251 réponses à ce sujet

[Pandaman102]

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.

Why should you be sorry? You weren't in charge of marketing. Fact is DA2 promised something and didn't deliver on it, it's nothing that hasn't been done before in the industry... it's just surprising to see Molyneux working for Bioware.

That aside, how do you figure your conclusions were shaped around your choices? Did your two Champions become legends in any other way beside the fixed "Bribed in -> Deep Roads -> Invasion -> civil war" path?

[Elhanan]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

heh! Amazing! From a noid named Para....

Highlander (both the original film and series) covers centuries in a span of a hours, and does it well. Many fans agree.

DA2 covers a decade over even more hours, and again; many fans agree.

In both cases, some do not agree. But in neither case do I find the handling misleading and nasty; just some of the detractors.

[Tommy6860]

Ariella wrote...

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?

Immersion and imagination, that's something that DA2 does not foster by using cinematics and a framed narrative in storytelling.

[Ariella]

Pandaman102 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.

Why should you be sorry? You weren't in charge of marketing. Fact is DA2 promised something and didn't deliver on it, it's nothing that hasn't been done before in the industry... it's just surprising to see Molyneux working for Bioware.

That aside, how do you figure your conclusions were shaped around your choices? Did your two Champions become legends in any other way beside the fixed "Bribed in -> Deep Roads -> Invasion -> civil war" path?

Same could be asked of the Warden did his/her path go any other way than obligatory Origin>Ostagar>four treaties (solve the wold going to hell while you're at it)> Landsmeet> Redcliff> back to denerium> kill the archdemon?

Boil any game down to its bones strips a lot of illusion of choice away.

[Elhanan]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Why should you be sorry? You weren't in charge of marketing. Fact is DA2 promised something and didn't deliver on it, it's nothing that hasn't been done before in the industry... it's just surprising to see Molyneux working for Bioware.

That aside, how do you figure your conclusions were shaped around your choices? Did your two Champions become legends in any other way beside the fixed "Bribed in -> Deep Roads -> Invasion -> civil war" path?

Well, I have a certain special someone Seeking my Rogue, and he left still on the market. And my Mage is helping to gain freedom promised to the Circles, while crushing Abominations and unthinking Blood mages in her path. I am content with both conclusions, and planning a third as a Templar.

[Ariella]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

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?

Immersion and imagination, that's something that DA2 does not foster by using cinematics and a framed narrative in storytelling.

That doesn't answer the question as posed. It's easy to say immersion and imagination, but when it gets down to actually having to build the game, it's a different story, especially considering the dev team has to consider budget and having a reasonable delivery date.

Also I don't agree with your supposition that DA2's cinimatics and framed narritive do not foster immagination and immersion. Tommy, you're not presenting a fact, just your opinion, which has as much weight as mine or anyone else's.

[Tommy6860]

Ariella wrote...

Pandaman102 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.

Why should you be sorry? You weren't in charge of marketing. Fact is DA2 promised something and didn't deliver on it, it's nothing that hasn't been done before in the industry... it's just surprising to see Molyneux working for Bioware.

That aside, how do you figure your conclusions were shaped around your choices? Did your two Champions become legends in any other way beside the fixed "Bribed in -> Deep Roads -> Invasion -> civil war" path?

Same could be asked of the Warden did his/her path go any other way than obligatory Origin>Ostagar>four treaties (solve the wold going to hell while you're at it)> Landsmeet> Redcliff> back to denerium> kill the archdemon?

Boil any game down to its bones strips a lot of illusion of choice away.

Covered this before, but Origins simply simply does not work the way DA2 does. Yes, the main end plot is set in stone in both games, as is most games, but you actually can alter plot states with companions in Origins, choices made during many quests, how you interact with your companions and other NPCs and how they actually view you. This, all reflected at the end of Origins. Did you die a hero, or live to go on? Did you change the effects of the main quests in Orgins by making certian choices, cause the death of a few of your companions because they hated your  your choices, just to name a few? You cannot do any of this in DA2. Nothing I do changes how my companions fight with me, talk to me or how they are at the end. Only Anders and Isabela actually have plot effects on the game that cannot be changed, no matter hwo I want them to change. If I don't want Anders to do a certain horrible act, he does it anyway. No matter what faction I side with at the end, the end doesn't change. In Origins, I could do that and that is "role-playing", DA2 is action/adventure, pure and simple.

[Tommy6860]

Ariella wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

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?

Immersion and imagination, that's something that DA2 does not foster by using cinematics and a framed narrative in storytelling.

That doesn't answer the question as posed. It's easy to say immersion and imagination, but when it gets down to actually having to build the game, it's a different story, especially considering the dev team has to consider budget and having a reasonable delivery date.

