If I ever get that "core fanbase" within arm's reach I'll give them a pat on the back for shooting themselves in the foot and having a hand in killing an entire genre. You "true" RPG fans think your genre is in danger? At least you still get yearly releases while we adventure fans are living on bloody scraps) All this will accomplish is to get one of the best recent RPG franchises dropped in favor of ME and more KOTOR clones. Damaging Sales via hate campaigns will kill the franchise. Giving constructive criticism might improve it. But hey, fanaticism calls, right?

Ah, adventure games were already nearing the end of their rope by the time Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned was released. 

I hardly think a negative reaction to one release that everybody knows was rushed out the door is going to kill a franchise, much less a genre. 

GK3 was a HUGE hope for us back then. Many hoped it would save the genre they loved. And constant delays and revamps (Curse you, 3D) did not help. It ended on a cliffhanger. People went berserk and badmouthed it wherever they could. What was the result? A cliffhanger never to be solved, a brilliant franchise dead, many fans hating themselves for damaging the sales "to make sure Sierra learned that 3D Adventures are not what we want". GK3, or rather its reception, had a major hand in destroying the genre. Did it do it alone? No, the "core fanbase" certainly helped.

I think you need to understand that if fans don't decry it, there will be no improvement. There needs to be a serious campaign to win back people's trust for the next installment. Keep in mind people spent like 62 bucks on this game, excluding DLC. I think people have the right to complain about a product they weren't happy with. What's worse to a franchise actually, is when people DON'T say anything about their dissatisfaction and leave the franchise. The developers wouldn't know how to win those people back because they're not leaving feedback.

panchamkauns wrote...

4.3 at Metacritic? 4.3!?
Holy cow that’s harsh. That is a seriously low score. If I had made a
game that players rated at 4.3, I would cry myself to sleep. Even if it
sold like gangbusters I would be crying all the way to the bank. 4.3 is way lower than I thought. I mean, I was disappointed too ... but not that disappointed. Such a score has got to hurt. Believe me, there’s no way they’re not taking this to heart.

Of
course that doesn’t necessarily mean that DA3 will be a masterpiece.
There may be any number of circmstances making further masterpiece RPGs
impossible. Even so, this can’t be a fun number to look at.

Like
I said before, game sales usually tank the game after a mediocre game.
Lots of people will buy the mediocre game only because they were fed off
of the hype of the previous game. But once bitten, twice shy by the
next game, which is why such a low score isn't surprising in spite of
it's sales. To me, this game is the FFX-2 of the Bioware franchise.

Modifié par Viyu, 27 avril 2011 - 07:55 .

[terdferguson123]

How many of these blasted topics are going to be made about interviews where a bioware head won't acknowledge a games negative points. Do you seriously NOT get why? Good lord people, video games are a business. Mike Laidlaw works for EA, he CANNOT go into a major publication like Game Informer and blast his own game. Wait till DA3 and then you will see aknowledgment of issues from DA2.

[Xarne]

it's not him denying da2 is a rushed, simple-minded hackfest aimed at 4th graders - it's the part where he laughs off the very people who put this company on the map, almost with disdain as he mocks DA:O, the same product that gave him the money to make da2, the same product that made me and many I know pre-order da2
(fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me).

also, how can the people expressing disappointment be the 'vocal minority' when I'm pretty sure the majority of DA2 sales were initially from the supporters of DA:O, who pre-ordered and camped out at gameshops, foolishly expecting a second helping of what they loved about DA:O

And when you come to voice your opinion you get your account banned/gameplay terminated - that was such a classy and professional touch:
Pay sixty bucks for a crap product, express disappointment and you lose your game and your money. Censorship at it's finest.

the vocal minority you speak of was probably blocked by the firewall at their workplace, cause trust me, amazon.com is not blocked by firewalls or modded by the game's maker or its publisher. Believe me when I tell you, the 'disappointment' being posted there is by no means the minority.
Hated on the PC, and barely lukewarm on the consoles.

