966 réponses à ce sujet

[Mecher3k]

FIRE HIM BIOWARE.

Just DO IT. Fire the *censored*

[Foolsfolly]

Whether it was due to personnel change or what, I do agree that as of the post-release DLC, the franchise started feeling a lot different and not in a good way.

I assumed BioWare was just over-worked. There was too much on their plate. They had an MMO, DA2, ME3, DLC for both ME2 and DA:O, and whatever else they've got planned. I thought the DA:O DLC just didn't rank high enough on their priority lists.

But yeah, after Awakening (which was alright, not great) every DLC got worse and worse. Witch Hunt felt like a lazy fan-make epilogue to Morrigan's story...one that's not even counted for DA2 either.

[MingWolf]

Roxlimn wrote...
I think a lot of the anger being experienced by gamers who post here is because DA:O is not precisely like DA:O. Laidlaw thinks this is good. SO DO I. Games that don't change eventually die. The game has to advance and improve to remain relevant.

No offense, but that statement hinges on the fringes of ignorance. How do you exactly define advance and improve? Did DA2 really improve? Do you think reusing maps is an improvement? Do you think dropping enemies from the air is an improvement? What about lazily copying animations from another game?

Some people might compare DA2 to DA:O, but to assume that this is where the problem lies is silly. I've gamed since games were little 2-colored pixels. I've seen games "evolve," and "change." I can embrance changes if they add value. I've built myself a rig just to keep up with up-to-date indulgence of nerdy addictions that games can bring. But some things just don't add value, and its hard not to see it when you consider all the choices you have out there. $60 dollars, what can that buy you? Surely, Shogun 2 is pretty hot right now, with so much character and depth, and even that costs you 10 bucks less. Crysis 2 might not offer the same freedom as it did in Crysis 1, but look what they did, they modelled a razed NYC, cool. What did DA2 do? A personal story? Sure, I can buy that. What I can't buy is the slop, the lack of vision, the poor decision making. Theres a lot of great games out there that evolved the right way. I honestly can't see where this game excelled at. I admire the ideas, but I despise the execution.

You enjoy this? Great. I mean, ultimately its money spent right? I only wish I can share your enthusiasm. Show me how, please. I really want to enjoy a game like this. I've tried and tried. Am I not trying hard enough? What about the other people? Are they just whining because its not DA:O, or is there a bigger story behind it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

They've already announced they're not getting rid of the wave feature.

they've said they're not abandoning it completely.  They've also said they'll be using it less.

DAO had some encounters with waves.  The Broodmother fight had waves.  The Archdemon had waves.  Waves, in and of themselves, aren't a bad thing.

But nonsensical waves spawning out of nowhere on nearly every encounter - that's a bad thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Roxlimn wrote...

I think a lot of the anger being experienced by gamers who post here is because DA:O is not precisely like DA:O. Laidlaw thinks this is good. SO DO I. Games that don't change eventually die. The game has to advance and improve to remain relevant.

But that's nonsense.  The only way someone could credibly hold that position is if he thought DAO was not only the best game ever made, but the best game possible.

And I don't think anyone thinks that.

I think DA2's changes were, for the most part, exactly wrong.  But I would like to see some changes made from the DAO design.  There are things I think DAO did badly.

And DA2 fixes almost none of those things, and makes a bunch of other parts of the game dramatically worse.

[Kilshrek]

I would have to strongly disagree with Mike about playing on Hard, because all Hard felt like to me was enemies getting a massive HP boost compared to Normal. There was little need for 'tactics' because that got thrown out the window the moment the next wave hit, and oh look, there are 5 waves of enemies. And the speed of combat (and teleporting mages plus your own mages inability to aim at moving targets) mean that setting tactics out at the start of a battle has little point. Everything is better done manually, and Origins Normal was superior to 2's Hard on most accounts in combat.

[Roxlimn]

MingWolf:

No offense, but that statement hinges on the fringes of ignorance. How do you exactly define advance and improve? Did DA2 really improve? Do you think reusing maps is an improvement? Do you think dropping enemies from the air is an improvement? What about lazily copying animations from another game?

