251 réponses à ce sujet

[DKJaigen]

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.

And they should learn from that however a large group is indeed the rather annoying "moar dao "group that has been polluting the forums thus making it rather difficult to get some decent feedback.

[Ixalmaris]

DKJaigen wrote...

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.

And they should learn from that however a large group is indeed the rather annoying "moar dao "group that has been polluting the forums thus making it rather difficult to get some decent feedback.

"More DAO" is also a kind of feedback.

[AkiKishi]

DKJaigen wrote...

And they should learn from that however a large group is indeed the rather annoying "moar dao "group that has been polluting the forums thus making it rather difficult to get some decent feedback.

Deep inside the Bioware think tank.

"Do we emulate a game that had both sales and critical success or do we emulate a game that has become toxic"?

Tough choice that.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 25 avril 2011 - 08:56 .

[Tommy6860]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Sidney wrote...

SirGladiator wrote...

It sounds like, from the interview, that Ray not only fully understands the main criticisms, but agrees with them as well, at least to a degree. And that's perfectly understandable, as they took their most popular game ever, made radical changes to it, and the sales tanked.

...except they didn't make radical changes. They made small changes in the game and people have blown them up to be radical. I thought the ME2 criticisms were overblown but people have lost their minds on DA2. There are a lot of legit gripes about the game but so much has been made over meaningless or minor changes that it is silly.

Didn't make radical changes, they are only "minor?? Here's a small list of minor (erm MAJOR) changes:

• Excessively recycled enviroments
• No choice for a silent PC
• Removal of dialogue list to dialogue wheel using paraphrased lines
• Radically changed submenus and talent/skills sets changed into expanded tree view
• Removal of item descriptions
• Removal of ability to give companions different armors
• PC choices have nearly no impact on plots states
• Cannot play other races
• Removed realism from combat (e.g.  teleporting backstabs by rogues, enemies spawning in mid air, removing any semblance of tactics, etc)
• Cannot chat with companions at any time, only when their relative plots states happen
• Inability to call up map and fast travel at any time, though somewhat limited in Origins
• Majoirty of quests are not plot related, rather fedex type fetch quests.
• Cannot chooe which major plot line to follow, as it only has one

Need I go on? Comparing ME to ME2 is not even close since ME2 at least followed the theme of ME in style and gameplay.

The game wasn't a stunning success in total but it also wasn't the
spectacular failure some people seem to think and at the core of it is
still a lot more of of a pure RPG than anything else on the market.

DA2 is so radically different from Origins is just about every feature of a true RPG, that the game's genre should be listed as an action adventure game, rather than an RPG. It's hard to imagine what you consider a "pure RPG' when what you favor in DA2, is barely representative of even its most basic elements.

[*]I think one of the things I dislike most was the absence of different races. I expected that feature to be the norm for all DA games. If there's one thing I'd like BioWare to do is implement dwarves and elves so you could play from the start of DA 2 as one of them, but I doubt we'll ever see that.

Oh, I could have listed more, but that is also a huge change from Origins. I could forgive that if more of the customization of the real role-playing aspects were left in DA2, but they weren't. When you think about it, removing race choices really would have been a big cut-back in production costs, but apparently, that knife just didn't cut deep enough for Bioware.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 25 avril 2011 - 09:47 .

[TRfore]

Look OP, EA bought Bioware for $860 million. They want that money back fast, so they make a sequel that is cheap/rushed and hope the original DAO buyers buy that game for $60.
Mission accomplished on that part with 1/2 million pre-ordes.
Making a proper sequel would cost too much money and time so we get DA2.
Will EA actually honestly and publicly acknowledge and address DA2's major shortcomings?
I would say no from their interview answers. Looks like they are in damage control mode right now.
They still have a lot of the $860 million to recover.
EA made tons of money from DA2 thanks to DAO fans but will they make money on ME3 and DA3?
I say no, huge loss of confidence from DAO fans will kill pre-order sales for those titles. I really dont know how they will get the old DAO fans back.

[Tommy6860]

byzantine horse wrote...

TUHD wrote...

*sighs* Really, they throw it all at 'Disappointed fans largely are people who can't handle change and/or were badly informed'

I think anyone complaining about people not being able to take changes well are on the wrong track. There are good and there are bad changes, and even bad changes (from someone's perspective) can be made decent or even good if executed right. I think that most complaints regarding the changes is not due to the changes themselves, but rather the way the changes were made, how they were executed. Could for example the voiced protagonist and the dialogue wheel been great? Yes, Mass Effect 2 does a superb job for one. However in DA2 you often end up saying something you didn't intend in a tone you didn't intend. A "No thanks" is suddenly a "No way you ****** go to hell!" and sometimes the other way 'round. Sometimes the optons at hand don't fit the situation at all or very poorly.

