843 réponses à ce sujet

[abaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

So then it's theoretically OK to call a game childish, but he's simply wrong on the substance of the point; probably because he thought "childish" means "appeals to children"?

Relax, I didn't mean it in that kind of sense.

I meant it exactly in the sense of lacking complexity and sophistication. It tries to hammer "COOL!!!" into the players head. I don't think it actually would appeal to children - well, maybe they might have a giggle at the exploding melons.

[DocDoomII]

Roxlimn wrote...

DocDoomII:

Well, you see.
For example:
-when you put a big red spot with a 18 on the cover of a game
-if said game is placed in a world with dark tones (war, racism, slavery, religious conflicts...)
-if it isn't parodical like Magika (a game filled with irony and jokes on rpg cliché)


I surely wouldn't expect it to have power ranger fighiting animation apparently aimed to kids well below the 18.
And I surely wouldn't expect that a butter-knife could hit a person with so much power to actually blow up such person.
Honestly, sex scenes fade to black too. Not that I'm interested that much, but what's the point for the "18" mark?

You can't complain if someone stick the label "childish" on this game. Some aspects of it surely are.

Rather, I would say that some aspects of it have aspects in common with programs that are marketed to children. Those aspects aren't necessarily ONLY for children.

My main objection is just that. The view that things designed for children are necessarily bad or worse than things designed for adults is EXACTLY the kind of thing Lewis was saying in his famous quote (which I quoted in my post).

Real adults have no problems enjoying things that were designed for children. So saying that something is suitable for children is not a valid criticism, unless you have issues with being identified with liking things made for children.

Sure, but have you stopped to consider that usually childish ting are quite boring?
Otherwhise we would still play hide and seek, literature wouldn't be above red riding hood level, animation wouldn't be above ben 10 level and so on...

[abaris]

Otterwarden wrote...

You can polish DA2 up, removing absurdities like exploding bodies, ninja waves, poorly chosen paraphrases, and you will still have created a game that risked not appealing to the original players.  Obviously, I have no proof to back up this impression, but that would be my gut call.

Not so sure about that. The combat was really what turned me off. Along with lack of companion customisation.

[Roxlimn]

DocDoomII:

Sure, but have you stopped to consider that usually childish ting are quite boring?
Otherwhise we would still play hide and seek, literature wouldn't be above red riding hood level, animation wouldn't be above ben 10 level and so on...

Have you considered that childish things may only be boring to you?
I still play hide and seek. I have no problems reading the collected works of the Brothers Grimm, and I happen to like Ben 10.

Granted, I like a lot of other things, but I enjoy all of those, and I know of a significant number of my colleagues who are of like mind.

[DocDoomII]

Roxlimn wrote...

DocDoomII:

Sure, but have you stopped to consider that usually childish ting are quite boring?
Otherwhise we would still play hide and seek, literature wouldn't be above red riding hood level, animation wouldn't be above ben 10 level and so on...

Have you considered that childish things may only be boring to you?
I still play hide and seek. I have no problems reading the collected works of the Brothers Grimm, and I happen to like Ben 10.

Granted, I like a lot of other things, but I enjoy all of those, and I know of a significant number of my colleagues who are of like mind.

Do you enjoy such things with a son or by yourself?

But the point is that if a thing is branded "adult" it can't be "ben 10 like" and pretend to be right on the targeted audicene...

Modifié par DocDoomII, 17 avril 2011 - 08:23 .

[Zayle79]

I'm 14.
Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Morrowind, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment (to name a few) were excellent.  Mass Effect is a decent shooter/RPG hybrid.
We're not all hopeless!

[Otterwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...

AlanC9:

It's uninformative to call a game "childish," just as it's uninformative to say that a game "sucks." "Childish" could mean any of several things, or it could just mean that the speaker doesn't want to be associated with things that relate to children. In both ways, it's a bad way to express criticism.

Maria Caliban goes into some detail about it above.

Whatever he meant, he could have expressed it better, which was my point.

Since we are in a semantics course here, I'll throw in another word for the day:

pedantic

Modifié par Otterwarden, 17 avril 2011 - 08:23 .

[Maria Caliban]

DocDoomII wrote...

Sure, but have you stopped to consider that usually childish ting are quite boring?
Otherwhise we would still play hide and seek, literature wouldn't be above red riding hood level, animation wouldn't be above ben 10 level and so on...

If you only read, watch, and play childish things, it will be boring. If you only read, watch, and play complex and mature things, it will also be boring.

That doesn't make childish things inherently boring.

