843 réponses à ce sujet

[Zeulon]

The probem I have with DA2 combat:
They are trying to tell a personal, down to the earth story, but the gameplay is an arcade power fantasy. To me it seems like Schindlers List directed by Michale Bay, or Lotr by Uwe Boll.

[Mrbananagrabber]

man giraffe dog3 wrote...

Otterwarden wrote...


"But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."

  <3 you Bioware

Edit:
"Go ahead and leave me.
I think I prefer to stay inside.
Maybe you'll find someone else to help you.
Maybe the COD crowd
THAT WAS A JOKE.
HAHA. FAT CHANCE."

mangiraffedog says BEST.  EDIT.  EVER.

But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on doing 180 degrees turns till you run out of fans.
And the AWESOME gets done.
And you make ONE MORE WAVE.
For the COD kiddos who are on Ritalin.

[Dragoonlordz]

Roxlimn wrote...

Let's talk about something specific. Many gamers decry the lack of choice in how DA2 arranges its endgame battles. Aside from this actually being virtually identical to the situation in DAO, not having choice at all in the game is actually a fair staple of JRPGs, which aren't universally considered failures just because they're JRPGs.

So why is it an inherent game flaw for a game not to give you choice in how to proceed?

Theres a couple quotes I could reference for this one is Ray saying your choices affect the story and world in DA2. That was in a youtube video with him being interviewed and also Davids interview.

When they post/say comments like that (there are many more examples if willing to backtrack weeks of web history in browser), then you get expectations. Unless they actually say "In act one your choice a) Will have this affect while in You have no choice" then it is impossible to not use interpretations. However it does not require you to reference DAO in order to judge if their statement is true or not and if so how relevant.

David Gaider: One of the initial ideas that Mike Laidlaw suggested was using the “framed narrative,” or telling a story within a story. This was a change that allowed us to jump around between time periods rather than have things progress in a linear fashion, and also play with the idea of an unreliable narrator, someone who might not always be telling the truth. It was interesting to try, and offered us some freedom that we didn’t have before, especially with regards to showing the long-term repercussions of the player’s choices prior to the end of the game. In terms of compromises, any approach you take is going to require trade-offs in other areas. This did mean, for instance, that we needed to “bottleneck” the plot at certain points where we needed to change time periods, but outside of those bottlenecks we maintained plenty of freedom for the player to choose their path.

When in reality what we got was...

iakus wrote...

DA2 did well in allowing you to shape Hawke.  You could really decide what kind of "Champion" you end up being.

However, what the game really didn't do was allow this Champion to have any real effect on Kirkwall.  Events were pretty much locked in, all you could do was react to them. 

Now I could compare this to DAO and go into vast lengths about how they are completley different methods of telling a story with completley different approaches to that aspect (the choices difference). But my above quotes did not have to do so in order to answer your question, yet I would be very surprised if you didn't turn it around and say all comments made by my reflect a comparrison (I never needed to use).

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 avril 2011 - 10:19 .

[Dokarqt]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 This did mean, for instance, that we needed to “bottleneck” the plot at certain points where we needed to change time periods, but outside of those bottlenecks we maintained plenty of freedom for the player to choose their path.

har har har

[Grovermancer]

Roxlimn wrote...

Grovermancer:

Exactly. DAO set the universe and laws for the DA universe. Intentionally so. Laws, rules, lore, culture, etc. This included the combat.

That wasn't an accident. It was intentional. Obviously.

It hearkened to a realistic, or at least believable, combat. Which was made to fit with the real, gritty world of DA.

DA2 doesn't follow this 'realistic' approach, at least in regards to non-magical combat. The approach it took could be said to be "childish," as I explained in the previous post.

Nonmagical blades phasing through solid objects is realistic now? I have to check that.
Nope. My knife doesn't phase through my wall.

Nope, already addressed that.  It's a video game.  There are still conventions within video games.  They're not perfect.  A graphical issue has no bearing on this issue whatsoever, and honest debaters know this.

Like I said, I already addressed that, but you ignored it, and continued on with an inapplicable, intellectually dishonest point.  Again, the loss of credibility.  

Roxlimn wrote...
DAO set a sensibility for itself. DA2 happens to follow a different sensibility. This approach could only said to be "childish" if you don't happen to like it, and if you mistakenly think that this approach appeals to children, against all indications, and if you equate the two.

No, DA established a world w/ cultures, laws, and even in-universe physics (for example, weapons actually have weight in DAO).  DAO's combat intentionally followed this.  DA2's combat does not.  It could be called "chidlish" because of reasons already given, but to which you ignore, for reasons that are becoming increasingly apparently.

