966 réponses à ce sujet

[Images]

After FINALLY finishing DA2 at my mates house (originally ordered the sig edition but got screwed over by Play.com) I have agreed with others that though DA2 is not a bad game its just an "alright" game and for Bioware and this unique franchise in particular, so-so is just not good enough.

I concur with all the points of MAJOR annoyance brought up (clone caves, spawning etc) but what I found most appalling was the lack of a real hard hitting emotional impact with the main plot. When <Name censored> died at Ostogar in DA:O, my eyes were full of tears, (sad I know) I felt really emotional during leliana's campfire sinalong and during the conversations of dread regarding the future, I felt I was shaping politics for the dwarves and finding true justice based on my opinion wherever I went.

The only points that I ever felt ANYTHING in DA2 was at the finale of the flower delivery dating service quest where I was in a rage, or when the chantry got its new redesign project completed. Most of the plotline however just dragged me along beating me over the head with obvious GOOD and BAD things to decide on and bizarre last-minute character choices. I'm looking at you Orsino.

Give Laidlaw JE2. Give this back to an oldschool BG2 loving nerd. (yeah I know he is but to say that party planning and ordering is boring, a chore or anything of the sort just shows its no longer his cup of tea. I WANT to spend ages planning my perfect attack and applauding myself at my fell swoop strategy, not going WTF every time I wipe out a room only to find Merril having twelve newly warped-in Qunari spears shoved up her bottom)

Modifié par Images, 17 avril 2011 - 04:21 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Aradace wrote...
 
The researchers, who also included Alexandre Pouget and C. Shawn Green, tested dozens of 18- to
25-year-olds who were not ordinarily video game players. They split the subjects into two groups. One group played 50 hours of the fast-paced action video games Call of Duty 2 and Unreal Tournament, and the other group played 50 hours of the slow-moving strategy game The Sims 2.
 

They used The Sims as their "strategy game"?

No offense to anyone who enjoys The Sims, I'm not saying anything bad about The Sims, but if these "researchers" are using The Sims as their strategy game, then they just trashed their own study and made it utterly meaningless to the question they were supposedly trying to answer.

[Aradace]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Aradace wrote...
 
The researchers, who also included Alexandre Pouget and C. Shawn Green, tested dozens of 18- to
25-year-olds who were not ordinarily video game players. They split the subjects into two groups. One group played 50 hours of the fast-paced action video games Call of Duty 2 and Unreal Tournament, and the other group played 50 hours of the slow-moving strategy game The Sims 2.
 

They used The Sims as their "strategy game"?

No offense to anyone who enjoys The Sims, I'm not saying anything bad about The Sims, but if these "researchers" are using The Sims as their strategy game, then they just trashed their own study and made it utterly meaningless to the question they were supposedly trying to answer.

Read further, they mention using RTS games as well if memory serves.  Furthermore, whether the example is "good" or not is subjective.  The point and the principle remains.  So no, they didnt trash their own study.  Those gamers who play faster paced games are just as intelligent overall as those that play slower paced games.  But those that played the faster paced games simply process the information given to them faster.  It's not saying their smarter, or superior, just that they process information faster.

Modifié par Aradace, 17 avril 2011 - 05:36 .

[sympathy4saren]

I read the interview. Game Informer asked him what he wanted to say to fans who thought it was "dumbed down". The answer was evasive.

[Edli]

Aradace wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Aradace wrote...
 
The researchers, who also included Alexandre Pouget and C. Shawn Green, tested dozens of 18- to
25-year-olds who were not ordinarily video game players. They split the subjects into two groups. One group played 50 hours of the fast-paced action video games Call of Duty 2 and Unreal Tournament, and the other group played 50 hours of the slow-moving strategy game The Sims 2.
 

They used The Sims as their "strategy game"?

No offense to anyone who enjoys The Sims, I'm not saying anything bad about The Sims, but if these "researchers" are using The Sims as their strategy game, then they just trashed their own study and made it utterly meaningless to the question they were supposedly trying to answer.

Read further, they mention using RTS games as well if memory serves.  Furthermore, whether the example is "good" or not is subjective.  The point and the principle remains.  So no, they didnt trash their own study.  Those gamers who play faster paced games are just as intelligent overall as those that play slower paced games.  But those that played the faster paced games simply process the information given to them faster.  It's not saying their smarter, or superior, just that they process information faster.

The sims it's a casual game. It falls under the category of farmville and the likes where patience and repetition is needed more than intelligence. You want a strategy game? Try Starcraft.

Anyway this has nothing to do with the IQ of players. It's about prefering one playstyle over the other. Only because you play god of war doesn't mean your stupid, it just means you prefer hack & slash games.

