966 réponses à ce sujet

[Sabriana]

For goodness sakes DraCZeQQ , why are you taking my post and make it appear like it is part of Volourn's post. I've never done anything to you, why are you doing that?

Sorry princess, I know you p'oed lots of people at the Codex with your opinions <---directed at Volourn

[randName]

Volourn wrote...
No, no it realy isn't. The writing, the characters, and the story are all superior in DA2.

That's your opinion.

[Count Viceroy]

Everwarden wrote...

Count Viceroy wrote...
The general attitude around here stinks of entitlement.

Entitlement is a word people throw around a lot to mock anyone who has a problem with the rushed, sloppy product that is DA2. 

When a product is advertised as having certain objective qualities, and then doesn't have those qualities, that is a legitimate reason to gripe. "Entitlement" would only apply if Bioware gave games away out of the goodness of their golden saint hearts and people complained. DA2 is a product that I had to pay for, and will be judged accordingly. 

Which is fair, if most people around here judged the product entierly on it's own merits. But most people are not. They wanted it to be DAO2, and because it isn't that makes the whole product crap, the fact that it might have been a rushed job (Which I admit it was) it's just icing on the cake and has no meaning on their final judgement.

Also the belief that they are somehow important, and enough repeating of the same critizism in thread after thread is somehow going to influence bioware is ridiculous.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 14 avril 2011 - 06:33 .

[Blastback]

randName wrote...

Volourn wrote...
No, no it realy isn't. The writing, the characters, and the story are all superior in DA2.

That's your opinion.

And one that plenty of folks, myself included are going to disagree with.

[xkg]

Blastback wrote...

randName wrote...

Volourn wrote...
No, no it realy isn't. The writing, the characters, and the story are all superior in DA2.

That's your opinion.

And one that plenty of folks, myself included are going to disagree with.

count me in

[Killjoy Cutter]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Vice-Admiral von Titsling wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
He certainly seems to be stung by the fact that so many of the customers prefer to old game to the one "he made", doesn't he?

Nailed it.

Missed it. 

How so? 

You just don't promote the sequel by publically dogging the original, when millions of customers loved the original.  That's not good marketing, it's the act of a man who is struggling to deal with the fanbase of the original largely viewing the sequel as anywhere from a step back / letdown, to an outright failure. 

[cotheer]

Oh joy.
I guess he didn't stick to the prescribed amount of "Ignoranceitin" pills
I shall remain silent, otherwise i'd get a juicy perma ban.

[Volourn]

"That's your opinion."

And? What's exactly your point here? What are you trying to prove? What's the end goal of your sentence 'that your opinion'? What am I to take from that statement?

It's only my opinion. OMG! IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IT'S ONLY MY OPINION OH NOESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS


"You just don't promote the sequel by publically dogging the original, when millions of customers loved the original.  That's not good marketing"

This is actually funny because it can be good marketing and it's something that BIO does all the time. They did it with BG2 and ME2 as well. Not to mention the various expansions - bash the original and then claim the sequel made thing sbetter. L0LZ

You just figured out BIO's way of marketing.

Modifié par Volourn, 14 avril 2011 - 06:34 .

[LyndseyCousland]

xkg wrote...

Blastback wrote...

randName wrote...

Volourn wrote...
No, no it realy isn't. The writing, the characters, and the story are all superior in DA2.

That's your opinion.

And one that plenty of folks, myself included are going to disagree with.

count me in

Hear, hear.

[byzantine horse]

On what Mike is saying here, I agree with him. I'd rather have more quests in same old caves than just a few quests all being in different ones. With the deadline they had it was the least bad of two evils that was picked. But then again, for future titles they better get a longer development cycle and give us more varying dungeons, they did the right thing with the cards on the table but it is sitll not good.

I personally liked the DA2 combat in and of itself - I liked the new abilities and the new animations and such. But in the core it isn't that different from Origins. What is annoying is the surplus of exploding bodies and enemies wpawning out of nowhere. Waves are fine if they are used in a situation where they make sense, like coming out of a door or something, but appearing in thin air is not. If enemies one on one were tougher so we didn't need those waves in places where they do not fit it would have been much better. More tactics are needed to kill a few tough enemies than killing a mass of peasants. I also liked the faster combat which imo was more fun than the slower aspect in Origins. And fast doesn't equal untactical, there is a pause button after all.

I kind of disagree with the antagonist not being seen earlier and more often. I can see why the antagonist doesn't have to be outright evil - heck, I applaude that - but then we should at least learn something about them before we trade blows. It could have been done much better, the intent was good but the execution didn't land where it could have.