When it comes to the second part of that statement - well, isn't it true? People bought the game expecting a second Origins. I didn't and enjoyed the game immensly (up until the boss fight in Act 3...) and I am firm in my belief that the game is good. Not great, but good. Others, who expected Origins, bought a game they didn't expect to get and in many cases didn't want. Considering all the information that went out about the game before release that is your own bloody fault imo. If you know that there is a pig in the sack yet still buy it expecting <cut>

When you went into assumption mode, that's when I stopped reading. I was not expecting Origins, but I was expecting an RPG that played at least along the same lines as Origins where I could shape the story, not have it told me to me whilst my choices in the game had no bearing on anything.. That is where just some of the disappointment comes into play. Also, what information are you talking about that was out there before it's release?? It wasn't advertised as an action/adventure game, though it clearly plays like one. It wasn't advertised as some stand alone game or depicted in ads as such. The game was advertised *clearly* as a sequel as well as the fact that it has "Dragon Age" in its namesake followed by a "II", when denoted, most would think of it following a similar predecessor.

If you bought a fine bottle of wine and got grape juice as it's content, would that be your expectation, or would you think "awesome"?

I think most know why they kept Dragon Age in its name, because Dragon Age:Origins was the most successful game by Bioware ever; It may very well be the last but I truly hope it isn't.

[Elhanan]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Didn't make radical changes, they are only "minor?? Here's a small list of minor (erm MAJOR) changes:

• Excessively recycled enviroments
  
  
• No choice for a silent PC
  
  
  
• Removal of dialogue list to dialogue wheel using paraphrased lines
  
  
  
• Radically changed submenus and talent/skills sets changed into expanded tree view
  
  
  
• Removal of item descriptions
  
  
  
• Removal of ability to give companions different armors
  
  
  
• PC choices have nearly no impact on plots states
  
  
  
• Cannot play other races
  
  
  
• Removed realism from combat (e.g.  teleporting backstabs by rogues, enemies spawning in mid air, removing any semblance of tactics, etc)
  
  
  
• Cannot chat with companions at any time, only when their relative plots states happen
  
  
  
• Inability to call up map and fast travel at any time, though somewhat limited in Origins
  
  
  
• Majoirty of quests are not plot related, rather fedex type fetch quests.
  
  
• Cannot chooe which major plot line to follow, as it only has one

Need I go on? Comparing ME to ME2 is not even close since ME2 at least followed the theme of ME in style and gameplay.

Taking these apart a bit, let us see what may be Major:


[*]Recycled environs - Conceded, though it is based on being in the same location for a decade. Major.


[*]Silent PC - While I miss the direct text, I enjoyed the VO for both male & female Hawke. My vote is Minor.


[*]Removal of direct text - Again, I miss it, as I enjoy seeing the other options as tempting choices. Major.


[*]PC actions have no direct impact - Men do not make history; History makes men. Choose for what is best said for the PC; not for the benefit gained thereafter. Minor.


[*]Miss my Dwarves a lot, but knew this was coming wayyy in advance. Minor.


[*]Realistic combat in a fantasy game? As compared to what was seen in DAO? Minor.


[*]Companion interaction - speak with Dog and the staff more frequently at home. Minor.


[*]Map travel - thought we were a fan of realism? In any event, getting to transition points was quick enough overall. Minor.


[*]Minor quests - Same as in DAO; you say tomatoe, I say Minor at best.


[*]Plot line - You could not choose how history would unfold, though you were able to determine in how well you lived in those choices. Minor
[*]
[*]Of course, all of these are my opinion; same value and weight as the examples I used.

Modifié par Elhanan, 25 avril 2011 - 10:47 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Elhanan wrote...


lots of text

Whether you liked them or did not like them is 100% irrelevant, they were all major changes regardless of how much you enjoyed them or lack of. Your confusing facts with feelings.

I like Tommy was not expecting a carbon copy of origins, what I was however expecting was a game of same quality of which I was vastly dissapointed by the reality of what they gave us.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 25 avril 2011 - 11:49 .

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Elhanan wrote...


lots of text

Whether you liked them or did not like them is 100% irrelevant, they were all major changes regardless of how much you enjoyed them or lack of. Your confusing facts with feelings.

I like Tommy was not expecting a carbon copy of origins, what I was however expecting was a game of same quality of which I was vastly dissapointed by the reality of what they gave us.

