254 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

Rockpopple wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

In what way is DAII more "tragic" than Origins, and what exactly is so "complex" about the relationships?  I counted only a single controversial event of any significance, as well.  Whereas in both Mass Effect games, you're faced with a fair number of situations that force you into making moral/immoral choices (instead of just railroading you into a cutscene that's going to happen no matter what) that affect the games' universe later on.

Your post is a ridiculous over-simplifcation, which is ironic considering your insulting insinuation that critics of DAII prefer "simplicity".

In my own opinion, DAII is a vastly simplified game compared to Mass Effect or Origins, from it's twitchy combat to it's lazy lack of scope and extremely limited interactivity compared to other Bioware titles.  Arguing that it's too complex for most is an absolute joke and makes you come across as an apologist in denial.

I found DA II to be much more tragic than Origins. I mean, I found that the most "tragic" parts of Origins came in the Origins themselves. They were pretty sad and heartbreaking, but the purpose of that was to separate the hero from his world so he could only go forward, not backward.

In two, tragedy kept befalling Hawke to the point where when you're in Act III and you're with your LI in your mansion, you realise just how alone Hawke is. Unlike the Warden, who was always with his mates in camp, there's a feeling of isolation on Hawke that, even with his mansion populated by elves and dwarves and dogs, feels sadly alone. He doesn't have the pressure of stopping a monster that will destroy the world on his shoulder, no... but he does have a lot of pressure on him from various political machinations that could end the way of life for not only himself, but a lot of people in Kirkwall for whom he cares about.

That's what I got out of it anyway. Once again: I loved Origins. Brought it twice for two different systems. So I'm not bashing Origins. I just also like DA II a lot.

This, VERY MUCH this. When Bodhan told me that he and Sandal would soon be *spoiler*, that was even more tragic.

I experienced a similar feeling of loneliness with my canon Shep in ME2. Esp. after Horizon. (She detests Cerberus, yet the plot dictates that she HAS to stay) She trusts no one aboard the Normandy except Garrus. (Never was a Talimancer, so Tali wasn't much help) 

[drvaughn1999]

Wittand25 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

The context mattered little in that sense, and i shortly after provided the full quote. Context does nothing to diminish the fact that the man honestly stated, and apparently believes these things cannot be conveyed through text. Charles ****ing Dickens would have a field day on lamelaw for saying that. 

Context matters because it is impossible to convey irony, sarcasm or pretty much anything but facts in just one line of text and neither Shakespeare or Dickens would be able to write a line for a dialog system as in DA:O and make clear without mistake that that line is supposed to be sarcastic.

To bring across something as complicated as sarcasm you need either additional information by voice or gestures or provide more text than can be reasonable fitted in the dialog selection of a game like DA:O was.

You are right, it has been proven on this every forum.

[Merced652]

Wittand25 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

The context mattered little in that sense, and i shortly after provided the full quote. Context does nothing to diminish the fact that the man honestly stated, and apparently believes these things cannot be conveyed through text. Charles ****ing Dickens would have a field day on lamelaw for saying that. 

Context matters because it is impossible to convey irony, sarcasm or pretty much anything but facts in just one line of text and neither Shakespeare or Dickens would be able to write a line for a dialog system as in DA:O and make clear without mistake that that line is supposed to be sarcastic.

To bring across something as complicated as sarcasm you need either additional information by voice or gestures or provide more text than can be reasonable fitted in the dialog selection of a game like DA:O was.

Actually sarcasm has been conveyed in single lines of text since the invention of typography itself. Newspapper and magazine articles have done this for hundreds of years by typefacing. They place the sarcastic line in italics so the reader knows its not something to take at face value. Did the DAO engine not support italics? I'm pretty sure it did as i seem to recall even seeing it in some cases in dialogue. Obviously da2 could've made use of it to, but the whole VO'd douchbaggery got in the way. 

[zeejay21]

Reinveil wrote...

In what way is DAII more "tragic" than Origins, and what exactly is so "complex" about the relationships?  I counted only a single controversial event of any significance, as well.  Whereas in both Mass Effect games, you're faced with a fair number of situations that force you into making moral/immoral choices (instead of just railroading you into a cutscene that's going to happen no matter what) that affect the games' universe later on.