[Aradace]

@Edli -Precisely the point. The only reason I posted the study was because someone WAS trying to say that lol.  It's not a study that proves one group "smarter" than the other, just that one group processes information faster than the other.  I just simply take issue when people try and tell me that just becaue I like a certain genre of games that Im some sort of barbarian or idiot when the fact of the matter is that my IQ is very likely just as high, if not higher, than some of those people making the accusation

Modifié par Aradace, 17 avril 2011 - 05:55 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

I know some smart people who love FPS games. It's not about the players. It's just that I don't want game companies trying to appeal to FPS games with changes to the RPG games they're publishing. I don't play RPG or RTS games for fast-twich, rapid-fire, arendaline action.

[Roxlimn]

Yes, I'm sure DA2's pause-at-will game design really hammers down that twitchy feel they were going for. Nothing sparks the adrenaline so much as having 2 hours to decide on how to process a single cycle of abilities.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 17 avril 2011 - 06:12 .

[Aradace]

Roxlimn wrote...

Yes, I'm sure DA2's pause-at-will game design really hammers down that twitchy feel they were going for. Nothing sparks the adrenaline so much as having 2 hours to decide on how to process a single cycle of abilities.

TBH, I play on Normal setting (Only time I play higher than that is when there is an achievement/trophy to be had for it.) and I never have to use the "pause and play" aspect of the game.  Pretty sure I wouldnt have to on Nightmare either if I chose to go that route seeing as how I never used it in Nightmare mode in Origins either.

[Roxlimn]

Aradace wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
Yes, I'm sure DA2's pause-at-will game design really hammers down that twitchy feel they were going for. Nothing sparks the adrenaline so much as having 2 hours to decide on how to process a single cycle of abilities.

TBH, I play on Normal setting (Only time I play higher than that is when there is an achievement/trophy to be had for it.) and I never have to use the "pause and play" aspect of the game.  Pretty sure I wouldnt have to on Nightmare either if I chose to go that route seeing as how I never used it in Nightmare mode in Origins either.

I'm pretty sure that not wanting to avail of a feature isn't the same as that feature not existing.  Also, I recommend going to Nightmare from Normal.  You might be shocked.  Difficulty settings actually matter in DA2.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 17 avril 2011 - 07:19 .

[Aradace]

Roxlimn wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
Yes, I'm sure DA2's pause-at-will game design really hammers down that twitchy feel they were going for. Nothing sparks the adrenaline so much as having 2 hours to decide on how to process a single cycle of abilities.

TBH, I play on Normal setting (Only time I play higher than that is when there is an achievement/trophy to be had for it.) and I never have to use the "pause and play" aspect of the game.  Pretty sure I wouldnt have to on Nightmare either if I chose to go that route seeing as how I never used it in Nightmare mode in Origins either.

I'm pretty sure that not wanting to avail of a feature isn't the same as that feature not existing.  Also, I recommend going to Nightmare from Normal.  You might be shocked.  Difficulty settings actually matter in DA2.

*shrugs* Meh, No motivation to do so.  As I said, no achievement/trophy for doing the deed.  Beyond that, no reason to want to sate my ego for any reason lol

[bEVEsthda]

tonnactus wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Now, the Rock Wraith, the Varretal, the High Dragon (second in the bone Pit) and Pride Demon below dark town...
(Personally, I found the Rock Wraith and High Dragon the hardest, but that's prob just because of my party makeup etc.

Here you go,Dragon in the deep roads with reinforcements(again,not my vids):
http://www.youtube.c...u/2/D4-2cNi9pUU


Ancient rock wraith:
http://www.youtube.c...u/3/329KCPQPJDc

Thanks for the videos.
Well, I said bone pit. The deep roads Dragon is "easy" (well.. ). It may be a high dragon but it's no match for the second invasion of the bone pit.

The rock wraith in that video is far less mobile and less physically aggressive than he was in my game.  Not sure why. Must be the onslaught of spells, someway. ...Maybe. Nor did my pillars provide as much shadow. Finally, my wraith seemed to have many, many times the HP of that one in the video.
Anyway, for me the video doesn't work as tutorial, since I rarely take more than one mage in a party. I play the game for fun.  (Not to feel awesome.)

[Warheadz]

Regarding the Carterral, I could see the developers give me a middle-finger and I heard them yell "F_CK YOU!! HAHA!!" when I entered the Varterral chamber for the second time, and the thing was there once again after I previously killed it, and Hawke said "This again! I already killed you!".

Throughout the game, there were moments when I thought the devs had a really strange sense of humour, whats with breaking the 4th wall and all.