Some people might compare DA2 to DA:O, but to assume that this is where the problem lies is silly. I've gamed since games were little 2-colored pixels. I've seen games "evolve," and "change." I can embrance changes if they add value. I've built myself a rig just to keep up with up-to-date indulgence of nerdy addictions that games can bring. But some things just don't add value, and its hard not to see it when you consider all the choices you have out there. $60 dollars, what can that buy you? Surely, Shogun 2 is pretty hot right now, with so much character and depth, and even that costs you 10 bucks less. Crysis 2 might not offer the same freedom as it did in Crysis 1, but look what they did, they modelled a razed NYC, cool. What did DA2 do? A personal story? Sure, I can buy that. What I can't buy is the slop, the lack of vision, the poor decision making. Theres a lot of great games out there that evolved the right way. I honestly can't see where this game excelled at. I admire the ideas, but I despise the execution.

You enjoy this? Great. I mean, ultimately its money spent right? I only wish I can share your enthusiasm. Show me how, please. I really want to enjoy a game like this. I've tried and tried. Am I not trying hard enough? What about the other people? Are they just whining because its not DA:O, or is there a bigger story behind it?

There's a simple way to like DA2: Stop wanting it to be DA:O. You'll enjoy it more.

DA2 is a better game in a number of very specific areas I can expound on, if you let me. I can flood entire threads with text, so I'm careful to regulate myself.

There are game and narrative designs in DA2 that are clearly more forward and more advanced than in DA:O. Reusing map textures is not an improvement, but it's also not unusual for Bioware. The ME games and DA:O itself had tons of reused maps and textures. It's just more obvious in DA2 because the maps in question are more distinctive - less bland.

Do I think putting waves in tactically interesting start points is an improvement? ABSOLUTELY. In DA:O, you have mobs standing around in rooms doing nothing, waiting to be trapped or Stormed to death. Or you could pull them one by one with careful ranged attacks. Do you really think that that's better?

[Roxlimn]

Sylvius the Mad:

But that's nonsense. The only way someone could credibly hold that position is if he thought DAO was not only the best game ever made, but the best game possible.

And I don't think anyone thinks that.

I think DA2's changes were, for the most part, exactly wrong. But I would like to see some changes made from the DAO design. There are things I think DAO did badly.

And DA2 fixes almost none of those things, and makes a bunch of other parts of the game dramatically worse.

That's my point. You think the changes in DA2 were worse because you think that DA:O is the model for what's good. Many of the changes in combat design in DA2 are improvements or represent a different approach, but I can't think of a design choice at the moment that was actually worse. The fact that you do suggests a bias for DA:O.

Kilshrek:

The HP boost mobs get on Hard is because your party is that much more effective if you know how to manage them tactically. What you're referring to is that positional tactics in the manner of classic tactical RPGs goes out the window every time a wave hits. I agree. DA2 is not a tactical RPG in the genre sense of the phrase. That doesn't mean that effective tactics don't benefit player performance.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 15 avril 2011 - 06:28 .

[Everwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...
Do I think putting waves in tactically interesting start points is an improvement? ABSOLUTELY.

You're either Mike Laidlaw using a puppet, or a troll. Because that's market-speak nonsense. 

To be clear, I'm not using that as an insult, I am -literally- calling you out as a Bioware employee. You speak like someone using bad marketing jargon to defend the awful. 

In DA:O, you have mobs standing around in rooms doing nothing, waiting to be trapped or Stormed to death. Or you could pull them one by one with careful ranged attacks. Do you really think that that's better?

Yes. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 avril 2011 - 06:30 .

[Esbatty]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shirosaki17 wrote...

They've already announced they're not getting rid of the wave feature.

they've said they're not abandoning it completely.  They've also said they'll be using it less.

DAO had some encounters with waves.  The Broodmother fight had waves.  The Archdemon had waves.  Waves, in and of themselves, aren't a bad thing.

But nonsensical waves spawning out of nowhere on nearly every encounter - that's a bad thing.

You just eerily and accurately described "swooping".

[Sylvius the Mad]

Roxlimn wrote...