I love The Sound and the Fury, but if every book were like it, I'd have given up on literature a decade ago.

[Otterwarden]

Zayle79 wrote...

I'm 14.
Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Morrowind, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment (to name a few) were excellent.  Mass Effect is a decent shooter/RPG hybrid.
We're not all hopeless!

Clearly not.... we'll have to concede you are an RPG genious!! 

Modifié par Otterwarden, 17 avril 2011 - 08:28 .

[Shadowbanner]

MortalEngines wrote...

 I must say the OP makes some pretty large assumptions in his post.

I pretty much defy most of the logic used it in. I'm in my early 20s, I've played BG series, Jade Empire, KOTOR, ME and DA series. I enjoy all game genres (from RPG to Action-Adventure) and never really hold any dislike to a particular genre of games (apart from maybe platform and sports). I also prefered DAO to DA2 but still enjoyed some of things DA2 had to offer.

So...I've basically just defied every point you've made there. I do think DA2 made alot of mistakes, but I play it for what it is, not what I thought it would be and I enjoy it. And that's what I ask from any game, enjoyment. Forgert about genre-pride and nostalogia, I, enjoyed DA2 for what it brought to the table, DAO or no. But I still think it's flawed.
I think you should stop assuming that everyone is so clear cut and easy to group.

You have some fair points.

Look at me, how would you classify me? I'm a console player agreeing with the PC crowd.

Generalisations tend to be bad because of what you point out. I myself am a prime example of how bad they are. But it is necessary to convey my opinion and give a big picture on what I think is the root of this polarization business.

I honestly think that "most" gamers who liked DA:O are older RPG fans. Whereas gamers who loved DA2 even rating it as a perfect 10 tend to be younger. There will be exceptions, no doubt, and in this very thread we are witnessing how some hard-core 40 years-old RPG gamers loved DA2 and its changes over DA:O. But in my opinion, and it's only that, an opinion, they are exceptions to a general rule I've posted. Allow me that liberty.

The fact is the fanbase is split in two camps. I have no idea if one is bigger than the other, only time will tell.

DA2 for me was a huge flop. I'm not going to repeat why as I've already contributed in two dozen threads ad nauseam why.

What is distinctly clear in my mind is that DA:O was made to appeal to one crowd, and DA2 has been devised to appeal to a wholly different crowd. This I think you will not rebate.

Those of us who loved DA:O tend to not like DA2 and vice-versa (again, a sweeping generalisation which no doubt will have exceptions). Many out there welcome the changes in DA2 because they did not like DA:O or some aspects of it in the first place which have now been tweaked or toned down i.e. combat

Objectively I believe DA2 is a mediocre game (reused dungeons, lack of real choices as no matter what the same outcome results 95% of the time, incoherent story, lack of an antagonist which was a stapler in BioWare games, lack of immersion, 10 years hanging around in the same city)...I mean really. I could go on and on ranting. For me, just taking the lack of real choices, not facade or cosmetic choices, amounts to a game-breaker in an RPG.
 
But when you compound the above to the fact that it's actually a sequel to one of the greatest all-time western RPG's then it is no longer frustrating, it becomes infuriating, to say the least. I think we can both agree there's a general consensus that DA:O was brilliant despite it's lackluster graphics.

DA2 has a "2" slapped at its end. I had expectations built on DA:O. Sure I like changes, but I heavily dislike buying a game marketed and sold as a sequel when in fact it feels and plays like a completely unrelated game; almost like a standalone game, not an actual sequel. 

Had they named it "The Champion's Tale" or "Kirkwall's Champion" I would stay moot, rate it a 5 and move on. I wouldn't even bother to rate it or write an online review, much less spend a sunday night discussing over internet. But the fact is that it was sold as, and I quote:

"Embark upon an epic adventure that shapes itself around every choice you make".

It is definitely not epic as almost everyone will agree; yes, even those who defend the game. Moreover, your choices are to a large extent both irrelevant and meaningless because the same outcome takes place regardless. Yeah sure Bethany dies you'll write, but come on, BioWare can do better than that. I had no emotional attachment to many of the characters. In Origins, in the Human noble story, they gave you some time to get to know your "parents" before they are ruthlessly assassinated by Arl Howe's man. This builds in you a sense of revenge, a drive, an in-game purpose of sorts a la Luke Skywalker vs. The Empire after they kill his uncles. This seriously lacks in DA2. DA2 is, to quote 50 Cents: "get rich or die trying".

