966 réponses à ce sujet

[Reinveil]

Maverick827 wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

And if the story is supposed to be "family-centric", they did an incredibly poor job of executing it.

The story is supposed to be family-centric, and they did an incredible job of executing it.

Oh no, I stated an opinion without any relevent argument to sustain it: what shall you do now?!

Ignore it.

[Volourn]

"Somehow me thinks you didnt play the same da:o i did, especially seeing as you forget that loghain had a larger part in the story than the archdemon,"

Loghain may have been on screen more; but the story wasn't about him. Beginning, middle, and end of DA1 was all about stopping the archdemon. Period.

[1varangian]

adneate wrote...

The "Play on Hard" is the most insulting comment yet, turning the difficulty up doesn't change the fact that the combat system is broken. Everything is auto-scaled and since all attacks hit every single fight in the entire game is exactly the same. You just wail on something until it runs out of hit points and dies. It takes forever to take down a "Boss" because they have a magical aura that makes your weapons dull and your armour rusty. Turning the difficulty to Hard does not solve these problems.

Exactly.

Playing on hard also does nothing to improve the simplified game mechanics nor does it make the surreal teleporting wave mobs any more fun to fight - on the contrary. Playing on higher difficulties does nothing for the game except make it more tedious and underline the fatal flaws of the combat system.

I have played the game on all difficulties desperately trying to find where it works. Only to discover DA2 is a simplified action game where the action sucks.

The fact that the lead designer thinks harder difficulties somehow change the game and unsimplify it leaves me dumbfounded. I'm slowly starting to get it through to my head that Bioware no longer makes games for me.

[Aramintai]

Do you see Dragon Age ever revisiting the traditional tactical gameplay found in Origins?

It really depends on the definition of tactical. For some, it simply  means "slower." For others it means more complicated combat scenarios  and more engaging/challenging foes. To the former, I would say no. I  personally find the responsiveness and personality of the new combat  system to be much better for Dragon Age as a whole. My experience with the game feels more like I'm in control, rather than issuing orders, and
 that direct correlation to my actions is something I really enjoy.  This is speaking as a habitual PC pause-and-player.

 
So, basically 
 "Spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" banner was changed for "Button Awesome FTW!" and "Deal with it, you PC RPG loving suckas B)".  

Imho, they broke what was not broken.

What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly. Origins on normal  delivered a pretty painful experience on the PC if you were new to RPGs, and I firmly believe that it turned people off. There's a very clear  "skill gap" between someone new to Dragon Age II and a returning Origins player, and I think it's very easy to forget how steep that learning  curve could be once you've overcome it.As such, we've made the early  game quests and encounters more forgiving, especially on normal, to help someone just getting their feet under them acclimate. Hard, however,  presents a solid, and consistent challenge to  veterans, and one where I think teamwork, pause and-play, and smart thinking are all quite important[i].

Omg, people who couldn't beat Origins on normal should not play rpgs in the first place. And yet they are persistently trying to lure casual gamers by dumbing down the game to their long standing core auditory. But I suppose casual masses are more important and profitable. The only question remains how loyal they will be in the long term.

Modifié par Aramintai, 14 avril 2011 - 08:59 .

[rak72]

Reinveil wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Edli wrote...

So what happened to that philosophy in the sequel? Flashy animations, exploding bodies, animesque art design and mindless combat aren't really targetting us the mature folks are they?

No, the family-centric story with realistic conflicts was for the mature fans.  I'm sorry they didn't appeal to your supposedly mature sensibilities.  Maybe they should have went with a fairy tale again - those scream maturity.

Yes, the sister that hides from the magic police because she can conjure fire from the air, fleeing from a city sacked by demonic creatures, receiving help from a dragon lady, and getting back a mansion gambled away after mom ran off with an apostate mage are the very zenith of realistic.  And that's not even taking into account what happens to her in act 2.  And there aren't elves, dwarves, and other mythic creatures in DAII, so I guess you're right about the fairy tale thing...oh wait...