That's my point. You think the changes in DA2 were worse because you think that DA:O is the model for what's good.

That's exactly the opposite of what I just said.

DAO is not the model for what's good.  DAO has significant issues that I would like to see fixed in future games.

But DA2 didn't address those problems except to make them worse, and it also did change things that worked in DAO and made them worse too.

Nothing about what I'm saying suggests that I'm using DAO as some sort of Platonic Ideal.

[MingWolf]

There's a simple way to like DA2: Stop wanting it to be DA:O. You'll enjoy it more.

Again, I never said I wanted a DA:O. I'm perfectly fine with change, but not all. Good on you that you that you like waves that parachute in. I can't quite share that with you because it makes almost no tactical sense. DA:O might not have done it that great, but at least it wasn't absurd. Maybe you like that, fine. Just don't go out reasoning that that the whole reason I and many others dislike the changes is because it wasn't DA:O. DA:O was inconsequential, at least for me.

I've played Mass Effect as well, both games. Played through them plenty. Yes, it had reused maps and textures, but then they didn't reuse them for every darn quest and make you run a circuit around them in the final climax.

I can respect the fact that you have different standards, but that doesn't make the issues brought up any less substantial when there is a mob out there who reasons the same way.

Modifié par MingWolf, 15 avril 2011 - 06:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Roxlimn wrote...

Do I think putting waves in tactically interesting start points is an improvement? ABSOLUTELY. In DA:O, you have mobs standing around in rooms doing nothing, waiting to be trapped or Stormed to death. Or you could pull them one by one with careful ranged attacks. Do you really think that that's better?

I think it was better that the enemies I might eventually face actually existed in the world prior to their sudden appearance in a combat encounter.

My complaint with the waves is one of the setting's internal coherence.  Where were these people befoer the fight started?  Why was it impossible for me to encounter them elsewhere?

In DAO, I could scout ahead and find almost every enemy who stood in my way.  Was it ideal that they stood around doing nothing?  No, but having them not exist at all is far worse.

Or you could pull them one by one with careful ranged attacks.

Oh, and DA2 still allows this.  You just have to retreat as soon as combat starts.  Since the spawn points for each wave are fixed locations on the map, you can pull each wave one mob at a time if you'd like.  So DA2 is no better in this regard.

Though I don't see why you'd bother, because the encounters in DA2 are generally easier than in DAO (I play both games on Hard, though I'm considering switching to Normal in DA2 because I find the combat genuinely unfun.  the obviously absurd combat mechanics (why does Hawke do so much more damage than an Ogre?) irritate me constantly.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 avril 2011 - 06:38 .

[turian councilor Knockout]

Hard to improve a game when you don't see the faults within it, seriously Bioware bring in recycled areas just to have more side quest and stuff and hard mode is no more challenging than normal in origins (please start listening to the customers for once).

Modifié par turian councilor Knockout, 15 avril 2011 - 06:38 .

[Lalue]

Anyway, when is the next dlc/expansion or the end of act 3? ;x

Modifié par Lalue, 15 avril 2011 - 06:42 .

[xkg]

Roxlimn wrote...

 Do I think putting waves in tactically interesting start points is an improvement? ABSOLUTELY.

Just 1 question please.

Is this ^ one of those "tactically interesting start points" ?

[skan5]

Hm. I guess this pretty much settles it. I won't be touching another game where Laidlaw is the lead. His vision for what he wants in games is not what I'm looking for.

Roxlimn wrote...
There's a simple way to like DA2: Stop wanting it to be DA:O. You'll enjoy it more.

DA2 is a better game in a number of very specific areas I can expound on, if you let me. I can flood entire threads with text, so I'm careful to regulate myself.

There are game and narrative designs in DA2 that are clearly more forward and more advanced than in DA:O. Reusing map textures is not an improvement, but it's also not unusual for Bioware. The ME games and DA:O itself had tons of reused maps and textures. It's just more obvious in DA2 because the maps in question are more distinctive - less bland.