As for Dragon Mass Effect 3, lets not fool ourselves- the bar has been lowered and the sales continue- quality, polish, effort - these things take time to produce.
If you can sell yellow lead to the masses and call it gold, why go through all that extra work to make a game with the above attributes when subpar sells almost as well ?
Disappointing but true.

[SnakeStrike8]

panchamkauns wrote...

4.3 at Metacritic? 4.3!? Holy cow that’s harsh. That is a seriously low score. If I had made a game that players rated at 4.3, I would cry myself to sleep. Even if it sold like gangbusters I would be crying all the way to the bank. 4.3 is way lower than I thought. I mean, I was disappointed too ... but not that disappointed. Such a score has got to hurt. Believe me, there’s no way they’re not taking this to heart.

Of course that doesn’t necessarily mean that DA3 will be a masterpiece. There may be any number of circmstances making further masterpiece RPGs impossible. Even so, this can’t be a fun number to look at.

4.3 metacritic doesn't sound that bad. That score for a game like DA 2, which was being watched by many hawk-eyed gamers (no pun intended) eager to rip it apart and pick out every flaw they could find, is akin to getting a B+ in calculus. It's a good bloody grade.

[David Gaider]

Xarne wrote...
also, how can the people expressing disappointment be the 'vocal minority' when I'm pretty sure the majority of DA2 sales were initially from the supporters of DA:O, who pre-ordered and camped out at gameshops, foolishly expecting a second helping of what they loved about DA:O

The people expressing opinions of any kind on the Internet, positive or negative, are a vocal minority. This is not to dismiss their opinions, nor to suggest there can't be people who don't come to the Internet (or these forums) who feel similarly, but rather a suggestion that we cannot and will not treat the ones who do as the final word on any matter.

Beyond that, I find the implication that everyone who pre-ordered DA2 was "fooled" into doing so and found it not to their liking to be rather disingenuous. Clearly there are people who feel as you do, but if anyone was going to find a fault in any member of the "vocal minority" it's their assumption they speak on behalf of everyone.

And when you come to voice your opinion you get your account banned/gameplay terminated - that was such a classy and professional touch:
Pay sixty bucks for a crap product, express disappointment and you lose your game and your money. Censorship at it's finest.

We do not ban people for expressing negative opinions. Some people like to believe that, because they think that when they're right that makes them free to express themselves in as insulting and inflammatory a manner as they wish-- everyone else is simply supposed to filter that out as de rigeur for the Internet.

Well, they're wrong. Paying money for a product does not entitle someone to act like an ass, anymore here than in a restaurant or a store, and like those places we'll politely show someone the door when they can't contain themselves. I understand their frustration, but that simply does not excuse their behavior.

As for Dragon Mass Effect 3, lets not fool ourselves- the bar has been lowered and the sales continue- quality, polish, effort - these things take time to produce.
If you can sell yellow lead to the masses and call it gold, why go through all that extra work to make a game with the above attributes when subpar sells almost as well ?
Disappointing but true.

If you wish to believe that, it's up to you. I suppose it'll be up to us to prove otherwise, won't it?

Modifié par David Gaider, 12 mai 2011 - 05:09 .

[Super_Fr33k]

I think a lot of the more vociferous critics in this thread are working with a somewhat romanticized recollection of DAO. DA2 did correct some significant flaws, while making some new ones. Like all sequels, it is a bridge from old conventions and expectations to new ones. Laidlaw and other Bioware peeps will eventually say what worked and what didn't, not as indictment of DA2, but as an acknowledgement that conventions and standards have to change again. Some will feel vindicated with whatever inevitable changes come to DA3, but they shouldn't flatter themselves; the changes won't come from their individual, knee-jerk rants, but from lengthy review that takes into account the resources available for DA3, competing companies' efforts and a wide-angle picture of fan feedback.

As a reminder, DA2 did some things very well. Having a voiced PC, having friendship/rivalry instead of flat-out approval, having rogues and warriors be more distinctive, offering a compelling portrayal of the Qunari, and so on. DA2's story was also, for the most part, quite good (Meredith and Orsino needed more face time, but I've said the same of the Archdemon). Where it doesn't compare to DAO, though, is that it is a much more personal story, rather than a sweeping epic. The story was more about characters than sweeping choices and epic battles. That is good and bad, because the player feels more grounded yet less significant.