Your post is a ridiculous over-simplifcation, which is ironic considering your insulting insinuation that critics of DAII prefer "simplicity".

In my own opinion, DAII is a vastly simplified game compared to Mass Effect or Origins, from it's twitchy combat to it's lazy lack of scope and extremely limited interactivity compared to other Bioware titles.  Arguing that it's too complex for most is an absolute joke and makes you come across as an apologist in denial.

You must've missed the story.

From the start, Hawke was meant to be tragic character - he lost a sibling while escaping, lost another sibling again while in Kirkwall trying to amass wealth and finally lost his mother. The controversial events I refer to is when you play the game at it's fullest and by paying attention to the whole structure - just help Merill out with her final quest and you'll see what I mean. I counted lots of controversial incidents starting from the Arishok to the final stage of the game. Play the game at it's fullest and you'll understand.

ME2 was easier, lighter and sometimes predictable. You somehow knew what happens next by choosing the right actions. DA2 suprises you even if you feel you made the right decisions; a similarity to Bethesda's Fallout 3. This is where the complexity lies and to most people, it annoys them.

As for gameplay mechanic, I agree it was simplified - BioWare intended for it this way to reach out to newer, casual people, it can be a debatable issue but alas, BioWare made it's decisions. So far, only a few (out of hundreds) complains about DA2 gameplay mechanics, the primary focus of critics is the game overall structure; how engaging the game was to the player.

Modifié par zeejay21, 21 avril 2011 - 07:37 .

[Persephone]

Merced652 wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

The context mattered little in that sense, and i shortly after provided the full quote. Context does nothing to diminish the fact that the man honestly stated, and apparently believes these things cannot be conveyed through text. Charles ****ing Dickens would have a field day on lamelaw for saying that. 

Context matters because it is impossible to convey irony, sarcasm or pretty much anything but facts in just one line of text and neither Shakespeare or Dickens would be able to write a line for a dialog system as in DA:O and make clear without mistake that that line is supposed to be sarcastic.

To bring across something as complicated as sarcasm you need either additional information by voice or gestures or provide more text than can be reasonable fitted in the dialog selection of a game like DA:O was.

Actually sarcasm has been conveyed in single lines of text since the invention of typography itself. Newspapper and magazine articles have done this for hundreds of years by typefacing. They place the sarcastic line in italics so the reader knows its not something to take at face value. Did the DAO engine not support italics? I'm pretty sure it did as i seem to recall even seeing it in some cases in dialogue. Obviously da2 could've made use of it to, but the whole VO'd douchbaggery got in the way. 

There are always ways to improve a dialogue system and the devs have stated that they are looking into it. I cannot, for the life of me, recall any italics in DAO though.

And I don't think VO'ed protagonists are douchbaggery. Have loved them since the early nineties after all.

[Reinveil]

Rockpopple wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

In what way is DAII more "tragic" than Origins, and what exactly is so "complex" about the relationships?  I counted only a single controversial event of any significance, as well.  Whereas in both Mass Effect games, you're faced with a fair number of situations that force you into making moral/immoral choices (instead of just railroading you into a cutscene that's going to happen no matter what) that affect the games' universe later on.

Your post is a ridiculous over-simplifcation, which is ironic considering your insulting insinuation that critics of DAII prefer "simplicity".

In my own opinion, DAII is a vastly simplified game compared to Mass Effect or Origins, from it's twitchy combat to it's lazy lack of scope and extremely limited interactivity compared to other Bioware titles.  Arguing that it's too complex for most is an absolute joke and makes you come across as an apologist in denial.

I found DA II to be much more tragic than Origins. I mean, I found that the most "tragic" parts of Origins came in the Origins themselves. They were pretty sad and heartbreaking, but the purpose of that was to separate the hero from his world so he could only go forward, not backward.

In two, tragedy kept befalling Hawke to the point where when you're in Act III and you're with your LI in your mansion, you realise just how alone Hawke is. Unlike the Warden, who was always with his mates in camp, there's a feeling of isolation on Hawke that, even with his mansion populated by elves and dwarves and dogs, feels sadly alone. He doesn't have the pressure of stopping a monster that will destroy the world on his shoulder, no... but he does have a lot of pressure on him from various political machinations that could end the way of life for not only himself, but a lot of people in Kirkwall for whom he cares about.