No offense DL, but pot and kettle here. A LOT of this is subjective, I found the quality of the game just as good as Origins, and much better than Awakenings. There are a few touches I'd change on the new art, and I'd like to see them implement the branching trees for non combat skills making the skills one gets more unique, but other than that I enjoyed the game and found it comperable to Mask of the Betrayer in personal feeling, without the mechanic that drove so many people mad.

[Elhanan]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Whether you liked them or did not like them is 100% irrelevant, they were all major changes regardless of how much you enjoyed them or lack of. Your confusing facts with feelings.

I like Tommy was not expecting a carbon copy of origins, what I was however expecting was a game of same quality of which I was vastly dissapointed by the reality of what they gave us.

I was equating subjective opinion with the same. These are only major changes in the mind's eye of those that hold them to be so. My opinion is not worth more than yours, but it sure is not worth less,

[neppakyo]

MoTB was a superior story/game to DA2. I wouldn't compare the two. I agree with DL and tommy.

[PSUHammer]

Roxlimn wrote...

It's interesting to me that most of the games you noted was from open world game philosophies. I personally find that game genre to be insufferable.

What would be so wrong with taking a concept that works well from an open world type game and implementing it in an WRPG that takes place in a single city?  I think if Kirkwall was to be the main setting, they could of least had people walking around in it.

What was the ratio of street thugs you kill there vs. the number of actual people walking around?  I bet you kill the entire visible population three times over!  In a game like Assassin's Creed, the cities feel alive and people respond to what you do!  Guards actually....guard!

In Kirkwall, the "scary" templars just yawn and stare as fireballs go whizzing by in the middle of broad daylight!  People don't deviate from their chores as thugs drop from the skies.  Guards don't join the fight as if they can't even see what's going on.  And...why don't the thugs attack other citizens???

I just think if Kirkwall was the main setting for the game, instead of a broader area on the map, they should have invested more in the ambience of the city.  If you were just passing through, a la Denerim, it wouldn't matter as much.

Modifié par Hammer6767, 26 avril 2011 - 01:21 .

[Ariella]

neppakyo wrote...

MoTB was a superior story/game to DA2. I wouldn't compare the two. I agree with DL and tommy.

Really, then you must have missed the screaming how unoriginal "super" gnolls were for an epic level game.

MotB got just as much yelling in its way (a lot having to do with the spirit meter, which was cool, but turned off a LOT of people) as DA2 has.  They're both good personal stories in my mind, and certainly extremely different in the mechanics department than their predecessors, but MotB did get a lot of flack for killing off certain characters in favor of the romances in the exansion, and I won't even go into the fight over the Wall.

[wobble55]

This thread reminds me of the Oblivion forum just after that game came out.  Most players who were new to TES games thought it was "awesome" while a majority of the TES old timers thought it "sucked", and their reasons were very similar to those on this forum who think DA2 is disappointing.

Todd Howard of Bethesda has said that the criticisms of the old timers have been fully taken into account in the development of Skyrim.  We'll see, but, if what he says comes to pass,  perhaps that will indicate that what hardcore RPG customers want really does matter to developers, and that we will see at least some classic RPG elements return to future games... even those from Bioware.

Here's hoping

[PSUHammer]

wobble55 wrote...

This thread reminds me of the Oblivion forum just after that game came out.  Most players who were new to TES games thought it was "awesome" while a majority of the TES old timers thought it "sucked", and their reasons were very similar to those on this forum who think DA2 is disappointing.

Todd Howard of Bethesda has said that the criticisms of the old timers have been fully taken into account in the development of Skyrim.  We'll see, but, if what he says comes to pass,  perhaps that will indicate that what hardcore RPG customers want really does matter to developers, and that we will see at least some classic RPG elements return to future games... even those from Bioware.

Here's hoping

Very true, although I found Oblivion to be the best of those games, so far.  I couldn't get into Morrowind.  Anyway, I get your point and hope they listen.  I would caution, though, that my OP isn't about pining for old style games.  I was sold on Laidlaw's vision of this new game.  I liked that there was no big baddie at the beginning and it was in a single city.  I also like the combat changes.  What I didn't like, is the quality of what they delivered.  It just felt like a game that had about half the production time that it should have had. 

I would like to look at DA2's flaws in their own light without comparing to DAO.  And, again, I did like DA2!!  It just could have been SO much better with a little more attention to certain details.

Modifié par Hammer6767, 26 avril 2011 - 01:14 .

[Ariella]

wobble55 wrote...

This thread reminds me of the Oblivion forum just after that game came out.  Most players who were new to TES games thought it was "awesome" while a majority of the TES old timers thought it "sucked", and their reasons were very similar to those on this forum who think DA2 is disappointing.

