251 réponses à ce sujet

[PSUHammer]

Roxlimn wrote...

Hammer6767:

I think a substantial amount of ire people have with DA2 are exactly because they wanted DA:O: Again, both conceptually and literally. In some cases, people feel like they have objective points, but in actuality, they just think that DA:O's way of doing thing is "right," and that DA2's way is "wrong." Essentially, it's another way of wanting DA:O : Again.

For instance:

Recycled environments, which are a result of either too short a design cycle, limited resources or laziness.

Firstly, high-performing for-profit companies with employees on the payroll are never lazy. I cannot imagine a high-profile Bioware office with employees slacking around for weeks on end doing nothing. Teenagers are lazy. Second-string failed companies may have employees that are lazy.

Secondly, recycled environments are in everything, and Bioware as a company has a rep for doing exactly this. DA:O itself has recycled environments. Heck, Mario recycles the exact same stages at least twice over for added Stars. Is Nintendo lazy? Is this a fundamental game flaw? No.

Spawning enemies...should have been implemented better than ninjas dropping from the sky. This has nothing to do with DAO.

There are many, many, many games where enemies just instantly spawn anywhere, whether or not it's consistent with the game's stated lore. There is a point to this. It's not automatically bad just because DA:O prefers to make enemies stand in place doing nothing. In fact, it better replicates the idea that when you initiate battle, enemies come streaming in from places you don't really know and at times you may not notice (yes, this actually happens in RL).

Well, in my OP, I commented that I WASN'T necessarily looking for a port of DAO with new story.  I liked some of the things they tried to do with combat, framed narrative, etc.  I liked that there wasn't a big bad evil in the land (cliche RPG antagonist).  I just think they implemented them poorly in some instances.

You can feel what you like, but I find the recycled areas a total distraction in this game.  I was NOT distracted like that in DAO.  I mean, you have the same people standing in the same spot saying the same thing wearing the same clothes from year one to year seven in DA2.  That is distracting, to me.  Especially if you are focusing on one city.  I wouldn't mind the same city maps (it wouldn't change that much), but they could have changed the inhabitants and "window dressing" from year to year.  Also, when the map to a cave in one are totally changes from Deep Roads to Darktown sewers (the Hawke basement outside of Ander's clinic), I have to call that lazy design or lack of resources.

All of the things mentioned have no reference, for me, to DAO.  I always look for improvement or advancement.  These areas, they failed.

[Pandaman102]

Roxlimn wrote...

Secondly, recycled environments are in everything, and Bioware as a company has a rep for doing exactly this. DA:O itself has recycled environments. Heck, Mario recycles the exact same stages at least twice over for added Stars. Is Nintendo lazy? Is this a fundamental game flaw? No.

Are you seriously trying to defend how frequently DA2 recycles maps? Yes, a lot of games recycle assets, but no other game recycles maps as frequently as DA2.

Except maybe Tetris.

[Roxlimn]

Pandman102:

DA:O does. It just doesn't recycle whole maps, but map fragments. Sometimes you can observe the same map fragment twice in the same map. The worst offender in DA2 is the one cave they use. They can't really just attach parts of it to other parts in LEGO fashion the way they did in DA:O. Wouldn't have worked. Too asymmetrical.

ME also reused a lot of maps as well as map assets and map sections - easily comparable to DA2.

Hammer6767:

You can feel what you like, but I find the recycled areas a total distraction in this game. I was NOT distracted like that in DAO. I mean, you have the same people standing in the same spot saying the same thing wearing the same clothes from year one to year seven in DA2. That is distracting, to me. Especially if you are focusing on one city. I wouldn't mind the same city maps (it wouldn't change that much), but they could have changed the inhabitants and "window dressing" from year to year. Also, when the map to a cave in one are totally changes from Deep Roads to Darktown sewers (the Hawke basement outside of Ander's clinic), I have to call that lazy design or lack of resources.

Recycled areas are in most games. It's more plausible that you simply were able to notice them in this game but not in other games. This is because DA2 maps are actually more distinctive and memorable than normal run-of-the-mill game maps. So you remember them more and it jars more when you see them again. It's not purely an issue of map reuse.