In fact if anything, DA II is too tragic and depressing.

That's what I got out of it anyway. Once again: I loved Origins. Brought it twice for two different systems. So I'm not bashing Origins. I just also like DA II a lot.

And that's fine, I'm not out to change anyone's mind that enjoyed the game.  I see you and Persephone (for example) post quite regularly on these boards, and while I seldom agree with what either of you say about DAII, you do so in a civil manner that I appreciate and respect.  You're entitled to your opinions and I'm glad you were able to enjoy the game - it's always nice to feel as though you got what you paid for.

But when someone basically states that anyone that doesn't agree with his opinion, which is just as subjective as anyone else's, prefers "simplicity" (like it's an undisputed fact that DAII is some complex masterpiece of storytelling), I'm going to take offense.  That is, frankly, a load of condescending crap that reaks of unwarranted self-importance.  And from the perspective of someone that views the game as a massive step backwards in terms of interactivity (an opinion that is shared by many), it also comes across as delusional.

[Uzaik]

zeejay21 wrote...

Not game quality but rather game structure. It's very complex whereas ME and DA:O was simple:-

Save the universe from hungry, angry alien forces - ME series

Save a nation from an evil invasion - DA:O

Rise to power with tragedy, complex relationships and controversial events - DA2


People like simplicity, not complexity. DA2 isn't for most people.

Fallacy.

I've seen that same reasoning many times on the forum, I *think* even Gaider used it at some point (maybe not, at this point I've just demonized Laidlaw and Gaider).

I have various problems with Dragon Age 2, but for the sake of this argument I'll stick to the plot. My problem isn't the lack of an epic plot, or not having a mean dragon to kill. For the lack of a better word, the plot lacked cohesion. I find presumptuous that just because I did not enjoy at all the way the plot was delivered means I'm some sort of simpleton.

[Kendaric Varkellen]

Never really played ME 2, except briefly at a friend's house. I don't care about sci-fi unless it's Star Wars or Star Trek and I absolutely hate shooter combat, so the ME series never really caught my interest.

The consolization of DA II has certainly had some impact on my dislike of the game, but it's far from the only reason (area recycling, combat mechanics and the more "high fantasy" feel all had their share in this).

[Wittand25]

Merced652 wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

The context mattered little in that sense, and i shortly after provided the full quote. Context does nothing to diminish the fact that the man honestly stated, and apparently believes these things cannot be conveyed through text. Charles ****ing Dickens would have a field day on lamelaw for saying that. 

Context matters because it is impossible to convey irony, sarcasm or pretty much anything but facts in just one line of text and neither Shakespeare or Dickens would be able to write a line for a dialog system as in DA:O and make clear without mistake that that line is supposed to be sarcastic.

To bring across something as complicated as sarcasm you need either additional information by voice or gestures or provide more text than can be reasonable fitted in the dialog selection of a game like DA:O was.

Actually sarcasm has been conveyed in single lines of text since the invention of typography itself. Newspapper and magazine articles have done this for hundreds of years by typefacing. They place the sarcastic line in italics so the reader knows its not something to take at face value. Did the DAO engine not support italics? I'm pretty sure it did as i seem to recall even seeing it in some cases in dialogue. Obviously da2 could've made use of it to, but the whole VO'd douchbaggery got in the way. 

So you agree that text is not sufficiant and additional input (the font) is needed to convey sarcasm.

Exactly what Mr. lamelaw, as you choose to call him, said. (Just to point out the irony)

[Merced652]

Wittand25 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

The context mattered little in that sense, and i shortly after provided the full quote. Context does nothing to diminish the fact that the man honestly stated, and apparently believes these things cannot be conveyed through text. Charles ****ing Dickens would have a field day on lamelaw for saying that. 

Context matters because it is impossible to convey irony, sarcasm or pretty much anything but facts in just one line of text and neither Shakespeare or Dickens would be able to write a line for a dialog system as in DA:O and make clear without mistake that that line is supposed to be sarcastic.

To bring across something as complicated as sarcasm you need either additional information by voice or gestures or provide more text than can be reasonable fitted in the dialog selection of a game like DA:O was.