Grovermancer wrote...
Of course it established a physical law. Obvsiously, it did. With every move it did. With codex entries, it did.

What sort of intellectual gymnatistics does one play to avoid acknowledging something so obvious and given? The entire time, every single human through the entire entire game world swings a weapon a certain speed (relatively speaking, of course) and a manner in following real human kinesthetics... but you're going to ignore that in it's entirety? Intellectual dishonesty. You lose credibility.

Roxlimn wrote...

BS. I don't ignore anything. Don't call it intellectual dishonesty just because you don't understand.

DAO's physical laws are internally inconsistent. Any world where an Ogre doesn't keel over from sheer loss of blood pressure, or where his bones don't get crushed under the weight of his own body is not a world that follows our world's physical laws. Heck, Dragons fly. With really weird wingbeats and unnaturally small wingspans.

You ignore things even in this very response.  And again, you're being intentionally inconsistent and intellectually dishonest right here...

There are ogres in the DA universe.  And dragons.  And magic.  It's a fantasy world, and that's given.

And there was combat within it's world's laws that hearkened to a physical, believable manner of combat, almost similar to real-life combat.  A dark, gritty fantasy world, where the combat intentionally reinforced that. 

Then DA2's combat came along, and hearkened to God of War or Ninja Gaiden or Power Rangers.  (literally)

Grovermancer wrote...
BTW, blood can shoot several feet from a body. Swords passing through enemies -- are you talking about clipping? (or no clipping?) Or some other video game convention? This usually leads into the dishonest tactic of trying to cite our characters having "health bars" over their heads as a debate point for how it's "not believable."

Yeah, it's a video game, one that thus far, still functions within those parameters. It's also a fantasy world; there's magic. Those things are irrelevent to the point at large.

The DA universe established a specific world w/ specific laws.

Roxlimn wrote...
I challenge you to supply those physical laws. F=MA? A=D/T2? Are you a physicist? Do you have a solid grasp of real world physics? Because if you are and you can't recognize that an Ogre is blatantly unrealistic, then you're lying to yourself.

What you mean is NOT physical laws. What you mean is sensibility. DAO has a sensibility that's different from DA2. Neither of them have internally consistent physical laws, nor physical laws that are the same as real ones.

If you say that DA2's sensibility is different from DAO's, I will agree with you. Extrapolating that to mean "childish" is your prerogative, but it says things about you.

I don't need to supply equations.  That's just another one of your tactics.  To argue minutia, while ignoring the obvious.  More intellectual word-games.  More dishonest debating tactics.

First, it's a fantasy world, certain elements are given, this is probably the 3rd or 4th time I've already mentioned this, though it wouldn't be needed even once if you were an honest debater and didn't make intentionally inappliable comparisons.

...you try and cite having fantasy elements (in a fantasy game)... or video game conceits (in a video game)... as some relevancy or "proof" of the combat.  Your tactics fail, and merely reveal who you are.

In DAO, weapons had weight.  So did armor.  The combat looked hard, effortful.  Opponents largely reacted in a realistic, or at least believable, manner.  Techniques, movements, were largely realistic, relatively speaking.  They felt like real humans in real combat.

DA2's was not.  At all.  In almost any way.

Here's that list of those facts again:

-- 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)

Yes, the nature of DA2's combat; the animations, the look and feel and nature of it, especially in comparison to DAO's combat, could be said to be simplistic.  Hyper-stylized.  Flashy.  Unrealistic.  Even at times childish.

Modifié par Grovermancer, 17 avril 2011 - 10:18 .

[erynnar]

Dokarqt wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 This did mean, for instance, that we needed to “bottleneck” the plot at certain points where we needed to change time periods, but outside of those bottlenecks we maintained plenty of freedom for the player to choose their path.

har har har

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! 

[Mrbananagrabber]

erynnar wrote...

Dokarqt wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 This did mean, for instance, that we needed to “bottleneck” the plot at certain points where we needed to change time periods, but outside of those bottlenecks we maintained plenty of freedom for the player to choose their path.

har har har

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! 

Plenty of freedom to choose my path...oh the humanity

[Tommy6860]

Aermord wrote...

Thank you for your post. It's a good analysis.

However Dragon Age Origins could not have been hugely succesful if it only appealed to the "old crowd" because "we" are simply not enough to generate this kind of sale. I'm a teacher and there are young students at my school who absolutely loved Dragon Age Origins and the same students ended up hating DA2 as well.