Do I think putting waves in tactically interesting start points is an improvement? ABSOLUTELY. In DA:O, you have mobs standing around in rooms doing nothing, waiting to be trapped or Stormed to death. Or you could pull them one by one with careful ranged attacks. Do you really think that that's better?

Or you can just trigger the fight and then run back to some doorway and aoe them to death at the chokepoint. If you go back far enough, the spawned enemies will just sit and wait for you there too. You can't do that in all fights, sure, but you couldn't in all of DAO's fights neither.

Though honestly this has been done to death in so many threads. And you're still using the cop-out "you just want it to be like DA:O." Reasoning and explanations have been given so many times. But you won't be convinced nor would they because it is, at the end of the day, a manner of opinion and what appeals to you.

You find the areas less bland while I find them incredibly bland: rocky walls with random crates and greenery; beaches that have been done better in many other games; random crate-filled warehouses. But that's just how I see them, and you may disagree.

For whatever reason that even I can't explain, I actually liked the way overly-exaggerated AO in DA:O. You may feel completely different.

You find the narrative design more advancing and more progressive, I find the narrative design disjointed and badly executed. Perhaps if executed differently I may have liked it more.

Spawning enemies on top of you and behind you, to you, is great. That's cool that you like it. I despise spawning enemies randomly, and especially when it's completely dead obvious with very little thought of hiding it outside of "they jumped off the building top." I understand it's a dirty, cheap and quick trick used in many games in an attempt to add challenge, but it's not used in the vast majority of the games that I tend to play.

At the end though, you may not agree or see it differently, and you like it (judging from your post). As do many others around this forum. But I, along with others, do not like it. Both sides have stated their reasons, but more than likely neither side will be convinced and will just continue to rationalize more reasons. It's just different tastes.

The "you just want it to be like DAO because you can't cope change" is a cop out. On the other end of the spectrum, the "you just like it because you're a console-******" is another.

[Zombie Slap]

"Hard to improve a game when you don't see the faults within it,
seriously Bioware bring in recycled areas just to have more side quest
and stuff and hard mode is no more challenging than normal in origins
(please start listening to the customers for once)."

They did listen to the community, that's how BG2 was made......but now.....they only listen to EA it seems.

Hopefully, they will hear some you guys out more the next time around.

Modifié par Zombie Slap, 15 avril 2011 - 06:43 .

[Mecher3k]

xkg wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

 Do I think putting waves in tactically interesting start points is an improvement? ABSOLUTELY.

Just 1 question please.

Is this ^ one of those "tactically interesting start points" ?

All one has to do to prove DA2 is horrible is post that picture.

Modifié par Mecher3k, 15 avril 2011 - 06:45 .

[MingWolf]

xkg wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

 Do I think putting waves in tactically interesting start points is an improvement? ABSOLUTELY.

Just 1 question please.

Is this ^ one of those "tactically interesting start points" ?

It would have made better sense if indeed they carried parachutes.  Or a repelling line at least.  *chuckles* 

[turian councilor Knockout]

Zombie Slap wrote...

"Hard to improve a game when you don't see the faults within it,
seriously Bioware bring in recycled areas just to have more side quest
and stuff and hard mode is no more challenging than normal in origins
(please start listening to the customers for once)."

They did listen to the community, that's how BG2 was made......but now.....they only listen to EA it seems.

Hopefully, they will hear some you guys out more the next time around.

Yeah, i mean talk about bringing in recycled areas to focus more on side quest is just an excuse to get lazy, they don't strip away important elements like character creation, DAO conversations, different area design and excellent story and hope that it will be improved, DA 2 is a proof that the development cycle was too short.

[Sir Caradoc]

I don't find his answers very honest. It sounds like PR talk. The poor fella is trying to sell the game and extinguish the flames. I don't blame him. I would do the same if I was in his position. Honest public in depth analysis come long after the game has been released. A whole other thing is what those guys talk in private meetings.

Ofcourse the other possibility is that the guy firmly belives what he said. If so I'd be really worried, because It doesn't take a game guru designer to notice how many flaws and loopholes DA2 contains.

Modifié par Sir Caradoc, 15 avril 2011 - 06:52 .

[DJBare]

Roxlimn wrote...

