132 réponses à ce sujet

[Blastback]

This definatly factors in to some of my fustrations with DA2. It was not what I ultimatly hoped to see in a sequel to Origins. And that disapointment does factor in to my judgment of the game's ultimate value.

[JaegerBane]

steelfire_dragon wrote...

it is not the seuqal do oDa:origins, for da2 to have been a sequal to origins it would of been called da:o2.

Oh please. Do you honestly think this kind of pedantry is going to work in the real world? The simple fact they didn't have 'origins' in the title should have made people aware it wasn't a sequel... even is Bioware themselves refer to it as such? Come on.....

[Elite Midget]

If they didn't want it to be compared to Origins than they shouldn't have named it Dragon Age 2.

[Tommy6860]

JaegerBane wrote...

steelfire_dragon wrote...

it is not the seuqal do oDa:origins, for da2 to have been a sequal to origins it would of been called da:o2.

Oh please. Do you honestly think this kind of pedantry is going to work in the real world? The simple fact they didn't have 'origins' in the title should have made people aware it wasn't a sequel... even is Bioware themselves refer to it as such? Come on.....

"Pedantry"? Seriously it is called "Dragon Age II, meaning it is following a previous release. It was also advertised as a sequel, so anyone very familiar with Origins is most certainly going to be let down for expectations. I understand that it isn't supposed to be Origins and continue the same storyline, since that was finished, but I had the complete impression that the style and gameplay would follow suit somewhat. Man, was I wrong and was most certainly mislead by the game having Dragon Age in its namesake..

[Shazzie]

The '2' on the end was a big problem for me, but not the sole problem.

Seeing 'DA2' causes some assumptions to be made. For me, it was that DA2 would be descended from DA:O, that it would be the next evolution of the DA franchise, that it would build from the base that DA:O built, but with advancements and fine-tuning. I was NOT expecting 'DA:O part 2', but I was expecting some sort of 'child of DA:O'. You know, the typical thing you hear from game companies, about taking their ideas and player feedback into consideration to fix up and shine and improve Game X and remove the wankiest bits and then add multiple layers of awesome to it for Game X2.

I was not expecting DA:O and all the things it did right to be thrown out, abandoned, and ignored. It was... kind of like a betrayal, as excessive as that might sound. It's still the closest to what it felt like. I was expecting an RPG, and I'm still not exactly sure *what* I got. Way too much action, way too little story, and no story that the player could actually influence. Yes, there's an RPG in there, somewhere, but it's kind of beaten and abused and left whimpering in the corner, one eye blackened, three ribs broken, a tooth missing, and its wallet gone.

So, yes, I have a problem with the '2'. Even if DA2 would have been an awesome game, I might have said it still wasn't '2', because it had so little to do with '1'.

But DA2 was not an awesome game. Not to me, at least. It's got some little sparks of awesome, but they're weighed down and covered up by so much non-awesome it's a shame.

If it would have had a different title, and would have been advertised as being more of a non-RPG genre...."The Champion of Kirkwall" (A Dragon Age Action Adventure)... well, at least then I wouldn't have been able to complain about my expectations being shattered. I would have known it wasn't what I was looking for, I don't tend to enjoy Action Adventures, but at least I could have taken it on its own merits and I would have known what to expect.

Modifié par Shazzie, 24 avril 2011 - 11:48 .

[Tommy6860]

Shazzie wrote...
 
I was expecting an RPG, and I'm still not exactly sure *what* I got. Way too much action, way too little story, and no story that the player could actually influence. Yes, there's an RPG in there, somewhere, but it's kind of beaten and abused and left whimpering in the corner, one eye blackened, three ribs broken, a tooth missing, and its wallet gone.

<Wipes off monitor> That was too funny, and such a great metaphor in a forum rife with them. Maybe someone could make a cartoon of "RPG" caricature getting the crap beat of it by "Awesome" caricature.

[Gotholhorakh]

Tommy6860 wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

steelfire_dragon wrote...

it is not the seuqal do oDa:origins, for da2 to have been a sequal to origins it would of been called da:o2.