Actually sarcasm has been conveyed in single lines of text since the invention of typography itself. Newspapper and magazine articles have done this for hundreds of years by typefacing. They place the sarcastic line in italics so the reader knows its not something to take at face value. Did the DAO engine not support italics? I'm pretty sure it did as i seem to recall even seeing it in some cases in dialogue. Obviously da2 could've made use of it to, but the whole VO'd douchbaggery got in the way. 

So you agree that text is not sufficiant and additional input (the font) is needed to convey sarcasm.

Exactly what Mr. lamelaw, as you choose to call him, said. (Just to point out the irony)

Text is sufficient, is it sufficient for 3 word paraphrases? No, not even text + icons are apparently sufficient for that, bro. 

[Persephone]

Reinveil wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

In what way is DAII more "tragic" than Origins, and what exactly is so "complex" about the relationships?  I counted only a single controversial event of any significance, as well.  Whereas in both Mass Effect games, you're faced with a fair number of situations that force you into making moral/immoral choices (instead of just railroading you into a cutscene that's going to happen no matter what) that affect the games' universe later on.

Your post is a ridiculous over-simplifcation, which is ironic considering your insulting insinuation that critics of DAII prefer "simplicity".

In my own opinion, DAII is a vastly simplified game compared to Mass Effect or Origins, from it's twitchy combat to it's lazy lack of scope and extremely limited interactivity compared to other Bioware titles.  Arguing that it's too complex for most is an absolute joke and makes you come across as an apologist in denial.

I found DA II to be much more tragic than Origins. I mean, I found that the most "tragic" parts of Origins came in the Origins themselves. They were pretty sad and heartbreaking, but the purpose of that was to separate the hero from his world so he could only go forward, not backward.

In two, tragedy kept befalling Hawke to the point where when you're in Act III and you're with your LI in your mansion, you realise just how alone Hawke is. Unlike the Warden, who was always with his mates in camp, there's a feeling of isolation on Hawke that, even with his mansion populated by elves and dwarves and dogs, feels sadly alone. He doesn't have the pressure of stopping a monster that will destroy the world on his shoulder, no... but he does have a lot of pressure on him from various political machinations that could end the way of life for not only himself, but a lot of people in Kirkwall for whom he cares about.

In fact if anything, DA II is too tragic and depressing.

That's what I got out of it anyway. Once again: I loved Origins. Brought it twice for two different systems. So I'm not bashing Origins. I just also like DA II a lot.

And that's fine, I'm not out to change anyone's mind that enjoyed the game.  I see you and Persephone (for example) post quite regularly on these boards, and while I seldom agree with what either of you say about DAII, you do so in a civil manner that I appreciate and respect.  You're entitled to your opinions and I'm glad you were able to enjoy the game - it's always nice to feel as though you got what you paid for.

But when someone basically states that anyone that doesn't agree with his opinion, which is just as subjective as anyone else's, prefers "simplicity" (like it's an undisputed fact that DAII is some complex masterpiece of storytelling), I'm going to take offense.  That is, frankly, a load of condescending crap that reaks of unwarranted self-importance.  And from the perspective of someone that views the game as a massive step backwards in terms of interactivity (an opinion that is shared by many), it also comes across as delusional.

I am completely with you when it comes to comments like "People who like DAO & ME2 prefer simplicity. DAII is too complex for them to get." But similar things have been said about those who love DAII. And I take offense to that, as well as to being called delusional. I think it's possible for all of us to get along if we respect each other's opinions.

Is it wrong of me to feel a little hurt to see something I deeply care for attacked? (People feel similarly about DAO, no?) Maybe I'm taking it too personally. But it's one of the few games whose story actually got deeply under my skin. I hope that makes sense.

[Rockpopple]

Reinveil wrote...

And that's fine, I'm not out to change anyone's mind that enjoyed the game.  I see you and Persephone (for example) post quite regularly on these boards, and while I seldom agree with what either of you say about DAII, you do so in a civil manner that I appreciate and respect.  You're entitled to your opinions and I'm glad you were able to enjoy the game - it's always nice to feel as though you got what you paid for.