And if the story is supposed to be "family-centric", they did an incredibly poor job of executing it.  The folks defending this game can't even agree with the story is about.

It's the Seinfeld of video games - a game about nothing.

[Reinveil]

Volourn wrote...

"Somehow me thinks you didnt play the same da:o i did, especially seeing as you forget that loghain had a larger part in the story than the archdemon,"

Loghain may have been on screen more; but the story wasn't about him. Beginning, middle, and end of DA1 was all about stopping the archdemon. Period.

This I actually agree with.  Loghain added a certain level of political intrigue, but ultimately he was only an obstacle to be overcome on the way towards the larger goal and provided a final step in unifying everyone against the archdemon/blight.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[/i]What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly. Origins on normal  delivered a pretty painful experience on the PC if you were new to RPGs, and I firmly believe that it turned people off. There's a very clear  "skill gap" between someone new to Dragon Age II and a returning Origins player, and I think it's very easy to forget how steep that learning  curve could be once you've overcome it.As such, we've made the early  game quests and encounters more forgiving, especially on normal, to help someone just getting their feet under them acclimate. Hard, however,  presents a solid, and consistent challenge to  veterans, and one where I think teamwork, pause and-play, and smart thinking are all quite important[i].

While I'm not typically one to use the phrase dumbed-down (I think it's poorly defined, and thus serves no purpose), I think Mike missed the point on this.  Perhaps wilfully.

I don't think people are complaining about the combat when they say DA2 was dumbed-down.  I would expect they were taking about the non-combat decision-making, both with regard to equipment and dialogue.  The complaint isn't that the game is easier, but that there's less thinking involved in playing it.  Hence the term "dumbed-down".  If there are fewer occasions in which the player can apply his intelligence, that would explain the complaint.

I didn't think the dumbed down angle had anything to do with combat (except perhaps thhe spawning from nowhere, as it rewarded only those players who didn't give the setting much thought).

[Shadowbanner]

Miashi wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
Look the word up and it will make sense.  It will also clarify why you're wrong.  :P:P

Maybe if hit my head on the wall enough times I'll end up convincing myself that this is a great game. Chances are I'll have irreversible brain damage though.

Only then will you truly start appreciating Mike's game.

[Sad Dragon]

Sad Dragon wrote...

This is something I have been wondering. At times it feels like the ability gets delayed untill after the animation of the standard attack gets finished (especialy bad for the mages) . Not sure this is the case or if its simple a targening issue and I just happened to not have any mob 'hard targeted' at the time.

Is this just me or is it just a series of bad targeting incidents?

- TSD

To answer my own question: The animation is stopping the spell from being casted -- though i think the targeting was also part of my problem as the spell gets queued directly after the animation ends, and I'm sure I kept hitting the button for more then the animation time.

- TSD

[Alex Kershaw]

That man is the death of the franchise - I'd accept that it's all PR talk if he didn't sound so passionate all his ridiculous responses. He defends DA2 as if it actually did well critically. Origins is better than DA2 in almost every single way, and Laidlaw is the death of what could have been an awesome franchise.

[Reinveil]

rak72 wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Edli wrote...

So what happened to that philosophy in the sequel? Flashy animations, exploding bodies, animesque art design and mindless combat aren't really targetting us the mature folks are they?

No, the family-centric story with realistic conflicts was for the mature fans.  I'm sorry they didn't appeal to your supposedly mature sensibilities.  Maybe they should have went with a fairy tale again - those scream maturity.

Yes, the sister that hides from the magic police because she can conjure fire from the air, fleeing from a city sacked by demonic creatures, receiving help from a dragon lady, and getting back a mansion gambled away after mom ran off with an apostate mage are the very zenith of realistic.  And that's not even taking into account what happens to her in act 2.  And there aren't elves, dwarves, and other mythic creatures in DAII, so I guess you're right about the fairy tale thing...oh wait...

And if the story is supposed to be "family-centric", they did an incredibly poor job of executing it.  The folks defending this game can't even agree with the story is about.