Oh please. Do you honestly think this kind of pedantry is going to work in the real world? The simple fact they didn't have 'origins' in the title should have made people aware it wasn't a sequel... even is Bioware themselves refer to it as such? Come on.....

"Pedantry"? Seriously it is called "Dragon Age II, meaning it is following a previous release. It was also advertised as a sequel, so anyone very familiar with Origins is most certainly going to be let down for expectations. I understand that it isn't supposed to be Origins and continue the same storyline, since that was finished, but I had the complete impression that the style and gameplay would follow suit somewhat. Man, was I wrong and was most certainly mislead by the game having Dragon Age in its namesake..

Heh, you're actually agreeing with the person you responded to...

[JabbaDaHutt30]

LOL people, LAIDLAW advertised da 2 time and time again as a game that will keep the core values of origins intact.

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 24 avril 2011 - 01:03 .

[Gotholhorakh]

I think it was probably a mistake to take such a radically different path and then rest the whole franchise on it by making it the core product.

I think that if it were called Dragon Age: Something Or Other, people would have seen it as an experiment and probably enjoyed it more.

Naming it as the core product 2 was probably silly since they were told during development that this was a radical departure from the approach of DA:O that lots of people might not like.

It was a radical departure, lots of people didn't like it. Where is the surprise? Where is the legitimate criticism that can be levelled at the customers who received it as must have been predicted?

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 24 avril 2011 - 01:12 .

[noneofyourbussines77]

I thought constently as I played DA2 that Origins was better. It just couldn't escape that shadow. But on the other hand I probably wouldn't have bought it if it was a spinoff with a annoyingly linear story.

[Cybermortis]

 

Experience the epic sequel to the 2009 Game of the Year from the critically acclaimed makers of Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2.

Direct quote lifted from http://dragonage.bioware.com/da2/home/

Note that the only Bioware title to win any game of the year awards in 2009 was Dragon Age Origins - Mass Effect 2 got several game of the year awards in 2010.

So even Bioware are calling DA2 a sequel, if not very loudly.


The blurb on the game says;

Embark on an all-new adventure in the Dragon Age saga

saga (plural sagas)An Old Norse (Icelandic) prose narrative, especially one dealing with family or social histories and legendsSomething with the qualities of such a saga; an epic, a long story.( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/saga )

The second meaning would imply that DA2 is meant to be a direct follow on from DAO, rather than an independent stand alone game. (And if it was an entirely stand alone game why bother allowing players to import saves from DAO?)

Of course the first meaning would be approprate for the (probable) intentions behind DA2's story-line.


It is therefore reasonable to compare DA2 with DAO, even if you leave out the core mechanics being the same for both games as well.

Looking at the comments about problems in the game it is clear that people are having the exact same issues with the game, regardless of if they have or played DAO at any point. If or when they compare elements to those in DAO it is to note what did or didn't work well - usually the latter. But people have ALSO used The Witcher and Mass Effect 1&2 to compare elements of DA2 to.

While there are those who seem to dislike or hate DA2 simply because it is different to DAO. The problems overall are with the basic stand alone game feeling rushed and poorly implemented, not specifically because it is or isn't a sequel to DAO. In fact the sales figures we have would imply that if it wasn't for the reputation of DAO helping the pre-orders and inital sales, DA2 would have vanished into the dustbin of gaming history in the first month.

[tmp7704]

JaegerBane wrote...

Oh please. Do you honestly think this kind of pedantry is going to work in the real world? The simple fact they didn't have 'origins' in the title should have made people aware it wasn't a sequel... even is Bioware themselves refer to it as such? Come on.....

The Empire Strikes Back doesn't have A New Hope in the title, either. Clearly not a sequel.

[Gotholhorakh]

Cybermortis wrote...

The problems overall are with the basic stand alone game feeling rushed and poorly implemented, not specifically because it is or isn't a sequel to DAO.

Yeah, I can probably agree with this, however:..

 In fact the sales figures we have would imply that if it wasn't for the reputation of DAO helping the pre-orders and inital sales, DA2 would have vanished into the dustbin of gaming history in the first month.