[Roxlimn]

Warheadz wrote...
Regarding the Carterral, I could see the developers give me a middle-finger and I heard them yell "F_CK YOU!! HAHA!!" when I entered the Varterral chamber for the second time, and the thing was there once again after I previously killed it, and Hawke said "This again! I already killed you!".

Throughout the game, there were moments when I thought the devs had a really strange sense of humour, whats with breaking the 4th wall and all.

I think you should have just turned the game down to Casual at that point.  I like playing the game on Hard, but I also don't have problems killing things quickly.

[tonnactus]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Well, I said bone pit. The deep roads Dragon is "easy" (well.. ).

I would completly disagree...
Not much good armor and runes,not two mages with horror and petrify.(i also dont play with 3 mages and anders is more a buffer/healer)

[bEVEsthda]

tonnactus wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Well, I said bone pit. The deep roads Dragon is "easy" (well.. ).

I would completly disagree...

Now that's interesting, because to me the second bone pit dragon was like ten times harder. Very notably, in any case. Does this game scale, perchance? Or is it all up to party composition? Also, is there a difference PC/console?

[Sylvius the Mad]

man giraffe dog2 wrote...

If you have a good tank/equipment you can keep ranged party members out of melee combat for a good portion of the time

Again, you're assuming that some of the party (the tank) will engage in melee combat as a matter of course.

No longer can an all-ranged party rely on mage-based CC to prevent melee combat.  That alone changes the tactical diversity of the encounters.

[Roxlimn]

Sylvius the Mad:

Actually, an all-ranged party CAN rely on Mage-based CC to prevent melee combat in the majority of encounters. Have you never tried?

[Warheadz]

Won't an all-ranged party automatically fail because of the assassins? Or do you quickscope them?

[Roxlimn]

Warheadz wrote...
Won't an all-ranged party automatically fail because of the assassins? Or do you quickscope them?

Is this an honest question or not?  An all-ranged party can deal with assassins.  You just need to know how.  It's not impossible.  It's actually a little too easy, IMO.  A properly specced all-ranged party almost deals too much damage to be considered fair.

[Warheadz]

Never tried so just threw that out there. Didn't see aa reason to try different builds as I didn't want to play the game any more after finishing it.

Just figured out as they turn invisible and usually can oneshot squishies such as ranged party members. The game says that AoE should cancel the invisibility but it didn't work for me.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Brockololly wrote...

I posted this in another thread, but figure it'll get buried there. From Game Informer:

Just some excerpts:

[/i]

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.

Lol. I'm glad you enjoyed it Laidlaw, that really is all that matters.

[erynnar]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

I posted this in another thread, but figure it'll get buried there. From Game Informer:

Just some excerpts:

[/i]

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.

Lol. I'm glad you enjoyed it Laidlaw, that really is all that matters.

I wonder if he will actually listen to the feedback on the forums....

[Roxlimn]

Warheadz wrote...

Never tried so just threw that out there. Didn't see a reason to try different builds as I didn't want to play the game any more after finishing it.

Just figured out as they turn invisible and usually can oneshot squishies such as ranged party members. The game says that AoE should cancel the invisibility but it didn't work for me.

I experimented a great deal with the combat.  I tried the all-ranged method within the first playthrough.  I also experimented with a largely melee group.  I did this on Hard.  If I really wanted to optimize everything to the gills, I'd probably be able to wipe Nightmare scenarios with an all-ranged party.

I think part of the problem is that people who don't like the game don't play it as much, so don't know as much about the game as people who do.

[MakeSense]

man giraffe dog2 wrote...

I'm not denying that both games have had a backlash on the forums, I'm saying the nature of them is very different. Elemental's problems were mainly technical, with many people unable to play whereas people are protesting against DA2 mainly because they don't like the direction the game is going. And please, don't compare user scores as they don't mean anything except that 4chan doesn't like DA2.

Elemental's problems were mainly technical at first. Then the deepest ones began to surface. The majority of the complaints were because Elemental failed to deliver. Don't try and tell me it was anything different, as I witnessed the backlash myself.
So again, no real difference, except for the post-backlash behavior of the company.
And oh, user scores are the only ones I trust (they told me what I needed to know about the game, while professional reviewers didn't) and you really should stop obsessing about that "chan" guy. I don't know who that is and I can tell you that in *every* gaming forum I visit most people hate DA2 with a passion. Even forums in my own language which is not English. You sir seem to be in heavy denial.
And when even clerks at retail stores advise you against buying this title, well, it becomes pretty telling, doesn't it? Even THEY are more concerned about their own reputation than Bioware (btw, you know a company isn't really concerned about reputation from the simple fact that they let one Laidlaw actually talk)

Modifié par MakeSense, 18 avril 2011 - 07:09 .