It's the Seinfeld of video games - a game about nothing.

No Qun for you!!

[Lotion Soronarr]

DA2 is inferior to DA:O in practicly every aspect.

And this is coming from someone who doesn't even like DA:O that much. I only managed 1 and 1/2 playtrough before attampting to mod a lot of annoyances out of it. Still have DA:O installed.

DA2 I barely forced myself to finish, and only because I wnated to see hte story payoff (that never came). Uninstalled the game wihout even attempting ot mod it - it was beyond saving.

Nuff said.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 14 avril 2011 - 08:58 .

[TJSolo]

Reinveil wrote...

Volourn wrote...

"Somehow me thinks you didnt play the same da:o i did, especially seeing as you forget that loghain had a larger part in the story than the archdemon,"

Loghain may have been on screen more; but the story wasn't about him. Beginning, middle, and end of DA1 was all about stopping the archdemon. Period.

This I actually agree with.  Loghain added a certain level of political intrigue, but ultimately he was only an obstacle to be overcome on the way towards the larger goal and provided a final step in unifying everyone against the archdemon/blight.

So you're saying Loghain, the catalyst and roadblock for much of the game, played a larger role in the game than the AD, yes?

[Alex Kershaw]

Volourn wrote...

DA1 story; all about the archdemon

DA2 story: all about the PC

da2 > da1

And yet Metacritic: 91 > 82

Fun fact: 82 = lowest Bioware RPG ever.

[Volourn]

Irrelevant since that wasn't what the discussion was about. We were disucssing the story. DA1's story is about stopping the archdemon aand the blight. The story is about the archdemon. This is fact.


"And yet Metacritic: 91 > 82

Fun fact: 82 = lowest Bioware RPG ever."

I have better things to do with my life then be a lemming. R00fles!

Modifié par Volourn, 14 avril 2011 - 09:01 .

[GammaRayJim]

Volourn wrote...

"BUT THE MANUAL SAYS."

Nowhere in his blog does he claimM Laidlaw did nothing for the game.

He's an ex employee pouting over his ex company so his opinions, at best, are coloured.

Why would BIO credit Laidlaw as a lead designer if that was not his duty? What motivation does BIO have to lie about that?

The ridiculous idiocy to try to pretend otherwise by the silly gooses here is mind numbing stupidity.

Laidlaw was a Lead Designer on DA1. This is FACT.

Lead Designers: Brent Knowles, Mike Laidlaw, James Ohlen on DA:O
Lead Designer: Mike Laidlaw  DA2

He was one of three, I don't know why the other 2 left or how much input he actually had in the first. All I can say is I am not happy with the direction things went in the second. He didn't like us changing our companions clothing so he got rid of it. He thinks that more content in the form of quest is better than new areas, and a story with holes to drive a mack truck through are ok too. I've read Tolkien, George R R Martin, Tad Williams, Robert Jordan, Terry Brooks, Katherine Kurtz and many others...this was a dumbed down on so many levels.

Oh and just for the record I've played and immensely enjoyed God of War because it is what it is. It never tried to be an RPG.
 

[Reinveil]

TJSolo wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

Volourn wrote...

"Somehow me thinks you didnt play the same da:o i did, especially seeing as you forget that loghain had a larger part in the story than the archdemon,"

Loghain may have been on screen more; but the story wasn't about him. Beginning, middle, and end of DA1 was all about stopping the archdemon. Period.

This I actually agree with.  Loghain added a certain level of political intrigue, but ultimately he was only an obstacle to be overcome on the way towards the larger goal and provided a final step in unifying everyone against the archdemon/blight.

So you're saying Loghain, the catalyst and roadblock for much of the game, played a larger role in the game than the AD, yes?

In what way is he the catalyst?  The blight was happening whether he fled at Ostagar or not.  The ultimate goal of the game is pretty clear from the outset.

Edit: Unless by catalyst you're referring to my unification comment.  In which case I'll just say that while he's on screen more, he's not what the game is about.