Us "old guys" might be on the path to the grave, but it is my impression that new players of the traditional RPG genre are born at a quick pace. They will be just as loyal as we have been when they discover that a great game is not just one based on hack and slash and pretty graphics. - But a game that can challenge them and create a deep story where they can be the hero.

I can agree with this: It is really a matter of upbringing. IF parents just relegate their kids to watching TV fare (Smpsons, etc) and leave their schooling to their own devices, their gaming proclivities are primarily going to be COD type action games that require little imagination.. But, if a parent reads to their kids, encourages and engages them critical and imaginative thinking, those kids are going to venture into other areas of gaming. My mother read to me a great deal and I as began to game, I leaned towards the RPG genre, and never looked back.

Your contemporary example of the kids you deal with is more the norm than one that is generalizing that the younger gaming crowd of today would not be interested in game like Origins.

[robotnist]

good stuff. but while reading your post, i may be the one person who can't be easily applied into any bioware camp.

i loved everything bioware has ever done with the exception of ME2 and jade empire, but i do LIKE those games and i'm glad theyre here.

so yeah, im the mid 30's (used to be) hard core PC gamer. which in my definition just means if a game comes out on multiple platforms i always choose PC first, or used to. now its a 70/30 split.
loved buldar's gate, i played all the old gold box games in the late 80s early 90s including stuff like ravenloft, dark sun and dragonlance. i was so "hard core" RPG that i only played RPG. because in the 90s RPG meant you could save your game and continue on and build something up. action games were way too shallow for me.

i played other low key RPGs like buck rogers and D&D warriors of the eternal sun on genesis.

but i guess what it comes down to is, theres only a few other people in the world that go deeper than me into RPGs, the y definitely, i dont want to insult them, but in general i'm probably considered "hard core" RPG'er by many.

and i really like DA2, i think i love it. would i change things? YES.
i would allow the player to equip armor to all companions, this is my biggest beef with bioware. other than that, i dont mind the repeating environs, hell i played PSO like crazy and it was 4 areas OVER AND OVER.

so i'm probably one person that slips through the cracks of your write up although i did enjoy it and agree with much of what you wrote.

[Gatt9]

Roxlimn wrote...

Gatt9:

If anything, you're just proving how pointless the term is and how correct CS Lewis really was.

Um...You do realize you're quoting the author of a children's book series,  within which one of the primary themes was growing up and letting go of childish things right?  6 kids got booted out of his magical land for being too old to participate.

So your source pretty much confirms everything said here,  there's a valid difference between childish and adult,  and anyone who is an adult should be easily able to identify childish qualities.

[Lalue]

I loved DA:O and after 3 runs of DA2...i dont think i could go back to Origins ...actually having an hard time finishing my last run of DAO because of the slow combat and im missing the VA.
What bugged me the most about DA2 (not gonna repeat what we mostly all agree on...story,re-used maps,choices, waves, lack of new codex, 1000 items named *ring*...) is that i always saw bioware as innovative...and DA2 even if i like it and replay it, is just a mash-up of *nothing new*.

Edit: Dragon Age 2 is the New WII...your grandmother will like it, so will your 13 years old cousin

Modifié par Lalue, 18 avril 2011 - 12:30 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Roxlimn wrote...
"I don't like this game because it's not DAO."

No. it's more than that if you put it that way.
I don't like this game because it's not DAO, NW 2 and NW. I don't know about BG tho. BG can't run on my system.

Then what is it about DA 2 that I should like to compare with?

JRPG ?( I don't play JRPG much).

Interactive movie? ( I prefer non interactive movie because it's cheaper and more immersive ),

Half-life? ( DA 2  story-within-story narrative is sucks because it's flaw with time changes and inappropriate for first person narrative. NW story was sucks too but toolset, co-op and create-your-own-adventure campaign save it and therefore, nullified argument about third person narrative. But then again third person narrative wasn't explicit enough since the dialogue was handled by first person view in the same manner with much older party base RPG like Realm of Arkania )

Mass Effect 2? or Mass Effecting Dragon Age 2?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 18 avril 2011 - 12:43 .

[Romantiq]

I simply dislike certain aspects of this game just because it's obviously a low quality product and to add insult to injury - they bumped the price up $10. Not that money is a problem, it's just not worth paying it for something of such inferior quality. =\\

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Gatt9 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

Gatt9:

If anything, you're just proving how pointless the term is and how correct CS Lewis really was.

Um...You do realize you're quoting the author of a children's book series,  within which one of the primary themes was growing up and letting go of childish things right?  6 kids got booted out of his magical land for being too old to participate.

So your source pretty much confirms everything said here,  there's a valid difference between childish and adult,  and anyone who is an adult should be easily able to identify childish qualities.