Todd Howard of Bethesda has said that the criticisms of the old timers have been fully taken into account in the development of Skyrim.  We'll see, but, if what he says comes to pass,  perhaps that will indicate that what hardcore RPG customers want really does matter to developers, and that we will see at least some classic RPG elements return to future games... even those from Bioware.

Here's hoping

Thing is, not all hard core RPG customers want the same thing. I loved DA2 and DAO, and I'm not a "newbie" to the genre in any sense of the word. I'd like to know what's considered classic since there seems to be a major divide on that.

[Zjarcal]

Ariella wrote...

Thing is, not all hard core RPG customers want the same thing. I loved DA2 and DAO, and I'm not a "newbie" to the genre in any sense of the word. I'd like to know what's considered classic since there seems to be a major divide on that.

Agreed.

The idea that only "newbies" to the genre can appreciate the newer RPGs is quite silly.

[Pandaman102]

Elhanan wrote...

PC actions have no direct impact - Men do not make history; History makes men. Choose for what is best said for the PC; not for the benefit gained thereafter. Minor.

• Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make.
• Determine your rise to power from a destitute refugee to the revered champion of the land.

I'd say it's a pretty major problem given it's part of the marketing. It's marketed as a game with a rise to power theme where things are shaped by Hawke's decisions, but delivers a city that isn't influenced by anything Hawke does and an escalator ride up to the title of "Champion" before an arbitrary choice lets you pick between "viscount" or "revolutionary leader".

Modifié par Pandaman102, 26 avril 2011 - 02:10 .

[Ariella]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

PC actions have no direct impact - Men do not make history; History makes men. Choose for what is best said for the PC; not for the benefit gained thereafter. Minor.

• Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make.
• Determine your rise to power from a destitute refugee to the revered champion of the land.

I'd say it's a pretty major problem given it's part of the marketing. It's marketed as a game with a rise to power theme where things are shaped by Hawke's decisions, but delivers a city that isn't influenced by anything Hawke does and an escalator ride up to the title of "Champion" before an arbitrary choice lets you pick between "viscount" or "revolutionary leader".

Actually, the marketing, if one followed the majority of it, shouldn't be surprised as Bioware took pains to point out that the player is filling in the real story behind the legend, which aren't always what they seem. Cou;ld more have been done to cement that... sure, but the basics of the game are true to what bioware said they'd be storywise.

[Elhanan]

Pandaman102 wrote...

• Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make.
  
• Determine your rise to power from a destitute refugee to the revered champion of the land.

I'd say it's a pretty major problem given it's part of the marketing. It's marketed as a game with a rise to power theme where things are shaped by Hawke's decisions, but delivers a city that isn't influenced by anything Hawke does and an escalator ride up to the title of "Champion" before an arbitrary choice lets you pick between "viscount" or "revolutionary leader".

Both of my conclusions are shaped around all my choices. Thing is, as in life, it tends to always be that way. And both of my PC's are called The Champion of Kirwall; where I spent that decade.

If you were expecting something else, sorry.

Modifié par Elhanan, 26 avril 2011 - 02:16 .

[Xaenn]

Personally I am always interested to see idea's and concepts to genres new and old, I've loved a lot of games for their innovations. Dragon Age 2 was not one of them for me. Ranging from the fact it was over simplified, consolized and it took too many attributes from Mass-Effect 2. which was a good game, but not for the genre it was incorporated to. Dragon Age: Origins was doing a very good job of modernizing the old genre, it wasn't perfect but on the right track. Dragon Age 2 switched genre nearly/completely (depending on your view.)

When a game did so well and was on the right track baffles me for the switch at all, it was insulting as a customer, I have no issues with trying new idea's but if they wanted to do that they should of just created a new franchise, then the game would be criticized for what it is not isn't. I'm sure if they created a new franchises and set certain outlines on game play and labeled it a new concept/action-rpg; it would of received much higher praise. Dragon Age: Origins was labeled as the successor to Baldur's Gate 2, which it was, besides being very linear and few other issues, you lead your fans on believing it's going to continue that trend.

Again, my point isn't that DA:2 is bad but it isn't what it should of been, switching everything mid franchise is never going to end well and really isn't fair to the fans. Not to mention with a new franchise you can pretty much do whatever you want to bring in new fans.