I also agree with the last point on difficulty. I played Origins on Hard throughout the whole game and it was Hard - as it should have been. Normal wasn't easy either, and compared to DA2's Normal it is a stroll through Hell. But Hard in DA2 still felt Hard which is what I expected out of it. And the thing with these modes is that you don't have to impede a group of players' experience by tuning it for another. When people scream "Normal was too easy, you dumb it down for morons!" they should, like Mike says, play on Hard or even Nightmare. Easy as that. If Normal is too easy for you and there is higher difficulty, why complain? If you can pick a difficulty that fits you, why complain that lower or higher difficulties are too easy or too hard? That I will never understand.

[LyndseyCousland]

Volourn wrote...

"That's your opinion."

And? What's exactly your point here? What are you trying to prove? What's the end goal of your sentence 'that your opinion'? What am I to take from that statement?

It's only my opinion. OMG! IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IT'S ONLY MY OPINION OH NOESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Someone forgot to take their meds this morning.

[Kastagir]

I for one will not buy another Bioware game that has Laidlaw in a lead role (developer or otherwise - make him a tester, but not a lead). I wouldn't say he needs to be fired, but his ideas clearly don't represent or cater to the preferences of the majority of players. Put him back on the console-based action RPGs where his experience seems to come from (I wouldn't buy those anyway) and keep him away from serious RPG efforts like Dragon Age.

For a future Dragon Age title to succeed, it will require a longer development cycle and Laidlaw's absence.  The ones that feel the most betrayed are the early adopters - those people who pre-ordered the game out of loyalty or 'faith' in Bioware as a developer.  Even though many people like the new gameplay and artistic bent, enough 'controversy' has been created to give even the most devout Bioware fans pause enough to hold off pre-ordering another Dragon Age game until they see what it's like.  Bioware has used its dupe card.  It won't get another.

Bioware will either do it right next time, or (if they simply can't) this will be the end of the Dragon Age franchise.

Modifié par Kastagir, 14 avril 2011 - 06:45 .

[errant_knight]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Vice-Admiral von Titsling wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
He certainly seems to be stung by the fact that so many of the customers prefer to old game to the one "he made", doesn't he?

Nailed it.

Missed it. 

How so? 

You just don't promote the sequel by publically dogging the original, when millions of customers loved the original.  That's not good marketing, it's the act of a man who is struggling to deal with the fanbase of the original largely viewing the sequel as anywhere from a step back / letdown, to an outright failure. 

I have to agree with this. From a PR standpoint, dissing the game that brought people to the table in the first place is a bad idea, and will alienate at least as many as it sways.

[Blastback]

Volourn wrote...

"That's your opinion."

And? What's exactly your point here? What are you trying to prove? What's the end goal of your sentence 'that your opinion'? What am I to take from that statement?

It's only my opinion. OMG! IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IT'S ONLY MY OPINION OH NOESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

No point, just makes us feel good to say it.

[Miashi]

Volourn wrote...
You suck at trolling. Go to codex and get some practice.

I'll make sure I'll try harder next time.
Yakknow, hard as in dragon age 2 hard.

[DraCZeQQ]

Sabriana wrote...

For goodness sakes DraCZeQQ , why are you taking my post and make it appear like it is part of Volourn's post. I've never done anything to you, why are you doing that?

Sorry princess, I know you p'oed lots of people at the Codex with your opinions <---directed at Volourn

I just pressed "Quote" ... sry 

[Reinveil]

Everwarden wrote...

Count Viceroy wrote...
The general attitude around here stinks of entitlement.

Entitlement is a word people throw around a lot to mock anyone who has a problem with the rushed, sloppy product that is DA2. 

When a product is advertised as having certain objective qualities, and then doesn't have those qualities, that is a legitimate reason to gripe. "Entitlement" would only apply if Bioware gave games away out of the goodness of their golden saint hearts and people complained. DA2 is a product that I had to pay for, and will be judged accordingly. 

Well said.  The "entitlement" argument is a lame copout.  The game's shortcomings have been documented repeatedly in the constructive criticism thread, and it's not a scattershot list of complaints.  DAII has issues, by any objective standard.  It's not performed as well as the original game critically, nor is it selling as well.  You cannot attribute all of this to "being spoiled" or a roving gang of "haters".

I still don't understand why so many of you feel you have to rush to Bioware's defense and get so emotionally invested in this.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

Count Viceroy wrote...
The general attitude around here stinks of entitlement.

Entitlement is a word people throw around a lot to mock anyone who has a problem with the rushed, sloppy product that is DA2. 