What did they do in DA2? Lothering is destroyed, a couple of people die one minute into the game, you couldn't care less and then they fast forward you a whole bloody year without your input. You spend the next 15 hours raising 50g in fed ex type quests: "thank you for the body serah, I don't know what I would have done without it". And naturally you are running around in no more then 8 reused dungeons within the same city! Lame and lazy. Mediocre.

DA2 replay value = 0

DA:O replay value = 3x or more

In DA:O I replayed it completely twice, that is over 150 hours of sheer joy. The story just sucked you in like a blackhole leaving you dry wanting for more. The released DLC was mediocre at best, not in line with the epic main storyline of DA:O, meh at best. 

I truly believe that DA2 caters to a different crowd and the game is not a sequel, in fact, it's a completely unrelated product. Darkspawn anyone? 

These drastic changes were brought about to attract a younger crowd more console-friendly IMO. I may be mistaken of course. But that's my bet.

I noticed this simplification trend back in ME2. They simplified and streamlined a great many things (bah the inventory is boring, let's go and strip it, bah too many weapons let's leave it at 6 guns). I agreed with most changes, not all, because ME2 is almost a shooter. The changes felt necessary. But DA isn't a shooter.

I think the success of ME2 gave them food for thought and at some point they said, "hey we should also streamline DA2, we'll be as successful as ME2!" Fact is they haven't. Laidlaw makes no attempt at hiding his professional crush for the ME2 team. I mean he's copied a great many things in DA2, in fact isn't there even a song from ME2 in DA2? Yes sure it's the same company, but he's really taken a great many things from ME2, he's "massificated" DA.

DA2, for me, no longer feels like DA. It feels like something different, ackward almost alien.  I'm not the only one that shares this feeling.

DA:O took almost 5 years to develop and mature; DA2 has taken only 18 months because "they've cut around the corners". More like they've cut into the bonemarrow of the DA franchise alienating a great portion of their faithful fanbase by supressing or even completely removing hallmarks of the DA franchise.

You know there's a developer by the name of Sid Meier who always says that a sequel should have 1/3 new, 1/3 improved and 1/3 tried and tested. In DA2 its like 3/4 new and 1/4 reused. It is seriously unpolished and lacklustered.

And that brings me on to why did they depart so drastically from DA:O when fans only mostly criticised the jaded graphics, that's all. Big deal in an RPG.  DA:O was praised both by reviewers and gamers alike. Why change it so drastically? And the reason to me is because they rushed the game to cash-in on DA:O success -cough- EA -cough-. That's why it feels unfinished and unpolished, a bastardised version of DA. That's the reason of the lazy re-use of dungeons and ox-carts that spam the whole place. Sheer laziness and greed, so unBioWare. Really, so unlike them as devoted as they were.

As someone else pointed out already, maybe it's their new business model, to crank-out RPG's every 18 months. That's fine by me; heck, I'll even buy them a game every 12 months. BUT it must be a true BioWare RPG, as in quality. Not a half-baked ARPG. I'm not paying for that, I don't want that. Don't sell it to me like a BioWare RPG when it's something different, a hack and slash of sorts, and poory made at that.

So in my opinion they rushed the game to profit from its predecessor asap and it was purposely dumbed-down (I'm not even referring to the combat on writing this Mike) to appeal to a larger and younger audience. Much like Civilization did with Civilization Revolution for the Xbox. They know their fanbase is growing older and they have to renew it; that's fine, I get it, it's a business after all. But honestly there are alternative options.

I sure hope they understand what they themselves have unleashed and recapacitate going back to making the thoughtful deep detailed rich storyline RPG's for which they are renowned the world over. And rightfullly so!

Money is tempting, but on the long run, gamers have good memories and next time round many won't be pre-ordering. This game is now easily found in the bargain bin of many retailers. Amazon UK has reduced the price tag of the PC version by 70% in less than 30 days as from its release (and they give away ME2 to boot).

Doesn't this mean anything?

Internet is thriving with the negative feedback on this game. Really, for the life of me I cannot recall a game that has generated so much controversy in such a short span of time. Maybe its because gamers, fans if you will, had high expectations built on the impressive compelling story of DA:O (despite lackluster graphics).

Now we have a "sequel" with excellent (even superb) graphics with a poor plot.

I don't know, maybe I'm getting old and grumpy, but this game was really bad. And even more so when you factor it was a sequel to a first-class RPG.

The only way to like and appreciate DA2 is completely forgetting DA:O and considering it a standalone game. Even then, its blemishes (reused dungeons, poor plot etc) make it mediocre at best in my book.