Also, I don't have much of a problem with cities and inhabitants not changing. I'm old now. I've actually been to places that haven't changed in 10 years, including the people who inhabit it. You're younger. You'll learn.

Things actually change in the map between years 1 and year 7, but the changes are somewhat subtle.

[Ariella]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

@Hammer

Reading these forums for the month after DA2's release, I'd say that Ray hits the nail on the head, there are a LOT of people who are disappointed that this wasn't DAO2, and to dismiss THAT would be foolish. Between that and the recycled maps, from my readings, are the two huge elephants in the room. Ray's not dismissing anybody, he'd just telling the truth.

Don't get me wrong, that group (the "we want MOAR DAO" group) has been very vocal, for sure.  But MOST of the constructive criticism that has been given by almost everyone (See the "Constructive Criticism" thread) have been issues not related to game design differences from DAO, but, specific issues with DA2. 

There are many of us moderate gamers who like both games for what they are, yet, still recognize some flaws with both.

Thing is, he was addressing the major polarizing factor specifically for that interview. He's not dismissing anyone, and the criticism in the CC thread is going to be taken seriously too. However, that's not something he could probably even go into if he wanted to as the Dev team's probably not finished collecting all the info yet, let alone gone through it, seeing, in detail, what worked, what didn't, what they can do better, what's just not feasible etc, and how to fit it all into the next game.

The only "suggestions" we're probably going to get near immediate feedback for is anything dropped in the tech section that can be patched.

[tmp7704]

Elhanan wrote...

Or we can choose to look here:

http://www.gamasutra..._March_2011.php

here:

http://www.gamasutra...s_Worldwide.php

or here:

http://www.gamasutra...re_In_March.php

Seems all sales are down (surprise; surprise), yet DA2 and EA seem to be doing well in the midst of it all. I ain't an economist or anything, and use gold cheats on PC, but would have to wonder at other reports that may have... I dunno.... Bias?

Looking closer at these reports...

the NPD report is sales from March, that means the month when DA2 launched. You can deduce from the content the sales by the end of the month were ~1 million units total (Homefront is reported to sell 1 mil units by the end of March, and DA2 is reported to come "right behind it" in 4th spot)

The world charts report from April has DA2 present in the UK sales, missing in the other reported markets.

The nordic toplist doesn't carry a date or period covered by the original press release. That makes it rather hard to draw any sensible conclusions.

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 avril 2011 - 01:54 .

[PSUHammer]

Roxlimn wrote...

Recycled areas are in most games. It's more plausible that you simply were able to notice them in this game but not in other games. This is because DA2 maps are actually more distinctive and memorable than normal run-of-the-mill game maps. So you remember them more and it jars more when you see them again. It's not purely an issue of map reuse.

Also, I don't have much of a problem with cities and inhabitants not changing. I'm old now. I've actually been to places that haven't changed in 10 years, including the people who inhabit it. You're younger. You'll learn.

Things actually change in the map between years 1 and year 7, but the changes are somewhat subtle.

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree then.  Just because other games recycle maps, doesn't mean that is the best form of game design.  Also, I wouldn't call DA2's maps any more memorable than any other game I have played.  They just don't hide the fact that they use the same rooms with different doors activated.  Other games just must hide it better.

I am pretty confident that the general consensus is that recycling of maps in this game is a glaring issue, even with people who enjoyed it (which I would consider myself).

[billy the squid]

Roxlimn wrote...

Hammer6767:

I think a substantial amount of ire people have with DA2 are exactly because they wanted DA:O: Again, both conceptually and literally. In some cases, people feel like they have objective points, but in actuality, they just think that DA:O's way of doing thing is "right," and that DA2's way is "wrong." Essentially, it's another way of wanting DA:O : Again.

For instance:

Recycled environments, which are a result of either too short a design cycle, limited resources or laziness.

Firstly, high-performing for-profit companies with employees on the payroll are never lazy. I cannot imagine a high-profile Bioware office with employees slacking around for weeks on end doing nothing. Teenagers are lazy. Second-string failed companies may have employees that are lazy.