But when someone basically states that anyone that doesn't agree with his opinion, which is just as subjective as anyone else's, prefers "simplicity" (like it's an undisputed fact that DAII is some complex masterpiece of storytelling), I'm going to take offense.  That is, frankly, a load of condescending crap that reaks of unwarranted self-importance.  And from the perspective of someone that views the game as a massive step backwards in terms of interactivity (an opinion that is shared by many), it also comes across as delusional.

I could not agree with you more. In fact if I did agree with you more, I'm pretty sure that it'd be illegal in Texas. (No offense to Texas. Well... some offense to Texas). Yeah, no seriously, we're in 100% agreement here.  

[KLUME777]

I liked Mass Effect 2 yes. A lot. More than the first other than the story and characters.

I dislike DA2.

[John Epler]

There are a few of you in here who need to cool it. Disagreeing is not, in and of itself, a problem, but do so civilly. And that includes people on both sides of the fence, whether in favour or against the changes made in DA2.

And, once again, it must be mentioned that insulting a developer is treated the same way as insulting a forum member, particularly if it's not your first offense.

[Persephone]

KLUME777 wrote...

I liked Mass Effect 2 yes. A lot. More than the first other than the story and characters.

Same here. Question: I love your banner! Would you mind if I borrowed it? I'd really like to use it on another forum.

[Wittand25]

Merced652 wrote...
Text is sufficient, is it sufficient for 3 word paraphrases? No, not even text + icons are apparently sufficient for that, bro. 

You yourself gave an example that it is not possible to bring across sarcasm in short pieces of text like headlines or dialog choices in a computer game. You attacked Mr. Laidlaw for saying exactly that, since he was talking about dialog choices and not 300 pages long novels in the fragment of an interview that you quoted, I pointed out your mistake.

But since this is now seriously off topic for this thread let´s stop this discussion now.

Modifié par Wittand25, 21 avril 2011 - 07:35 .

[Sanguinerin]

I loved Dragon Age: Origins. I liked Mass Effect 1 and 2 a lot more than I thought that I would. I don't normally find myself interested in futuristic games, because I prefer fantasy/medieval settings.

I did not like Dragon Age II. I played it once, followed the story, and I have little interest to play it again. I don't mind that DAII borrows from ME2. I find that the ideas behind DAII aren't inherently worse, but they were not executed well (in my opinion). To make as many changes as they did, the development time should have been longer.

This product feels rushed, or half-finished. There seems to be this sense that there's so much more that could have been done. I never felt that with other BioWare titles. The developers could say that content was cut, or development wasn't given enough time in some areas, but those other games have never felt like they were rushed or that content was missing.

[Reinveil]

zeejay21 wrote...

You must've missed the story.

From the start, Hawke was meant to be tragic character - he lost a sibling while escaping, lost another sibling again while in Kirkwall trying to amass wealth and finally lost his mother. The controversial events I refer to is when you the game at it's fullest and by paying attention to the whole structure - just help Merill out with her final quest and you'll see what I mean. I counted lots of events of controversial incidents starting from the Arishok to the final stage of the game. Play the game at it's fullest and you'll understand.

"Tragedies" that carry absolutely no weight because you're not given enough time or opportunities to interact with the characters that they befall.  Who is going to be moved by the passing of a character ten minutes into the game who spoke a handful of lines?  Applying your own logic, the human noble origin from the first game is the most tragic event ever committed to a disc!  In what ways are Hawke's mother developed that should make the player care at all?  You have a handful of conversations with her before she meets her fate, and half of them are spent harping on you about losing Bethany/Carver.  And I'm supposed to feel bad for Merrill, who put an obsession with preserving a dangerous part of her peoples' history before the lives of everyone she supposedly cares about (including Hawke!) after she's told time and again that she's making a mistake?  I was disgusted with her selfishness and irrational need to do what she was doing.  But hey, maybe it would be more tragic if it wasn't bugged and played  in the correct order, huh?  And what's so controversial about what happens with the Qunari?  You're faced with a choice that's pretty standard for any Bioware game, honestly.

I wish I'd missed the story, I truly do.  Because what I found was executed so poorly, even people that defend the game can't agree with the game is actually about.  And don't try to pass off the game's consequences as some complex masterpiece of storytelling.  Things don't always go as you want them to because your choices don't matter, and no matter what you do, they're always going to play out the exact same way.  That's not complexity, it's a symptom of the game being rushed.