If I didn't like BioWare, its games or DA I would not be here wasting a Sunday evening posting and ranting away. I want them to realize they have made, in my humble opinion, poor decisions which have unleashed this generalised tidal wave of outrage on one side of the camp, the "traditionalist RPG" gamers, if you will. The, mostly, older guys (and girls).

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 18 avril 2011 - 12:39 .

[Roxlimn]

DocDoomII:

Do you enjoy such things with a son or by yourself?

But the point is that if a thing is branded "adult" it can't be "ben 10 like" and pretend to be right on the targeted audicene...

I don't see anything in Ben 10 that's inherently objectionable for an adult audience. I enjoy hide and seek with anyone who'll play. Generally, I get problems with asking tweeners to play like that, but the older you ask, the less resistance. Hide and seek is a really fun game.

Otterwarden:

We're actually largely in a discussion where people seem to be learning for the first time that "childish" shouldn't be used as a universal synonym for "bad," even when describing content that's targeted for adults.

The exact meaning of "childish" is only obvious when you're all teenagers and you're all afraid of being mistaken for a child and thus you just use it for anything that scares you and is perceived as bad.

[Roxlimn]

Shadowbanner:

I think the large part of your dissatisfaction with DA2 was because you loved DAO to the high heavens and wanted and expected more of the same, even though the free demo released and most information released prior clearly indicated a different direction for the series.

Much of what you expressed that's bad about DA2 isn't objective, but various recitations of "This is not DAO." In all fairness, nearly all complaints I've heard about DA2 are variations of the same complaint.

[man giraffe dog3]

The problem with Dragon Age 2 is it has no identity. It's like they took one good thing, tried to make it something else, and in the end it became an abomination. An abomination that you should run away from. An abomination sort of like...

well...

like this



Dragon Age 2 is a mangiraffedog! RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Modifié par man giraffe dog3, 17 avril 2011 - 08:47 .

[Otterwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...

Otterwarden:

We're actually largely in a discussion where people seem to be learning for the first time that "childish" shouldn't be used as a universal synonym for "bad," even when describing content that's targeted for adults.

The exact meaning of "childish" is only obvious when you're all teenagers and you're all afraid of being mistaken for a child and thus you just use it for anything that scares you and is perceived as bad.

Words are there for a variety of interpretations, hence few can claim to have "exact meanings".  Both Gatt and Alan have put forth valid defenses of the original poster's choice in using that descriptive term.  Not that they really needed to because it was clear enough in its original context.  You want to draw it out to be some huge C.S. Lewis philosophical debate that is fine; but, imo it is crossing over into pendanticism.

[DocDoomII]

Roxlimn wrote...

DocDoomII:

Do you enjoy such things with a son or by yourself?

But the point is that if a thing is branded "adult" it can't be "ben 10 like" and pretend to be right on the targeted audicene...

I don't see anything in Ben 10 that's inherently objectionable for an adult audience. I enjoy hide and seek with anyone who'll play. Generally, I get problems with asking tweeners to play like that, but the older you ask, the less resistance. Hide and seek is a really fun game.

Otterwarden:

We're actually largely in a discussion where people seem to be learning for the first time that "childish" shouldn't be used as a universal synonym for "bad," even when describing content that's targeted for adults.

The exact meaning of "childish" is only obvious when you're all teenagers and you're all afraid of being mistaken for a child and thus you just use it for anything that scares you and is perceived as bad.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that your most enjoyed hobby lately is to argue with so-scared-to-be-mistaken-for-child-us and making large usage of logic to prove totally illogical point, like the definition of childish and that corpse explosion allows for better understanding of what is still alive on the battlefield
I see few options:
-troll
-repressed man in midlife crisis with nothing better to do

Modifié par DocDoomII, 17 avril 2011 - 08:47 .

[bEVEsthda]

Roxlimn wrote...

DocDoomII:

Do you enjoy such things with a son or by yourself?

But the point is that if a thing is branded "adult" it can't be "ben 10 like" and pretend to be right on the targeted audicene...

I don't see anything in Ben 10 that's inherently objectionable for an adult audience. I enjoy hide and seek with anyone who'll play. Generally, I get problems with asking tweeners to play like that, but the older you ask, the less resistance. Hide and seek is a really fun game.

Otterwarden:

We're actually largely in a discussion where people seem to be learning for the first time that "childish" shouldn't be used as a universal synonym for "bad," even when describing content that's targeted for adults.