What this causes is that lots of people have bought it, only because it's the sequel, so their beef with the game's problems will be in the context of only having bought it because of DA:O.

If you name your experiment after Great Game that came before it, you get sales benefits, you shift lots of units on the strength of Great Game's reputation.

If it isn't a game worthy of the Great Game franchise, you then come under the icy glare of lots of people who paid you for Great Game 2. It's a simple trade-off.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 24 avril 2011 - 03:08 .

[JaegerBane]

Tommy6860 wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

steelfire_dragon wrote...

it is not the seuqal do oDa:origins, for da2 to have been a sequal to origins it would of been called da:o2.

Oh please. Do you honestly think this kind of pedantry is going to work in the real world? The simple fact they didn't have 'origins' in the title should have made people aware it wasn't a sequel... even is Bioware themselves refer to it as such? Come on.....

"Pedantry"? Seriously it is called "Dragon Age II, meaning it is following a previous release. It was also advertised as a sequel, so anyone very familiar with Origins is most certainly going to be let down for expectations. I understand that it isn't supposed to be Origins and continue the same storyline, since that was finished, but I had the complete impression that the style and gameplay would follow suit somewhat. Man, was I wrong and was most certainly mislead by the game having Dragon Age in its namesake..

Hmmm, looks like sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internetz.

As Gothol pointed out, you seem to be agreeing with me, but using language that makes it sound like you're disagreeing. So I'll provide a non-sarcastic translation of my original post:

"The idea that the lack of 'origins' in the title somehow implies the game is no sequel is little more than meaningless pedantry, and the poster should have known as such, particularly when Bioware themselves refer to it as a sequel"

Fixed

[JaegerBane]

Fiddles_stix wrote...

It's part of the issue Origins was so good it was always going to be hard to follow. But that doesn't mitigate the other problems the game has which don't really need to mentioned for the trillionth time.

I don't really have any sympathy for Bioware on this. They did it with the Mass Effect franchise. Why couldn't they manage it with the DA franchise?

Maybe it was something to do with 'awesome buttons'

[Kekkis]

My problem is that it was DA2. Kirkwall: A Hawke story would have been better. And if it would clearly say that it is all about fighting awesome hyperactive ninjas in same maps all the time, I could have been happily ignoring whole game. But that evil 2 in it made me buy it. I knew that it´s not Origins 2 becouse you can only play as human. But it still was named as DA2.

[PantokratorII]

I think that it is a fundamental law incorperated into the very fabric of the universe that sequels nearly always disapoint. As the only exceptions I can think of are: "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Aliens" there might be a loophole for Sci-Fi ?

[Curlain]

PantokratorII wrote...

I think that it is a fundamental law incorperated into the very fabric of the universe that sequels nearly always disapoint. As the only exceptions I can think of are: "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Aliens" there might be a loophole for Sci-Fi ?

Godfather II says hello 

[Sabriana]

Well, there are also examples where the sequel actually redeemed the original. The following are, of course, personal opinions, but:

NWN 2 = bleh
MotB = wow

NWN 1 = bleh
HotU = wow

BG = Well, it was okay (puts helmet on)
BG 2 = wow

FO 1 = mmmhh.., it was okay
FO 2 = wow

I can think of a few more, but it would take up too much space. Besides it's now after 1 am, and I need to go to sleep.

[young fox]

DA2 being a stand-alone game instead of being the second in a series wouldn't change my opinion on it: it's still bad. It would probably have made the disappointment sting less though.

[randName]

PantokratorII wrote...

I think that it is a fundamental law incorperated into the very fabric of the universe that sequels nearly always disapoint. As the only exceptions I can think of are: "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Aliens" there might be a loophole for Sci-Fi ?

Many don't, not even from BioWare.

Just take the two sequels they did prior to DA2.
BG2
ME2

EDIT: you could add a ton more to the list if you look outside BioWare.

Some other favorites, old and new.
Battlefield 2.
Fallout 2
Jagged Alliance 2
Dune 2
Half-Life 2
Portal 2
Super Mario Galaxy 2
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
Civilization II
Diablo 2
Team Fortress 2
Freespace 2
System Shock 2
Thief II: The Metal Age
Silent Hill 2

& there is more.