Secondly, recycled environments are in everything, and Bioware as a company has a rep for doing exactly this. DA:O itself has recycled environments. Heck, Mario recycles the exact same stages at least twice over for added Stars. Is Nintendo lazy? Is this a fundamental game flaw? No.

Spawning enemies...should have been implemented better than ninjas dropping from the sky. This has nothing to do with DAO.

There are many, many, many games where enemies just instantly spawn anywhere, whether or not it's consistent with the game's stated lore. There is a point to this. It's not automatically bad just because DA:O prefers to make enemies stand in place doing nothing. In fact, it better replicates the idea that when you initiate battle, enemies come streaming in from places you don't really know and at times you may not notice (yes, this actually happens in RL).

I love how these wild assumptions are thrown around. "we wanted DA O conceptually and literally". Well no, this is deliberately obtuse attitude when Mr. Laidlaw has stated, DA2 super blight!, yes to go with the new button awesome. People are not hung up on the fact there is no blight, rather, that the story line is disjointed with Act 3 in particular feeling like its cobbled on for no particular reason, other than to set up the sequal.

Whilst the main story line has no relation whatsoever to the original, familial attatchments are forced, the plot line feels rialroaded and most of what you do is irrelevant, decapitated characters suddenly come back to life, lore is disregarded at will. even ME 2 realised if I left someone next to a nuclear weapon, which exploded, they don't come back to life.

Right and Wrong, hardly, the issue is, which do people feel is better, and I 'll let sales trends and slumping prices 1 month in illustrate that, this is the objective criteria, from that it is possible to draw that DAO may have been the better way of doing things as DA 2 has not had the same impact as its predecessor.

Objectivity is going to be based on certain criteria, set out by the previous title, particularly as DA2 marketed itself as the sequal therefore comparing both games is objective, but the following interpretations are obviously subjective due to personal bias. Yet judging the DA 2 on its own merits is inherently subjective and deeply flawed "DA2 is good" as opposed to what? the cheese sandwhich I'm currently eating? lack of comparative analysis renders valuation of DA2 void unless it is done with a similar product , hence comparisons with DAO.

1) Wow, you are defending the blatant reuse of enviroments, by claiming because mario and others did it, its okay? And therefore criticism can be regarded as subjective and subsequently discarded as a legitimate gripe.

Taken to the logical extreme this reasoning is the equivalent of stating "people in the world are starving therefore everyone else should too..." It is a bizzare nonsensicle arguement. The issue is not, other games will use a similar design for some levels, the issue with DA 2 is that it is so flagrant, that it beggers belief that they believed people would not take issue with it, particularly when this was the same criticism that was leveled at ME1 Its sloppy and I as much as I would like to run through dungeons with my eyes closed so I don't have to repeatedly notice this glaring flaw I can't, so it irritates me.

A more accurate question would be, how many times has an enviroment been used/ what fundamental changes have been implemented to vary said enviroments. In DA2' s case not many and not a lot.

2) Enemies drop from the skies, this paragraph is riddled with logical falacies, please try to explain how opponents dropping from the celling or teleporting behind me when my back is against a wall similar to real life?
And no, it is not bad because of DA O, it is bad because it is utterly stupid, all games with enemies which possess som sort of wave or reinforcement will spawn somewhere, but the better ones don't do it infront of your face.

Most of what you have said, simply smacks of some vain attempt to dismiss any criticism of Da2 by claiming it is subjective and therefore can be disregarded whilst defending the obvious failings of the game by suspending logic and some level of reality and stating its not a problem/ its okay other people do it to, its reflective of what happens in real life, when it quite obviously isn't.

Modifié par billy the squid, 25 avril 2011 - 02:39 .

[DTKT]

Every single game will reuse art. If a game is well made, that recycling is not obvious and will not harm or impact your gameplay.

Bioware decided to cut corners in that matter. There is literally no way to defend what they did.

[Ariella]

billy the squid wrote...