When a product is advertised as having certain objective qualities, and then doesn't have those qualities, that is a legitimate reason to gripe. "Entitlement" would only apply if Bioware gave games away out of the goodness of their golden saint hearts and people complained. DA2 is a product that I had to pay for, and will be judged accordingly. 

Which is fair, if most people around here judged the product entierly on it's own merits. But most people are not. They wanted it to be DAO2, and because it isn't that makes the whole product crap, the fact that it might have been a rushed job (Which I admit it was) it's just icing on the cake and has no meaning on their final judgement.

That, is my gripe. Also the belief that they are somehow important, and enough repeating of the same critizism in thread after thread is somehow going to influence bioware is ridiculous.

I'm playing the hell out of DA2, going to play it some more tonight. 

Here's the difference -- in DAO, I really didn't start adding mods for at least a month. 

In DA2, I started adding mods on day 3 of ownership. 

DA2 isn't a bad game.  It is, overall, a letdown and a step back from DAO. It's disappointing because it does not live up to the original. 

[Sable Phoenix]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Except that, you know, it's not.  It's riddled with bugs, it's filled with recycled content, and there are tons of issues related to combat that have everything to do with the game design and nothing to do with personal preference.

No game is perfect. In fact every game has it's fair share of issues post release. Yes, even DAO did. A lot of them. The only difference was we had a toolset to fix the issues ourselves.

1.  I am not claiming Origins was perfect, in fact I did not even mention it.

2.  The existence of flaws in one game does not excuse the existence of flaws in another.

3.  Familiarize yourself with logical fallacies.

Even if we were comparing the two games directly, that wouldn't really help your argument much, since Origins had fewer game-breaking bugs and vastly more content.

[PlumPaul93]

LyndseyCousland wrote...

xkg wrote...

Blastback wrote...

randName wrote...

Volourn wrote...
No, no it realy isn't. The writing, the characters, and the story are all superior in DA2.

That's your opinion.

And one that plenty of folks, myself included are going to disagree with.

count me in

Hear, hear.

sign me up

[Volourn]

"No point, just makes us feel good to say it."

Fair enough.

[Sabriana]

@DraCZeQQ

All is forgiven, I like your style.

[tmp7704]

Hmm the other odd bit in that interview

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.

Just odd that his possible definitions of tactical actually omit the third one -- tactical gameplay being one when it's about issuing orders and having units carry them out -- but then he touches upon it and states indirectly that this particular type of gameplay isn't going to make comeback to DA because he enjoys being in direct control more. Additionally, equaling the concept of issuing orders with "it's simply slower"... kinda meh.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Kastagir wrote...

I for one will not buy another Bioware game that has Laidlaw in a lead role (developer or otherwise - make him a tester, but not a lead). I wouldn't say he needs to be fired, but his ideas clearly don't represent or cater to the preferences of the majority of players. Put him back on the console-based action RPGs where his experience seems to come from (I wouldn't buy those anyway) and keep him away from serious RPG efforts like Dragon Age.

For a future Dragon Age title to succeed, it will require a longer development cycle and Laidlaw's absence.

I will read many trustworhty reviews (no pre-release shills or freebie-**** hacks) and at least a month's worth of forum commentary before buying any new Bioware product -- they burned their pre-order bridge with me.  I won't reject a game with Laidlaw involved just because he is, but it will be a factor in my assessment. 

[Reinveil]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

Count Viceroy wrote...
The general attitude around here stinks of entitlement.

Entitlement is a word people throw around a lot to mock anyone who has a problem with the rushed, sloppy product that is DA2. 

When a product is advertised as having certain objective qualities, and then doesn't have those qualities, that is a legitimate reason to gripe. "Entitlement" would only apply if Bioware gave games away out of the goodness of their golden saint hearts and people complained. DA2 is a product that I had to pay for, and will be judged accordingly. 

Which is fair, if most people around here judged the product entierly on it's own merits. But most people are not. They wanted it to be DAO2, and because it isn't that makes the whole product crap, the fact that it might have been a rushed job (Which I admit it was) it's just icing on the cake and has no meaning on their final judgement.

Also the belief that they are somehow important, and enough repeating of the same critizism in thread after thread is somehow going to influence bioware is ridiculous.

You don't think the backlash influences Bioware?  Laidlaw himself has already admitted there are some things they did in DAII that they won't be doing again because of negative reaction.

I don't care for the game, but I do appreciate that Bioware listens.

And I'm sorry, but the "it's not DAOII" argument still doesn't hold any water.  If they didn't want the two games to be compared, they shouldn't have put "II" at the end of the title.  And since there wasn't a game called plain 'ol "Dragon Age", it's not unreasonable that people aren't regarding it as a standalone game.