Also I don't agree with your supposition that DA2's cinimatics and framed narritive do not foster immagination and immersion. Tommy, you're not presenting a fact, just your opinion, which has as much weight as mine or anyone else's.

Not an opinion, you're side-stepping what I said just to defend DA2, I see this here endlessly. We all know it's a different story, and most that didn't like DA2 wasn't because it isnn't a story like Origins, only that the gameplay is not RPG style, it is action/adventure. You don't make choices that have any effect, you cannot direct how to go about the main plot, etc. that is the issue as just to name few. Role-playing is about imagination and immersion, being able to project yourself into your PC as your PC make descision about plots and and the effects of those decisions and those comapnions and NPCs aroud you. Those aspects are all but removed from DA2. So, why call it Dragon Age II, call it something else. Or remove the RPG tag and call it an action adventure game.

[Pandaman102]

Ariella wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...

Why should you be sorry? You weren't in charge of marketing. Fact is DA2 promised something and didn't deliver on it, it's nothing that hasn't been done before in the industry... it's just surprising to see Molyneux working for Bioware.

That aside, how do you figure your conclusions were shaped around your choices? Did your two Champions become legends in any other way beside the fixed "Bribed in -> Deep Roads -> Invasion -> civil war" path?

Same could be asked of the Warden did his/her path go any other way than obligatory Origin>Ostagar>four treaties (solve the wold going to hell while you're at it)> Landsmeet> Redcliff> back to denerium> kill the archdemon?

Boil any game down to its bones strips a lot of illusion of choice away.

True, but at least in Origins there were multiple ways of resolving each plot quest, which resulted in a different political and social environment for Thedas for each time you played (given you make different choices, naturally). DA2 advertises that everything is influenced by your choices, but can you honestly say that any of the choices you make results in a different Kirkwall throughout all your replays?

At most you influence your companions' fates (whether you kill them in the end or not), but that isn't what's advertised, now is it?

[Ariella]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Pandaman102 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.

Why should you be sorry? You weren't in charge of marketing. Fact is DA2 promised something and didn't deliver on it, it's nothing that hasn't been done before in the industry... it's just surprising to see Molyneux working for Bioware.

That aside, how do you figure your conclusions were shaped around your choices? Did your two Champions become legends in any other way beside the fixed "Bribed in -> Deep Roads -> Invasion -> civil war" path?

Same could be asked of the Warden did his/her path go any other way than obligatory Origin>Ostagar>four treaties (solve the wold going to hell while you're at it)> Landsmeet> Redcliff> back to denerium> kill the archdemon?

Boil any game down to its bones strips a lot of illusion of choice away.

Covered this before, but Origins simply simply does not work the way DA2 does. Yes, the main end plot is set in stone in both games, as is most games, but you actually can alter plot states with companions in Origins, choices made during many quests, how you interact with your companions and other NPCs and how they actually view you. This, all reflected at the end of Origins. Did you die a hero, or live to go on? Did you change the effects of the main quests in Orgins by making certian choices, cause the death of a few of your companions because they hated your  your choices, just to name a few? You cannot do any of this in DA2. Nothing I do changes how my companions fight with me, talk to me or how they are at the end. Only Anders and Isabela actually have plot effects on the game that cannot be changed, no matter hwo I want them to change. If I don't want Anders to do a certain horrible act, he does it anyway. No matter what faction I side with at the end, the end doesn't change. In Origins, I could do that and that is "role-playing", DA2 is action/adventure, pure and simple.

Again we were discussing the main plot line (ie the bare bones), but you CAN do the same thing with the NPCs in this game as you can in DAO, there are crisis moments where they may choose to fight against you because they disagree with you, and there's no unlimited gifts to convince people to like you anymore. You actually have to work at it. As for Anders' act, Morrigan leaves no matter what either, they're plot points and how you deal with them is the role play, and how you deal with Anders act has a lot of consequences for Hawke.

[Ariella]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...

Why should you be sorry? You weren't in charge of marketing. Fact is DA2 promised something and didn't deliver on it, it's nothing that hasn't been done before in the industry... it's just surprising to see Molyneux working for Bioware.

That aside, how do you figure your conclusions were shaped around your choices? Did your two Champions become legends in any other way beside the fixed "Bribed in -> Deep Roads -> Invasion -> civil war" path?

Same could be asked of the Warden did his/her path go any other way than obligatory Origin>Ostagar>four treaties (solve the wold going to hell while you're at it)> Landsmeet> Redcliff> back to denerium> kill the archdemon?

Boil any game down to its bones strips a lot of illusion of choice away.

True, but at least in Origins there were multiple ways of resolving each plot quest, which resulted in a different political and social environment for Thedas for each time you played (given you make different choices, naturally). DA2 advertises that everything is influenced by your choices, but can you honestly say that any of the choices you make results in a different Kirkwall throughout all your replays?