DAO did have a few stand-out characters of higher caliber than those in DA2, mainly Alistair, Morrigan and Loghain, and overall, I think its story was better. I don't think the difference in quality is nearly as great as others, however. DAO did have some deadweight characters too (DA2 was much better at creating a well-rounded ensemble, IMO), and it benefitted from being our introduction to Thedas.

Ultimately, I think it behooves as fans to identify how both games can inform an enjoyable and improved sequel, and we are obligated to do so specifically, constructively, and while being mindful of how nostalgia and our own predilections skew our advice. FYI, going "lulz, I knew it would suck all along, make it exactly like DAO again," is not valid.

As such, let me throw out my basic advice/requests for DA3:

Shift back to a larger, longer narrative, with one overarching villain, a la Loghain, Irenicus, Malak, etc. A single master schemer gives more time to connect to the villain and makes a more interwoven, complex storyline possible. DA2 was basically three mini-campaigns.

On a related note, use a larger narrative to let choices build on each other, and don't make the rewards/downsides of those choices readily apparent.

Re-examine the ME2, ensemble-heavy game play. Having an in-depth personal quest every chapter for every party member is fun, but at some point they do become distractions, as they are largely self-contained. I encourage you to more fully integrate party member quests and interactions into the main storyline. This has the consequence of depleting the amount of relationship points one can accumulate with party members, which can further replayability.

Have more environments, or at least more dynamic environments. I think there'd have been a lot less complaining about Kirkwall if it had evolved over the years. (I'd guess this one is a definite, as there really does seem to be consensus here. Fantasy games are generally expected to have varying settings -- don't see Bioware ignoring this twice in a row.)

Other, minor advice includes more dynamic party member appearances and new kinds of enemies. As I previously mentioned, DA2 suffered from the sequel's dilemma of predictability. Everyone knew what to do when they saw an Arcane Horror or a mature dragon. New enemies could go a long way towards freshening up combat.

In sum, I think DA2 was well-executed, but limited by its narrative structure and the over-reliance on ME2 conventions. Shaking up both will enable a bold, fresh DA3.

[Fast Jimmy]

While slightly off topic, I was one of the gamers who showed up for the midnight release of Dragon Age 2. I was sitting in the store an hour before talking with ten or so people who were waiting as well about what we were hoping for in the game. I had gone through a bit of a media blackout prior to the release, but I still had a better idea of what the game was composed of than the other people there.

I mentioned how I had heard that the game takes place primarily in the city of Kirkwall, with 90% of the game happening there. Others said no, that was impossible. One guy even said that he KNEW you could travel to at least one location in every continent on Thedas.

Someone mentioned the "huge demon thing" they saw in a preview. I told them it was the new art direction for the Qunari, and that the elves as well had undergone cosmetic changes. People said no, it had to be some kind of new enemy, changing the Qunari that drastically couldn't POSSIBLY be what they did.

People then began speculating what characters would/would not make it to the game. Top of the list of people who shouldn't be in the game due to them being able to be killed or left behind was Sten, Wynne, Lelianna and Anders. I almost bust out laughing when I got home and saw Anders was a recruitable character within the first two hours.


My point being, even armed with VERY limited knowledge of the game, I knew based on these hardcore fans expectations that they were not going to like the game as much as they liked DAO. I, at the very least, had prepared myself for some of the gameplay changes and what I saw as limitations to the game. I still wasn't prepared for the jarring plot directions, my biggest complaint of the game, but at least I knew better than to expect a world tour of locations or that the Qunari and others would look radically different.

If I knew that these gamers were going to be dissatisfied with the game after spending a few minutes talking to them and equipped with only limited information about what the game entailed, how did Bioware NOT know that their most diehard, vocal fans were going to be disappointed?

I'd be curious to see a financial report by Gamestop to see how many pre-ordered copies have been returned so far. While there are many gamers who do buy, beat and then cash back in, many hold on to their games and keep them in their libraries for years. I'm willing to bet that there have been near the same number of returns of DA2 in the past two months than there has been of DAO copies in the past year and a half.