The exact meaning of "childish" is only obvious when you're all teenagers and you're all afraid of being mistaken for a child and thus you just use it for anything that scares you and is perceived as bad.

Don't take this as an insult or anything - But maybe you need more regular, and more, sleep?

[Roxlimn]

DocDoomII:

Largely bored guy on call killing time. You?  Discussing me isn't really one of my strong points.  It shouldn't be yours, either.  That kind of thing could be interpreted as a personal attack.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 17 avril 2011 - 08:55 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Roxlimn wrote...

Shadowbanner:

I think the large part of your dissatisfaction with DA2 was because you loved DAO to the high heavens and wanted and expected more of the same, even though the free demo released and most information released prior clearly indicated a different direction for the series.

Much of what you expressed that's bad about DA2 isn't objective, but various recitations of "This is not DAO." In all fairness, nearly all complaints I've heard about DA2 are variations of the same complaint.

No offense I got nothing against you per se but take off your blindfold. There is a wide variety of issues from bugs/glitches, some major some minor (I personally think the game freezing my entire console every few hours is disgusting quality of a product) to combat mechanics and graphics, dialogue and difficulty, story and time jumps. The list goes on and on and it is not all this "variations of same complaint" you claim which you refer to the bland generalisation that the only people complaining are people who compare it to DAO. Quite a lot of people including myself based our initial criticisms to being with only on the product itself and since then broadened that to include it's predecessor and/or other titles of the same genre and different genres.

Ok we get you love the game in general, that has become evident in the many posts about the game you have made but you don't have to go on the offensive so much when someone dislikes it, just don't say we are all just complaining because it's not DAO.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 avril 2011 - 09:02 .

[Shadowbanner]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yup, I've been around since BG1, but since I've always played them as third person games the introduction of a VA and paraphrase don't seem like a big deal to me and something of a natural step forward.  In fact, if I had never started posting on or reading the BSN, it wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone thought otherwise. The fact that many simply assume that such changes could only possibly appeal to some "new" audience implies that those who treated such games as a first person narrative may not have realized that there has always been another way to approach Bioware games either.  That isn't to dismiss that playstyle, far from it, only that there have always been two valid ways to play and that for one of them the introduction of a VA/paraphrase/cinematics isn't as big a change as it would be to the other one.

Fact is Bioware's recent offerings are polarizing because they basically made a choice. That choice was to make the third person experience explicit. This is usually associated with the "cinematic" buzzword. That's why you get some people who really love it (third person) and some people who really hate it (first person) and not a lot of middle ground - which is what polarizing means - because Bioware has effectively chosen a playstyle to endorse with their feature changes after implicitly supporting both.

You have an interesting point. But then I wouldn't like Bethesda's first-person RPG's, following your logic. And the fact is I love them.

DA2 was not a first-person RPG in my opinion anyway.

I understand more what you say in the ME context, but not in DA2. DA2 is not "cinematics" as ME2 is for example.

[erynnar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

erynnar wrote...

And the problem with cinematic, and VO PCs are that you get a lot less content for that supposed move forward (which it isn't, more like a side step, neither forward or backwards).  And you get less (illlusion) of choice with that, which also means less content (no choices in race for one).  What I have been asking and no one has answered me yet, is are you so enamored of the voiced PC that you are willing to lose content?  I am not saying you need to think one way or another, I am just curious. Because it seems no one is willing to look that fact in the face and answer it honestly one way or another. Until such time as technology changes. are you willing to give up content for having a character that talks?

I'll point out that your 'fact' isn't a fact. It's an assumption.

The assumption is that if there was no PCVO in Dragon Age 2, there would be more content. In a game that heavily reuses its maps, I'd suggest that DA 2 has a content crunch that has nothing to do with VO. Specifically, getting rid of PCVO wouldn't get you more of... whatever you think you'd get.

That said, 'content' is such a nebulous term, it's not very useful.

Hmm, food for thought! I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks Maria! I was just wondering in my own little noggin' and thought I would ask it outloud (so to speak) here.

[Grovermancer]

"Childish...?"

Notice this list of facts, in regards to DA2's combat:

-- the characters move/fight absurdly too fast to be realistic or true to actual human beings
-- the characters move in spastic, twitchy ways during strikes and swings
-- the weapons are apparently weightless
-- many the combat moves and techniques (that I've seen) are not realistic or true to actual combat
-- the physical kinesthetics are often wrong; bodies can't move in such a way
-- people in real weapons combat don't leap to and fro, or lunge a dozen feet in the blink of an eye
-- bodies don't explode from melee combat, no matter how hard you strike them
-- constant waves of spawning enemies from any and all directions, even in ways that would injure/kill a person  (ie, dropping 30 feet into combat)


Those are observable facts. 