And when ever I look at the list I go "Oh I forgot that game!", this time around it was Super Street Fighter 2.

(Xpost from a similar discussion).

Modifié par randName, 24 avril 2011 - 11:30 .

[Roxlimn]

JaegerBane:

There are more than 3 dungeon patterns that DA2 uses.

The storyline isn't invariable. It's just invariable in the manners that you wanted it to be variable. Most games have invariable end combat sequences.

[Pandaman102]

While I used to be of the opinion that DA2 would have fared better if it was advertised as a spinoff rather than a sequel, I've since changed my mind about that: DA2 doesn't just bear the expectations of DA:O, it bears the expectations of Bioware's reputation.

I'll just repeat what I said (with a few fixes) in another thread regarding the story as an example of how I didn't need to comare DA2 to Origins to find it lacking:

Yes, it is different. There's nothing bad with different. The problem was that it was poorly executed.

Consider this: you are Hawke. Ferelden refugeee, child of a disgraced noble family (uncle's a crook and mother caused a social faux pas by snubbing another noble family and eloping with a commoner who happened to be a mage in a city that fears/hates mages), and openly consorts with apostates (or are one yourself if you play a mage). How, exactly, will you rise from the slums, burdened by the social stigma of your background, and become an accepted member of nobility?

The game sets up this big, fat, juicy stage with Hawke - the poor, new kid - in Kirkwall - the prosperious city full of turmoil (and with turmoil, opportunity) - and you already know what you'll become, the question is how. At this point an ambitious developer would have created a branching story and given you multiple options: do you become the Steve Jobs of Kirkwall, identifying all the right business opportunities and building yourself a merchant empire to buy yourself into nobility and using your wealth and influence to stop the <spoiler event> from happening, thus earning your title as Champion, and then using your newfound position to end the conflict between the <spoiler faction> and <spoiler faction>?

Or do you become Al Capone by seeking out the Carta as an easy way to secure safety for Bethany/yourself, then taking it over from within and installing yourself as the boss of all criminal syndicates in Kirkwall (and annoying Aveline with feigning ignorance, imagine that rival relationship), and using your army of thieves, fences, and assassins to end the <spoiler event> and help rebuild Kirkwall... to your liking?

Or do you just go the straightforward route and actually make a name for yourself, working hard to earn the respect (and ire) of key noble houses, who in turn support your family's return to nobility (of varying degrees of influence, depending on how you played your cards) and solve the <spoiler event> with your strength of arm or glibness of tongue to earn your title of Champion that way? Then follow that up by rallying the noble houses to save Kirkwall when <spoiler faction> goes to war with <spoiler faction>?

Those are just three possibilities of quest lines, but there are as many possibilities as the quest writers could feasibly churn out, and all of them could be worked to include the three key events so, regardless of what route you picked, everyone's savegame would still have "<spoiler> found, <spoiler event> occurred, <spoilder faction> and <spooiler faction> conflict occurred".

Instead we get "go down a hole for a couple months, come back with a bucket of gold, suddenly become a noble, putz around, <spoiler event> occurs, suddenly become Champion, putz around some more, SUDDENLYANDERS, arbitrarily pick a side to support (doesn't matter what you've done up until this point, you can still pick either side with nobody acting surprised by a potential 180), kill the same two end bosses in the same order, roll end credits". For a story about rising to power there's no sense of accomplishment in this game. Hawke is like the hobo who won a multi-million dollar lottery, but still has to pan handle and dumpster dive for pocket money because his entire fortune is tied up in maintaining the mansion.

The story itself wasn't bad, it just had a lot of potential and was in the hands of a developer known to deliver a lot... but turned out to be a pretty mediocre game that could have been developed by anyone else and sold at premium EA pricing.

And don't say it's not possible, Obsidian managed to pull off a branching story with multiple plot endings in 18~20 (announced April '09, released October '10) months using an engine and toolset they didn't make for New Vegas - and, in my opinion, Obsidian is the lesser of the two developers. Bioware should have been able to do better given all their advantages.