Double Edit: I'd like to add that Loghain plays a hell of a larger role in Origins than ANY antagonist in DAII, and is a far more interesting character.

Modifié par Reinveil, 14 avril 2011 - 09:07 .

[akayasha]

I felt like Dragon Age 2's "Hard" was easier than Dragon Age: Origins' "Normal", but I don't know if this is for anyone else.

[Edli]

Maverick827 wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

And if the story is supposed to be "family-centric", they did an incredibly poor job of executing it.

The story is supposed to be family-centric, and they did an incredible job of executing it.

Oh no, I stated an opinion without any relevent argument to sustain it: what shall you do now?!

They did such a good job that the majority of the players wanted to bang Bethany. It's not easy treating a family-centric story in a game. It should first and foremost make you care about this family. What the game does is it kills one of the siblings in the first minutes and expect for you to be sad about that only because it's the sister of your character. That's ridiculous and everyones reaction to that was "meh, whatever let's move on". Then you're off with this irritating brother of yours for hours. I can look past some problems with my real brother because I grew up with him and really care about him. The game expects from me to care about Carver because he is the brother of my character even though he is annoying for the entire time you spend with him. What about the mother, what a shallow character she was.

So yeah, I didn't care when Bethany died in the beginning, didn't care when Carver and the mother dies too. It was a poor job executing a family centric story because it didn't made that family interesting, I didn't care about them. The game just expected from me to feel sorry because they were "the family"

Modifié par Edli, 14 avril 2011 - 09:10 .

[gysa]

ChickenDownUnder wrote...

Call it a hunch, but it seems like somebody behind the scenes is setting up Laidlaw to be the fall guy. They're making him do most of the interviews so that the backlash is just concentrated on him, instead of Bioware and EA in its entirety.

I have the same impression. He even seems to be angling a lot of the unpopular changes as his 'preferences' - ideas that with his departure will magically evaporate and make room for the things fans may actually want.

He's also the bad guy you love to hate as far as I'm concerned. No one could be so perfectly obvlious to valid criticisms. If his zealous arguments about the game were to be taken at face value, it would be clear that DA2 is the game of all time, complete and without flaw. Sadly, this is not the case.

Modifié par gysa, 14 avril 2011 - 09:15 .

[TJSolo]

Reinveil wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

Volourn wrote...

"Somehow me thinks you didnt play the same da:o i did, especially seeing as you forget that loghain had a larger part in the story than the archdemon,"

Loghain may have been on screen more; but the story wasn't about him. Beginning, middle, and end of DA1 was all about stopping the archdemon. Period.

This I actually agree with.  Loghain added a certain level of political intrigue, but ultimately he was only an obstacle to be overcome on the way towards the larger goal and provided a final step in unifying everyone against the archdemon/blight.

So you're saying Loghain, the catalyst and roadblock for much of the game, played a larger role in the game than the AD, yes?

In what way is he the catalyst?  The blight was happening whether he fled at Ostagar or not.  The ultimate goal of the game is pretty clear from the outset.

The Blight itself in DA is a kin to a natural disaster, the only thing needed would be darkspawn and enough time for an archdemon to emerge. The plan Cailan and Loghain had in place seemed effective to all those attending the strategy meeting.  Ostagar was meant to be the battleground for the blight, not the inner sactums of Denerim's castle.  Loghain didn't believe it was a Blight. He and Arl Howe sacrificed the King, thousands of soldiers, and wrecked havoc on the political structure of Fereldan, thus ultimately weaking Fereldan's military might against the darkspawn which allowed the darkspawn to overrun Fereldan.


The need for the Warden to gather allies is to replace what was lost because of Loghain.
The need for the Warden to re-unite the nobles of Fereldan is becausee of the chaos Loghain started.

Modifié par TJSolo, 14 avril 2011 - 09:21 .

[Reinveil]

Edli wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

And if the story is supposed to be "family-centric", they did an incredibly poor job of executing it.