I love how these wild assumptions are thrown around. "we wanted DA O conceptually and literally". Well no, this is the same kind of deliberately obtuse attitude that Mr. Laidlaw has stated, DA2 super blight!, yes to go with the new button awesome. People are not hung up on the fact there is no blight, rather, that the story line is disjointed with Act 3 in particular feeling like its cobbled on for no particular reason, other than to set up the sequal.

Out of context much? Mike Laidlaw has stated very specifically he used to joke around the office that the only way to top the story of Origins in "save the world sense" would be to staple two archdemons together .Thus super blight. Which is why they went with a different type of story telling technique this time around.

Second, the so called awsome button is reference to the reactivity of the game when playing it rather than the supposed magic button some have tried to make it out to be.

Finally, I have yet to see anyone say they wanted a recycled story from DAO, but the vast majority of what I have read seems to say that a certain segment of people were expecting a very similiar 60 hour gaming experince to DAO, rather than what Bioware had been talking about for months prior to release.

[PSUHammer]

Ariella wrote...

Thing is, he was addressing the major polarizing factor specifically for that interview. He's not dismissing anyone, and the criticism in the CC thread is going to be taken seriously too. However, that's not something he could probably even go into if he wanted to as the Dev team's probably not finished collecting all the info yet, let alone gone through it, seeing, in detail, what worked, what didn't, what they can do better, what's just not feasible etc, and how to fit it all into the next game.

The only "suggestions" we're probably going to get near immediate feedback for is anything dropped in the tech section that can be patched.

Please see the third post of this thread.

[PSUHammer]

Ariella wrote...

billy the squid wrote...



I love how these wild assumptions are thrown around. "we wanted DA O conceptually and literally". Well no, this is the same kind of deliberately obtuse attitude that Mr. Laidlaw has stated, DA2 super blight!, yes to go with the new button awesome. People are not hung up on the fact there is no blight, rather, that the story line is disjointed with Act 3 in particular feeling like its cobbled on for no particular reason, other than to set up the sequal.

Out of context much? Mike Laidlaw has stated very specifically he used to joke around the office that the only way to top the story of Origins in "save the world sense" would be to staple two archdemons together .Thus super blight. Which is why they went with a different type of story telling technique this time around.

Second, the so called awsome button is reference to the reactivity of the game when playing it rather than the supposed magic button some have tried to make it out to be.

Finally, I have yet to see anyone say they wanted a recycled story from DAO, but the vast majority of what I have read seems to say that a certain segment of people were expecting a very similiar 60 hour gaming experince to DAO, rather than what Bioware had been talking about for months prior to release.

I agree with you here.  I agreed with Laidlaw in that it would be hard to top the "save the world" story of DAO.  The framed narrative story of Hawke was a great idea and I like it.  I also like the new combat, although it does need balancing and the removal of the wave system they implemented.

My issues are around some of the actual design decisions with DA2 along with the numerous bugs on release, which I suspect are a result of the shortened development time for the game.

Modifié par Hammer6767, 25 avril 2011 - 02:27 .

[Pandaman102]

Roxlimn wrote...

DA:O does. It just doesn't recycle whole maps, but map fragments. Sometimes you can observe the same map fragment twice in the same map. The worst offender in DA2 is the one cave they use. They can't really just attach parts of it to other parts in LEGO fashion the way they did in DA:O. Wouldn't have worked. Too asymmetrical.

Wouldn't you agree the reason parts can't be attached to each other was because they didn't have enough tiles? Or that the solution is to create more tiles that would allow for the "LEGO fashion" of assembling dungeons rather than repeat ME1's mistake and recycling a handful of maps to death?

Roxlimn wrote...

ME also reused a lot of maps as well as map assets and map sections - easily comparable to DA2.

And it was so unpopular that they didn't do it again in ME2. It was an unpopular decision that couldn't be justified back then, it remains an unpopular decision that can't be justified in DA2. The difference is the ME1 dev team couldn't expect the reaction of the fanbase to heavily recycling maps, the DA2 dev team chose to ignore lessons learned.

[MingWolf]

Hammer6767 wrote...
I am actually kind of tired of the sentiment I italicized, above.  I have a lot of respect for the good Doctors but I wish Bioware would not dismiss legitimate concerns with the game as "nostalgia."  I have heard others mention this in interviews, as well.