Modifié par Reinveil, 21 avril 2011 - 07:38 .

[Rockpopple]

Wow... when Leandra talked about how much she missed her lost son/daughter, I was pretty torn up about it. And Bethany and Carver's conversations, though radically different, seemed very poignant to me. I felt really sorry for Bethany, and for Carver I started to soften up to him a bit - get his frustration. It was even more poignant for me when I played a male Hawke with Carver, cuz I have a brother and I've lived that conversation a lot.

But to each their own, I guess.

@ Alistair - Tali's not like Merril! Tali's the virginal geeky schoolgirl with a huge crush on the dreamy Captain of the football team

Merril's the country bumpkin who worships Satan and, while hopelessly naive about many things, likes to troll you on a lot of other things by pretending she doesn't know.

Two different personalities, both kinda annoying sometimes. 

Modifié par Rockpopple, 21 avril 2011 - 07:43 .

[drvaughn1999]

Reinveil wrote...

zeejay21 wrote...

You must've missed the story.

From the start, Hawke was meant to be tragic character - he lost a sibling while escaping, lost another sibling again while in Kirkwall trying to amass wealth and finally lost his mother. The controversial events I refer to is when you the game at it's fullest and by paying attention to the whole structure - just help Merill out with her final quest and you'll see what I mean. I counted lots of events of controversial incidents starting from the Arishok to the final stage of the game. Play the game at it's fullest and you'll understand.

"Tragedies" that carry absolutely no weight because you're not given enough time or opportunities to interact with the characters that they befall.  Who is going to be moved by the passing of a character ten minutes into the game who spoke a handful of lines?  Applying your own logic, the human noble origin from the first game is the most tragic event ever committed to a disc!  In what ways are Hawke's mother developed that should make the player care at all?  You have a handful of conversations with her before she meets her fate, and half of them are spent harping on you about losing Bethany/Carver.  And I'm supposed to feel bad for Merrill, who put an obsession with preserving a dangerous part of her peoples' history before the lives of everyone she supposedly cares about (including Hawke!) after she's told time and again that she's making a mistake?  I was disgusted with her selfishness and irrational need to do what she was doing.  But hey, maybe it would be more tragic if it wasn't bugged and played  in the correct order, huh?  And what's so controversial about what happens with the Qunari?  You're faced with a choice that's pretty standard for any Bioware game, honestly.

I wish I'd missed the story, I truly do.  Because what I found was executed so poorly, even people that defend the game can't agree with the game is actually about.  And don't try to pass off the game's consequences as some complex masterpiece of storytelling.  Things don't always go as you want them to because your choices don't matter, and no matter what you do, they're always going to play out the exact same way.  That's not complexity, it's a symptom of the game being rushed.

Hawks mother had the same voice as the human noble in DA:O.  Does that help a little?

[Persephone]

Reinveil wrote...

zeejay21 wrote...

You must've missed the story.

From the start, Hawke was meant to be tragic character - he lost a sibling while escaping, lost another sibling again while in Kirkwall trying to amass wealth and finally lost his mother. The controversial events I refer to is when you the game at it's fullest and by paying attention to the whole structure - just help Merill out with her final quest and you'll see what I mean. I counted lots of events of controversial incidents starting from the Arishok to the final stage of the game. Play the game at it's fullest and you'll understand.

"Tragedies" that carry absolutely no weight because you're not given enough time or opportunities to interact with the characters that they befall.  Who is going to be moved by the passing of a character ten minutes into the game who spoke a handful of lines?  Applying your own logic, the human noble origin from the first game is the most tragic event ever committed to a disc!  In what ways are Hawke's mother developed that should make the player care at all?  You have a handful of conversations with her before she meets her fate, and half of them are spent harping on you about losing Bethany/Carver.  And I'm supposed to feel bad for Merrill, who put an obsession with preserving a dangerous part of her peoples' history before the lives of everyone she supposedly cares about (including Hawke!) after she's told time and again that she's making a mistake?  I was disgusted with her selfishness and irrational need to do what she was doing.  But hey, maybe it would carry more weight if it wasn't bugged and played  in the correct order, huh?  And what's so controversial about what happens with the Qunari?  You're faced with a choice that's pretty standard for any Bioware game, honestly.