Never understood why companies are trying to over simplify games of this genre, or even RPG's in general, it's one of the biggest attractions, obviously not for all, but theorycrafting, customization by numbers can be very interesting and really not necessary for thoes who don't want to, why companies are trying so hard to get rid of it, makes me sad. Why itemization is so important allowing you to really customize and min/max all your characters to be best you can.  There was a site, I wish I could recall it, but a developer did a test by removing numeric values for health, mana ectra and put in words letting you know when you were getting low and about to die, people were furious and ultimately he said that it hurt sales a lot and peoples opinion on the game.  ~  This is more a open question if anyone cares to explain or debate.

Obviously this is just my opinion, heh.

Modifié par Xaenn, 26 avril 2011 - 02:26 .

[Tommy6860]

wobble55 wrote...

This thread reminds me of the Oblivion forum just after that game came out.  Most players who were new to TES games thought it was "awesome" while a majority of the TES old timers thought it "sucked", and their reasons were very similar to those on this forum who think DA2 is disappointing.

Todd Howard of Bethesda has said that the criticisms of the old timers have been fully taken into account in the development of Skyrim.  We'll see, but, if what he says comes to pass,  perhaps that will indicate that what hardcore RPG customers want really does matter to developers, and that we will see at least some classic RPG elements return to future games... even those from Bioware.

Here's hoping

If Howard even really said that, then I am truly surprised, considering his past dismissals of the concerns by those who didn't like the direction in which Bethesda took the RPG genre. I am hopeful for Skyrim and I will definitely get it. I liked Fallout 3, but it was nothing compared to 1&2. I liked Oblivion, but that game was developed by 2K Games, I thought it was weak on RPG elements like charatcer interaction, deep story telling and having companions, but it was rich in stats and character builds, something that is a must in RPGs.

[Dragoonlordz]

Elhanan wrote...

Both of my conclusions are shaped around all my choices. Thing is, as in life, it tends to always be that way. And both of my PC's are called The Champion of Kirwall; where I spent that decade.

If you were expecting something else, sorry.

It's cheap and nasty quite simply given three out of the ten years are playable and only in tiny amounts, the first year is skipped then after act 1 aka the get some money act, three years skipped. Then act 2 is probably the most rewarding but even so right after it a vast amount more years are skipped, Act 3 for example is almost gone through at light speed and nothing really changes much in Kirkwall during that time from a visual perspective.

If a game advertises itself as spans a century and you only play two year of it, you saying that too you would find exceptable from a marketing point of view? It is misleading and a nasty thing to do imho.

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Both of my conclusions are shaped around all my choices. Thing is, as in life, it tends to always be that way. And both of my PC's are called The Champion of Kirwall; where I spent that decade.

If you were expecting something else, sorry.

It's cheap and nasty quite simply given three out of the ten years are playable and only in tiny amounts, the first year is skipped then after act 1 aka the get some money act, three years skipped. Then act 2 is probably the most rewarding but even so right after it a vast amount more years are skipped, Act 3 for example is almost gone through at light speed and nothing really changes much in Kirkwall during that time from a visual perspective.

If a game advertises itself as spans a century and you only play two year of it, you saying that too you would find exceptable from a marketing point of view? It is misleading and a nasty thing to do imho.

How would you, economically speaking, present a decade in a game?

[Tommy6860]

Ariella wrote...

wobble55 wrote...

This thread reminds me of the Oblivion forum just after that game came out.  Most players who were new to TES games thought it was "awesome" while a majority of the TES old timers thought it "sucked", and their reasons were very similar to those on this forum who think DA2 is disappointing.

Todd Howard of Bethesda has said that the criticisms of the old timers have been fully taken into account in the development of Skyrim.  We'll see, but, if what he says comes to pass,  perhaps that will indicate that what hardcore RPG customers want really does matter to developers, and that we will see at least some classic RPG elements return to future games... even those from Bioware.

Here's hoping

Thing is, not all hard core RPG customers want the same thing. I loved DA2 and DAO, and I'm not a "newbie" to the genre in any sense of the word. I'd like to know what's considered classic since there seems to be a major divide on that.

Not a divide perse, but what the indusrty is defining as an RPG as to cater to the crowds of action game lovers. They may win some, but will lose many. The definition is getting more blurry as the genre takes on more adventure/action style gaming than does real role playing. IF you want to use "hard core" in the context that you are here, those HC folks would mostly frown even upon Origins. I am borderline and only can accept so much change before I call a spade a spade. Sure, I like action games, but they are not RPGs and DA2 is not an RPG, nor it is close to being on the same level of an RPG as was Origins.

Had they just advertised the game as an action/adventure type as a new entry and more-so, not used Dragon Age in the name, it may have worked. But to call the game what it is with a "II" , denotes a sequel that simply doesn't follow in style or RPG elements of its predecesor.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 26 avril 2011 - 02:35 .