Do I think putting waves in tactically interesting start points is an improvement? ABSOLUTELY.

It's my guess you've not seen the giant spiders hanging from the open sky just before they hit the ground, but hey, it's a world of magic, perhaps a mage conjured them with very long web strand.

[Roxlimn]

Everwarden:

You and I have markedly different ideas of what constitutes a tactically interesting game. That doesn't make me Laidlaw. It just means that I don't like it when mobs stand around like idiots.

Sylvius the Mad:

That's exactly the opposite of what I just said.
DAO is not the model for what's good. DAO has significant issues that I would like to see fixed in future games.
But DA2 didn't address those problems except to make them worse, and it also did change things that worked in DAO and made them worse too.
Nothing about what I'm saying suggests that I'm using DAO as some sort of Platonic Ideal.

Let me clarify. You think that many design choices in DA:O are better and that deviation from them represents a change for the worse. This does not mean that you like all design choices in DA:O, but it does mean that you hold those you like as objectively better, without regard for reason or discussion.

Oh, and DA2 still allows this. You just have to retreat as soon as combat starts. Since the spawn points for each wave are fixed locations on the map, you can pull each wave one mob at a time if you'd like. So DA2 is no better in this regard.

Though I don't see why you'd bother, because the encounters in DA2 are generally easier than in DAO (I play both games on Hard, though I'm considering switching to Normal in DA2 because I find the combat genuinely unfun. the obviously absurd combat mechanics (why does Hawke do so much more damage than an Ogre?) irritate me constantly.

Bioware could have spawned them in a party-sensitive manner, but that's even more unrealistic. That said, I'm not against a party-based spawn design.

xkg:

Just 1 question please.

Is this ^ one of those "tactically interesting start points" ?

Yes. Notice how you can't just put your ranged guys behind your melee guys and expect to win every single time?

skan5:

At the end though, you may not agree or see it differently, and you like it (judging from your post). As do many others around this forum. But I, along with others, do not like it. Both sides have stated their reasons, but more than likely neither side will be convinced and will just continue to rationalize more reasons. It's just different tastes.

The "you just want it to be like DAO because you can't cope change" is a cop out. On the other end of the spectrum, the "you just like it because you're a console-******" is another.

I don't see where it's a copout. You like DA:O spawning, but not DA2 spawning, but not for specific design reasons. You think it's a "cheap way to add challenge," without specifying better ways to add challenge, and without saying that DA:O spawn mechanic is worse because it's a lesser challenge without being a better spawn mechanic.

In what other way can that be characterized other than you liked DA:O and wanted DA2 to be DA:O again?

MingWolf:

Again, I never said I wanted a DA:O. I'm perfectly fine with change, but not all. Good on you that you that you like waves that parachute in. I can't quite share that with you because it makes almost no tactical sense. DA:O might not have done it that great, but at least it wasn't absurd. Maybe you like that, fine. Just don't go out reasoning that that the whole reason I and many others dislike the changes is because it wasn't DA:O. DA:O was inconsequential, at least for me.

How is it that it makes no tactical sense? If I were commanding the enemy forces and I wanted to teleport them in, I'd want my Warrior to be right next to your Mages, too. Granted, the scripted manner is both better and worse in a sense, but I think it'd get a little frustrating and monotonous if the party Mages were ambushed by Warriors in every single encounter all game long.

[Taritu]

I like Mike personally (well, from reading him on the forums), but yeah, he's not getting it. The waves are bloody awful, for example. If you want to do waves, do it ME style - have them spawn from a far point, not behind and around you. Lame combat and complete immersion break, no matter what difficulty you're on (and I played mostly on Hard, but went down to normal for some boss fights to turn them from an hour into 10 minutes.)

Definitely fingers in ear, humming "I can't hear you". It's getting to the point where if I don't start hearing the right things, or Mike isn't removed (send him to JEII, indeed, his style works there, and I say that as someone who liked JE a lot) I won't be buying the next Dragon Age game till it hits the bargain bin, and I am a bigtime Bioware fanboy.

Modifié par Taritu, 15 avril 2011 - 07:10 .