Well, that is highly subjective territory. Having lost a sister and my mother, those experiences were pretty intense. My mother wasn't the same woman either after my sister died of a brain tumor within 3 days. It's all a matter of whether you connect to these people or not. Some do, some don't. Perfectly normal. Btw, Patch 1.02 fixes Merrill's Act III quest bug.

[Wittand25]

I loved DA:O. ME was ok but somehow the whole game felt immature to me ( all the screenshots of Miranda´s behind, Kelly Chambers, ....) and that did diminish my enjoyment. I also did not like the shooter game play too much.

I love DA2 even though it is more than obvious that the game should have had more development time.

[Uzaik]

I just couldn't immerse myself on the storyline. Dead sibling? Meh. Sibling gone in act 2? Bleh. Only the whole deal with Hawke's mother during act 3 made me react.

Modifié par Uzaik, 21 avril 2011 - 07:42 .

[Reinveil]

Persephone wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

In what way is DAII more "tragic" than Origins, and what exactly is so "complex" about the relationships?  I counted only a single controversial event of any significance, as well.  Whereas in both Mass Effect games, you're faced with a fair number of situations that force you into making moral/immoral choices (instead of just railroading you into a cutscene that's going to happen no matter what) that affect the games' universe later on.

Your post is a ridiculous over-simplifcation, which is ironic considering your insulting insinuation that critics of DAII prefer "simplicity".

In my own opinion, DAII is a vastly simplified game compared to Mass Effect or Origins, from it's twitchy combat to it's lazy lack of scope and extremely limited interactivity compared to other Bioware titles.  Arguing that it's too complex for most is an absolute joke and makes you come across as an apologist in denial.

I found DA II to be much more tragic than Origins. I mean, I found that the most "tragic" parts of Origins came in the Origins themselves. They were pretty sad and heartbreaking, but the purpose of that was to separate the hero from his world so he could only go forward, not backward.

In two, tragedy kept befalling Hawke to the point where when you're in Act III and you're with your LI in your mansion, you realise just how alone Hawke is. Unlike the Warden, who was always with his mates in camp, there's a feeling of isolation on Hawke that, even with his mansion populated by elves and dwarves and dogs, feels sadly alone. He doesn't have the pressure of stopping a monster that will destroy the world on his shoulder, no... but he does have a lot of pressure on him from various political machinations that could end the way of life for not only himself, but a lot of people in Kirkwall for whom he cares about.

In fact if anything, DA II is too tragic and depressing.

That's what I got out of it anyway. Once again: I loved Origins. Brought it twice for two different systems. So I'm not bashing Origins. I just also like DA II a lot.

And that's fine, I'm not out to change anyone's mind that enjoyed the game.  I see you and Persephone (for example) post quite regularly on these boards, and while I seldom agree with what either of you say about DAII, you do so in a civil manner that I appreciate and respect.  You're entitled to your opinions and I'm glad you were able to enjoy the game - it's always nice to feel as though you got what you paid for.

But when someone basically states that anyone that doesn't agree with his opinion, which is just as subjective as anyone else's, prefers "simplicity" (like it's an undisputed fact that DAII is some complex masterpiece of storytelling), I'm going to take offense.  That is, frankly, a load of condescending crap that reaks of unwarranted self-importance.  And from the perspective of someone that views the game as a massive step backwards in terms of interactivity (an opinion that is shared by many), it also comes across as delusional.

I am completely with you when it comes to comments like "People who like DAO & ME2 prefer simplicity. DAII is too complex for them to get." But similar things have been said about those who love DAII. And I take offense to that, as well as to being called delusional. I think it's possible for all of us to get along if we respect each other's opinions.

Is it wrong of me to feel a little hurt to see something I deeply care for attacked? (People feel similarly about DAO, no?) Maybe I'm taking it too personally. But it's one of the few games whose story actually got deeply under my skin. I hope that makes sense.

I wasn't necessarily inferring that anyone that disagrees with me is delusional, more that it's easy to make those kinds of blanket statements without anything but an opinion to back it up.  My apologies if that wasn't clear or if I offended.

And to be frank, yes, I think you may be taking it a little too personally if dissent truly bothers you.  It's a video game.  All that matters is that you enjoyed it.