Leaving my opinion on the table without reading through the pages of replies. 

I get kind of tired about this (above quoted) too, which in a way makes me question whether or not they actually see these concerns and whether these concerns will be ignored in future games.  The whole "they don't like it because it's not DA:O 2" thing is a bit of a misnomish stereotype that almost feels like a hard left-jab on the intelligence of someone who is legitimately bringing up a problem.  

[Mad-Max90]

The only dev team bioware has that I will trust from now on will be the Mass Effect team, I have not had any problems with them, they might have had repeated environments in the first one, but it created soo many hears ago, and it's the only game with that "look" and the fact that they were truly being innovative when it comes to their series, the whole "choices matter" was not scrapped for their sequel. I love how Fable 3 has more reactions to your actions than DA2, I really have no sympathy for this team, I payed money for this just as everybody else did on this forum, so I think letting them know that as a consumer, I won't buy crap made by this team again, is also valid.

I think after Casey's done with Mass Effect he should revive the DA franchise

[Elhanan]

If we had travelled from Kirkwall to Val Royeaux, and they had the same basement maps, then I might be less forgiving. But in Kirwall, we were in the same place; same basements; same caves, etc. So seeing the same places with minor chamges made some sense, and gave the Player knowledge to be utilized for tactics.At least it did for me.

[Mad-Max90]

Sorry I'm on iPhone years, not hears

[billy the squid]

 

Modifié par billy the squid, 25 avril 2011 - 02:40 .

[Mad-Max90]

What minor changes are you talking about, a new entrance that you start at, that's not changing the environment at all, that is simply teleporting you to the middle/end of the map and having you go the opposite direction, the map is the same, same stairs, same dead guy in the corner...the list goes on

[Pandaman102]

Elhanan wrote...

If we had travelled from Kirkwall to Val Royeaux, and they had the same basement maps, then I might be less forgiving. But in Kirwall, we were in the same place; same basements; same caves, etc. So seeing the same places with minor chamges made some sense, and gave the Player knowledge to be utilized for tactics.At least it did for me.

You're applying modern-day expectations to a medieval setting. Cookie-cutter houses may be the norm today, but mass-produced housing with shared floorplans wouldn't have existed in a city like Kirkwall - and if it did, that would have been reflected in the exterior architecture as well, not just interior (more rows of townhouses than scattered mansions).

It doesn't really make any sense or is consistent with what we see.

[Elhanan]

Mad-Max90 wrote...

What minor changes are you talking about, a new entrance that you start at, that's not changing the environment at all, that is simply teleporting you to the middle/end of the map and having you go the opposite direction, the map is the same, same stairs, same dead guy in the corner...the list goes on

Some entrances collapsed, sometimes the first room was quest related; other times it was last. Some locations would have deeper meaning for the Champion and the Hawkes, some locations were not nearly as important. Personally, I tried not to take NPC mages to the Circle as a rule; not required, but this became part of my own gameplay. Some locations had new rooms open due to time and events; others I knew had good locations for ranged attacks, Etc.

Guess I did not need someone to clean every year. You should have seen my apt last month for confirmation.....

[billy the squid]

Ariella wrote...

billy the squid wrote...



I love how these wild assumptions are thrown around. "we wanted DA O conceptually and literally". Well no, this is the same kind of deliberately obtuse attitude that Mr. Laidlaw has stated, DA2 super blight!, yes to go with the new button awesome. People are not hung up on the fact there is no blight, rather, that the story line is disjointed with Act 3 in particular feeling like its cobbled on for no particular reason, other than to set up the sequal.

Out of context much? Mike Laidlaw has stated very specifically he used to joke around the office that the only way to top the story of Origins in "save the world sense" would be to staple two archdemons together .Thus super blight. Which is why they went with a different type of story telling technique this time around.

Second, the so called awsome button is reference to the reactivity of the game when playing it rather than the supposed magic button some have tried to make it out to be.