The story is supposed to be family-centric, and they did an incredible job of executing it.

Oh no, I stated an opinion without any relevent argument to sustain it: what shall you do now?!

They did such a good job that the majority of the players wanted to bang Bethany. It's not easy treating a family-centric story in a game. It should first and foremost make you care about this family. What the game does is it kills one of the siblings in the first minutes and expect for you to be sad about that only because it's the sister of your character. That's ridiculous and everyones reaction to that was "meh, whatever let's move on". Then you're off with this irritating brother of yours for hours. I can look past some problems with my real brother because I grew up and really care about him. The game expects from me to care about Carver because he is the brother of my character even though he is annoying for the entire time you spend with him. What about the mother, what a shallow character she was.

So yeah, I didn't care when Bethany died in the beginning, didn't care when Carver and the mother dies too. It was a poor job executing a family centric story because it didn't made that family interesting, I didn't care about them. The game just expected from me to feel sorry because they were "the family"

And just to add to this, outside of a few dialogue scenes, there aren't many missions that even directly deal with them.  Indirectly, I suppose there are the dozens of fetch quests in act 1 you have to slog through to make money.  But I didn't do those out of some deep-seeded need to help my mother (I mostly found her to be a whiny shrew quick to blame me for everything), I did them because that's what I needed to do to advance the game.  Just like every other character in DAII, the members of your family either aren't developed enough or come across as one-dimensional archetypes.

Growing to care because of character development>caring because the game tells me I do

Modifié par Reinveil, 14 avril 2011 - 09:21 .

[Everwarden]

Edli wrote...
They did such a good job that the majority of the players wanted to bang Bethany.

Since when have I been the majority of players?!  It isn't just me?! Hurray! 

What the game does is it kills one of the siblings in the first minutes and expect for you to be sad about that only because it's the sister of your character. That's ridiculous and everyones reaction to that was "meh, whatever let's move on".

Not true! I was very sad when Bethany died! I was thinking "..b-but.. now I'm stuck with Carver. And he's much, much more annoying." Though the scene needed sad music and a slow fade to black. Stomping on a puppy might have helped prod my emotions, too. Ah well, hindsight is 20/20. 

I didn't care about them. The game just expected from me to feel sorry because they were "the family"

How dare you not enjoy your serving of emotions straight out of a can! 

Modifié par Everwarden, 14 avril 2011 - 09:20 .

[Reinveil]

TJSolo wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

Volourn wrote...

"Somehow me thinks you didnt play the same da:o i did, especially seeing as you forget that loghain had a larger part in the story than the archdemon,"

Loghain may have been on screen more; but the story wasn't about him. Beginning, middle, and end of DA1 was all about stopping the archdemon. Period.

This I actually agree with.  Loghain added a certain level of political intrigue, but ultimately he was only an obstacle to be overcome on the way towards the larger goal and provided a final step in unifying everyone against the archdemon/blight.

So you're saying Loghain, the catalyst and roadblock for much of the game, played a larger role in the game than the AD, yes?

In what way is he the catalyst?  The blight was happening whether he fled at Ostagar or not.  The ultimate goal of the game is pretty clear from the outset.

The plan Cailan and Loghain had in place seemed effective to all those attending the strategy meeting.  Ostagar was meant to be the battleground for the blight, not the inner sactums of Denerim's castle.  Loghain didn't believe it was a Blight. He and Arl Howe sacrificed the King, thousands of soldiers, and wrecked havoc on the political structure of Fereldan, thus ultimately weaking Fereldan's military might against the darkspawn which allowed the darkspawn to overrun Fereldan.

All true.  However, the blight was still happening, yes?  Whether or not Loghain thought it was?  And a Grey Warden is needed to kill the archdemon, right?  Which is what you do at the end of the game?

I'm not arguing that Loghain is less interesting or integral to the plot than the archdemon, only that his defeat is not what ultimately motivates the protagonist.  The goal of Origins isn't to decide his fate, it's to unify the land and defeat the blight.