My point being, Bioware had to know what they were getting into before the release. And if they didn't, they don't know their fans as well as they should. They should have started working then on their PR lines and company slogans then so that they wouldn't come off as abrasive or even slightly PO'd that people are questioning the scope and focus of your game. If you know you are going to be hopping in the deep end, at least grab a life jacket or learn to swim.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 mai 2011 - 12:54 .

[SheilaD67]

David, I truly, truly hope that the next DLCs and DA:3 prove that our money, time, and loyalty have not been misplaced. 

I have been a BioWare fan (and still am) since BG.  Honestly, I don't think that BioWare has yet met the gauntlet thrown down by that game in an RPG manner.  DA:O came very close, and I love it!  I have played it multiple times, write in that universe, and will continue to do both.  However, DA:2 is not what DA:O promised it would be.  Sequels are supposed to improve upon its predecessor.  As a parent hopes a child will.  However, DA:2 is rather dumbed down (almost insultingly so), and does not have nearly the immersion value of DA:O.  Even Awakening, which has so disappointed me with its own lack of character interaction that I cannot get through a playthrough, still had more personality. 

Now, I enjoy the game, once I had resigned myself that it's not a true RPG gamem that there was no way I could get 'lost' in it like I have others (BG, BGII, NWN & expansions, DA:O).  But, I see an end to my playthroughs.  With DA:O I see myself continuing to play that game, romancing Alistair and Zev, for a very long time to come.  I even plan on going back to the 'oldies' for the sheer enjoyment of the emmersion value.

I hope that BioWare takes the thoughtful reviews left by its loyal followers (not merely customers mind you, but true blue followers and fans) and use that knowledge to continue to flesh out and enhance this intriguing universe.  Please do not relegate it to the back of the top shelf, forgotten and dusty.

[gangly369]

Alright first off, I disagree almost entirely with the OP and some of the other more 'negative' comments on the board who are trying to make it sound like all of us hardcore gamers are in a rage at what Bioware has done. It simply isn't true. If you are so overcome with emotion and feel the need to pull your hair out and scream bloody murder at bioware, then I suggest standing up and walk out the door and go outside and try to maybe live your life, your taking this way to seriously.

Now, are there things to be dissapointed with DA2? Of course. The recycled areas were quite annoying for me. Also the fact that only Aveline consistently got a new look at the start of each act felt weird to me. The story was also less politically involved then I thought it would have been, or rather it didn't end up going in the direction I had hoped it would (which I suppose isn't a bad thing entirely). For the most part the story did feel somehow....I dunno, less. It just didnt grip me like Origins did. The cliffhanger at the end was also a major fail in my opinion. I don't think it was the characters or Hawke, I adored Merrill and loved how funny Varric was. Maybe there was a lack of epicness lol? I honestly dont know, thats something I trust the writers to look into for the next game however.

Despite all that though, the game did make some strides. The combat felt much more improved. I loved the fact that I wasnt shuffling around anymore. I did enjoy the conversation wheel much more than what we had in Origins. The banter, of course, was AWESOME!. They need to improve the interaction with party members in their own places or while on a quest, but I like the direction they are headed.
To me, dragon age 2 felt more like a testing ground. Not something fans would like to hear obviously. They want a game, not something with a bunch of new stuff being tested out. I cant help but feel that DA3 however is going to be an amazing game because of what happened in DA2 though. If the dragon age team can just shore up some things, not make it so stale to travel around, and generally make the story just that much more exciting, well its got me looking forward to what will happen in the future.

My faith in Bioware has wavered a bit after this, but they certainly haven't lost it. If they had, I wouldnt bother coming on these forums and whining and complaining about how they have ooh so abused me and my trust. I would simply leave. I know that the developers look on these forums, and that they do take our criticisms seriously, as long as were not flaming and whining pointlessly.

Edited for spelling..somewhat (I'm too lazy to go over all of it again lol)

Modifié par gangly369, 12 mai 2011 - 08:57 .