Finally, I have yet to see anyone say they wanted a recycled story from DAO, but the vast majority of what I have read seems to say that a certain segment of people were expecting a very similiar 60 hour gaming experince to DAO, rather than what Bioware had been talking about for months prior to release.

Hence, the refrence to the person I was refering to, when they replied that critics wanted "DO O conceptually and literally" that even Mr. Laidlaw has stated that DAO rehashed with super blight would have been panned by fans of DAO, apologies typos an lack of coherecy on my part are to balme.
 
Regarding the issues of story it is not the shift in technique or focus it is the implementation which is poorly done.

And the awsome button has become something of a running joke after interviews stating " press a button something awsome has to happen, button awesome"
I don't think anyone has claimed it to be a magic button. In fact I think to some the entire direction the game took in response to shuffling in DAO lead to the current predicament of overfrantic combat due to the design direciton because of the desire to provide movements which were brash and flashy rather than reactive in any useful way. Hence the refrence to button awesome when my warrior dashes 15 ft when I press A, this is flashy rather tahn any genuine attempt to fix the pathing issues.

Regarding the recycled storyline from origins again a response to the poster who said that people wanted "DAO fundamentally and conceptually" no one wanted recycled storyline, whilst despite what Bioware said were we actually supposed to have anticipated the extent of the limitations placed upon where the story would occur.

Namely the same repeated allys in kirkwall and dungeons, and the tiny strips of land on the coast and hills surrounding the city, without any significant information other than it takes place in Kirkwall?

[Gibb_Shepard]

I really didn't mind that it was that different from origins. It just didn't have that many good qualities about it. The family aspect was a fail, the dialogue was (a fairly numerous amount of times) extremely jarring, and the time skips completely took me out of the game. Not to mention the hardcore railroading. Then of course the story, which failed to bring me in at all.

I actually like the fact that DA is now more action centric, but DA2 is just not a wuality game..

[tmp7704]

Ariella wrote...

Out of context much? Mike Laidlaw has stated very specifically he used to joke around the office that the only way to top the story of Origins in "save the world sense" would be to staple two archdemons together .Thus super blight. Which is why they went with a different type of story telling technique this time around.

That comment is interesting when you consider in the end what they ultimately create in DA2 is a war potentially spanning entire Thedas, and whole continent plunged into chaos with the Chantry falling apart, the mage uprising and general free-for-all. Which is quite on the level of the Blights and yet there's no stapled archdemons to speak of.

In other words, DA2 could've easily started at the point where it actually ends (with the events simply explained in beginning cutscenes) and it had full potential to be "save the world" story as large and "epic" as DAO was without reusing the Darkspawn threat. So much for "the only way".

[lazuli]

tmp7704 wrote...
In other words, DA2 could've easily started at the point where it actually ends (with the events simply explained in beginning cutscenes) and it had full potential to be "save the world" story as large and "epic" as DAO was without reusing the Darkspawn threat. So much for "the only way".

And then piecing together the events that led to the world being in such a state could have been relegated to a few quests in the early part of the game, as opposed to being stretched to fill ~30 hours.

[Roxlimn]

Pandaman102:

Wouldn't you agree the reason parts can't be attached to each other was because they didn't have enough tiles? Or that the solution is to create more tiles that would allow for the "LEGO fashion" of assembling dungeons rather than repeat ME1's mistake and recycling a handful of maps to death?

Frankly, I think the solution is that Bioware should make all their maps blander or more generic so that people don't notice the map reuse as much. I've noticed this from Bioware since, well, forever, but apparently most people didn't. Since blander maps appear to have been better, it stands to reason that people want blander, more generic maps.

And it was so unpopular that they didn't do it again in ME2. It was an unpopular decision that couldn't be justified back then, it remains an unpopular decision that can't be justified in DA2. The difference is the ME1 dev team couldn't expect the reaction of the fanbase to heavily recycling maps, the DA2 dev team chose to ignore lessons learned.

I think it's largely because of the short development time and the ambitious scope. ME2's a smaller game than ME1, even. It's really short. If DA2 had "followed" that lesson, it'd be 20 hours long or less. You think you wouldn't be shouting bloody murder if that happened? I doubt it.