And such combat mechanics don't fit w/ the physical laws of the DA universe as established by DAO.  (not even considering Haste spells)


So...  DA2's combat is fast.  Super-humanly fast.  Bodies explode everywhere.  There's apparently little consideration for historical or believable combat technique (relatively speaking, of DA2 compared to DAO).  There's either no care, or appreciation, of an authentic, real-world feel the combat.  It's not 'effortful' or 'heavy,' like DAO's combat usually tried to be.  It's often about look and style over substance; whizzing and leaping, 'sploding bodies w/ weightless weapons.  Did I mention it's ridiculously too fast?

I assume this is what people mean if they say (the combat) in DA2 is "childish."  It appeals to a differernt sensibility than the combat in DAO did. 

That's what I would mean, when I say DA2's combat at times feels "childish."


EDIT:  format error

Modifié par Grovermancer, 17 avril 2011 - 09:07 .

[Shadowbanner]

aries1001 wrote...

I'm not quite sure I agree with the OP that us old hardcore 'geezers' do not want change. From what I can tell from my own observations travelling these forums, it seems very much to be the us old geezers that like the changes he most, from the tougher, more responsive combat to the more tigther personal story focusing on not saving the world and may of the other changes made in DA2. I'm not saying that some of the younger rpg fans do not like the changes as well, I'm saying that we old 'geezers' or most of us like the new direction, DA2 has taken.

Hi

I never wrote RPG gamers don't like changes, please quote me.

Changes are great if they are well executed. And DA2 made huge changes that were -objectively- very poorly implemented whether by lack of time or sheer laziness.

[Shalidor]

I bought this game off the back of Origins success despite the poor reviews, and to be perfectly honest I have no idea what anyone is talking about. I have played Bioware games right through from BG1 and Dragon Age 2 is by far the most challenging of the lot. Combat is brilliant, the battles (on nightmare) are often extremely challenging, long, and generally quite epic, far more fun than in DAO where there were basically no difficult fights except for whichever tough quest you picked at level 6; level scaling is also much less lame as the foes are more varied and have more interesting abilities. The talent trees are also infinitely more interesting.

The characters are well designed and on the whole more realistic than some of the DAO ones, although that's not to take away from that game.

I've found DA2 to be extremely entertaining and engaging just as I have found from all Bioware RPGs, I'm struggling to even see HOW it has been dumbed down in many important aspects (journal aside).

[Shadowbanner]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

planed scaped wrote...

I kinda thought the same thing as the OP. Bioware alienated the older fans in order to get to the new younger fanbase. A lot more profit in them. Except Bioware kinda failed on both fronts by making a mediocre game that excelles in nothing and no one can relate to since it was made for everyone.

So, here's a question: if Bioware had put more time and care in DA2, making it a much better example of that kind of game, would it be a success or a failure?

Probably a success with more time.

Change is not bad, it's how well its done that matters.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 18 avril 2011 - 12:44 .

[Roxlimn]

Dragoonlordz:

No offense I got nothing against you per se but take off your blindfold. There is a wide variety of issues from bugs/glitches, some major some minor (I personally think the game freezing my entire console every few hours is disgusting quality of a product) to combat mechanics and graphics, dialogue and difficulty, story and time jumps. The list goes on and on and it is not all this "variations of same complaint" you claim which you refer to the bland generalisation that the only people complaining are people who compare it to DAO. Quite a lot of people including myself based our initial criticisms to being with only on the product itself and since then broadened that to include it's predecessor and/or other titles of the same genre and different genres.

There are issues with the game. These issues are not unique to DA2. Bioware games are generally buggy and glitchy. This includes DAO, ME2, ME, and even the old BG2 games. So when I see people saying this about DA2 and then comparing it unfavorably to DAO, I have to wonder.

This is mirrored in most of the complaints about the game. What's wrong with the combat, exactly? It's too fast? Why? NO reason given. Sometimes, the truth comes out - it's because it's faster than DAO and shouldn't be.

What's wrong with the story? No simple archvillain? Why is that bad? Not all great stories have single simple archvillains. No choices? What's wrong with that? Many JRPGs don't even offer the same number of choices as DA2 does. Are those games bad games, then?

While I'm sure many gamers think they're being objective, I usually find out in discussion that they're really looking for something specific.

DA2 has real, objective issues, but those are rarely discussed or mentioned.