Lol. This actually make me laugh. Nice find Gatt9. Thanks for this info. 

[Lalue]

Romantiq wrote...

I simply dislike certain aspects of this game just because it's obviously a low quality product and to add insult to injury - they bumped the price up $10. Not that money is a problem, it's just not worth paying it for something of such inferior quality. =

I dont think its a low quality product...its a different product.  Too different...
The only insult i see is the DLC content released at the same time than the game (which was clearly supposed to be a part of the original game). 

Modifié par Lalue, 18 avril 2011 - 12:58 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

Gatt9:

If anything, you're just proving how pointless the term is and how correct CS Lewis really was.

Um...You do realize you're quoting the author of a children's book series,  within which one of the primary themes was growing up and letting go of childish things right?  6 kids got booted out of his magical land for being too old to participate.

So your source pretty much confirms everything said here,  there's a valid difference between childish and adult,  and anyone who is an adult should be easily able to identify childish qualities.

Lol. This actually make me laugh. Nice find Gatt9. Thanks for this info. 

Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
[list]

[*]"On Three Ways of Writing for Children" (1952)
[*]
[*]
[*]I think this is the C.S. Lewis quote he was probably thinking of.

Modifié par Tantum Dic Verbo, 18 avril 2011 - 01:12 .

[Lalue]

*making popcorn*

[Otterwarden]

Being "young at heart" is a gift that age cannot take away.

[Lalue]

im gonna share the popcorn with you. dont worry

[ransompendragon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I prefer my first person narrative player vs. third person narrative player theory.

Many previous Bioware games were in my opinion implicitly third person narratives. But they didn't go so far as to demand that everyone have this view. Adding a voiceover and a paraphrase system makes the games explicitly third person. So if you always played Bioware games as a third person narrative, this doesn't bother you and is possibly seen as an improvement. If you always played Bioware games as a first person narrative, this is a radical departure.

In terms of the feel of combat and the aesthetics of the animations and such, I don't think that's indicative of much else beyond simple aesthetic preference. If you mod out the exploding bodies, or don't have a DW rogue on your team, the game looks really damn close to Origins, it's just faster.

Interesting theory but I would have to agree more with the OP. The fact that DA2 is "Hawke's story" versus "my Warden" isn't the problem. Nor is it the ridiculously silly combat. It is mostly the fact that the narrative (from any perspective) fell completely apart AND was presented in a way that didn't remotely resemble DAO or even act 2 of DA2 itself.

(That and the other list of usual complaints).

[ransompendragon]

where's my popcorn?

[Romantiq]

Lalue wrote...

Romantiq wrote...

I simply dislike certain aspects of this game just because it's obviously a low quality product and to add insult to injury - they bumped the price up $10. Not that money is a problem, it's just not worth paying it for something of such inferior quality. =

I dont think its a low quality product...its a different product.  Too different...
The only insult i see is the DLC content released at the same time than the game (which was clearly supposed to be a part of the original game). 

Just taking into account numerous shortcuts they took that include everyone's favourite repetitive environments,  fedex quests, subpar music (I only like the family theme one) and so on.

I didn't even want to mention first day dlc that's like doing the following:

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

Origins was good because it pleased the old guard while remaining accessible in a slightly lesser form (mainly graphics and no toolset) on the consoles and was able to reach a much larger audience who thoroughly enjoyed its epic story and immersive setting. Basically id Bioware had put a good story and good environment into DA2 and upped the graphics on console nobody would complain. But they only gave one while simultaneously releasing an HD pack for computer (which I have no problem with because I bought the game for the story and immersive environment). Its not some complicated casual vs. hardcore gamer debate its the a quick cash grab that is being praised by people without any sense of what is art and what is drivel, those of drivel singing DA2's praises because they have become complacent with the industry as it stands and are comparing the game to what it goes up against instead of what it could have and should have been because they have just moved on to the next game in a long line of subpar entertainment.

Modifié par TOBY FLENDERSON, 18 avril 2011 - 02:08 .

[Lalue]

Modifié par Lalue, 19 avril 2011 - 04:45 .

[Jman5]

From what I have seen, the problem has little to do with the direction and a lot more to do with the development cycle.

Dragon Age 2 was fun for me and there were flashes of brilliance here and there. Despite that, it was just too overshadowed by obvious signs of rushing. (tons of bugs, limited terrain, mediocre ending, etc)

My hope is that the Old Republic MMO is a smashing success and it frees up some extra funds and talent for Dragon Age 3 to spend an extra 6 months or year in development.