At most you influence your companions' fates (whether you kill them in the end or not), but that isn't what's advertised, now is it?

Actually what's advertised is that Hawke actions during this period changed Thedas, but nobody knows the real story.

[wobble55]

Tommy6860 wrote...

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.

He really did say that, and I was surprised too.  I think that remark was contained in a long (and interesting) video interview on the Skyrim site.

Oblivion was developed by Bethesda and published jointly by Bethesda and Take-Two (a subsidiary of 2K).  I detested Oblivion but I hear the extensive mod community has turned it into a pretty good game now.

[Pandaman102]

Ariella wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...
True, but at least in Origins there were multiple ways of resolving each plot quest, which resulted in a different political and social environment for Thedas for each time you played (given you make different choices, naturally). DA2 advertises that everything is influenced by your choices, but can you honestly say that any of the choices you make results in a different Kirkwall throughout all your replays?

At most you influence your companions' fates (whether you kill them in the end or not), but that isn't what's advertised, now is it?

Actually what's advertised is that Hawke actions during this period changed Thedas, but nobody knows the real story.

Er, I didn't make these two bullet points up. They're part of the feature list on dragonage.bioware.com.

• 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.

The adventure doesn't shape itself around your decisions, you don't determine anything about your rise to power. You become a noble the same way as everyone else who played the game, as you do Champion, and everyone who becomes viscount does so by making the same single decision near the end as everyone else, regardless of your choices or attittube leading up to the event, same with becoming the rebel icon.

Which is a bloody shame because the story and setting is really, really juicy with potential for a lot of drama and intirgue.

[Sigurdr Isolfsson]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

wobble55 wrote...

Here's what all game studios would like to say right now but are afraid to say it:

"Look guys.... complex, highly detailed, hardcore RPGs with great graphics and skilled voice acting are far too expensive to make now, and fewer and fewer customers want to play them.  So, it's over... action games on consoles are the future and that's where we're headed!"

No doubt, I think they'd have far less critcism if they just came out and said "listen, EA won't give us years to make games anymore, so we've decided to just focus on streamlined console games with voice overs" Because to me that's the basic jist of DA2, rushed, console focused, dumbed down. etc.

Okay, quick response/rant here: Last I checked some of the best RPG's bioware has put out in recent years were designed/optimized for the CONSOLE or sold better on the consoles then on the Computer (Both KotOR and MAss Effect come to mind). Dragon Age II was NO WHERE near as good as either of those games. That is not to say that I don't LIKE DA2, I love it. The new combat system was awesome, the more active animations for the mages were absolutely gorgous and the full voice was very cool, but the game was batt-f!@#ingly glitchy to the point of immersion breaking with several of the cut scenes looking like the characters were going to shake apart from some kind of magical parkinsons desease if they tried to walk and talk at the same time. And thats not even starting in on some of the brain cripplingly stupid no way to change them NPC actions in the game (Both party member and major npc ...) Sorry a badly written, poorly executed, glitchy  game can still be fun, and DA2 is proof, I'm on my 3rd playthrough. But it was not as good as many games bioware has made in the past, and there is no excuse for that. Rather then this being better than Mass Effect 2 it felt more like KoTOR 2 and that is most definately not a good thing.

Sigurdr

[Ariella]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...
True, but at least in Origins there were multiple ways of resolving each plot quest, which resulted in a different political and social environment for Thedas for each time you played (given you make different choices, naturally). DA2 advertises that everything is influenced by your choices, but can you honestly say that any of the choices you make results in a different Kirkwall throughout all your replays?

At most you influence your companions' fates (whether you kill them in the end or not), but that isn't what's advertised, now is it?

Actually what's advertised is that Hawke actions during this period changed Thedas, but nobody knows the real story.

Er, I didn't make these two bullet points up. They're part of the feature list on dragonage.bioware.com.

• 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.

The adventure doesn't shape itself around your decisions, you don't determine anything about your rise to power. You become a noble the same way as everyone else who played the game, as you do Champion, and everyone who becomes viscount does so by making the same single decision near the end as everyone else, regardless of your choices or attittube leading up to the event, same with becoming the rebel icon.

Which is a bloody shame because the story and setting is really, really juicy with potential for a lot of drama and intirgue.

I'll grant a little on the first (though it does seem to shape how Cassie sees Hawke). The second however does have a couple paths with different results and different quests depending on what road you in the prologue. If I really have to I can go through the SG for all the reactivity, but not tonight. I'm pissy and ready to award a  Hugo to the next person who comes up with better than "suck it up, Princess". I apologize to you personally, Panda, for being snappy. You didn't deserve to be on the recieving end of wanting to smack the NYT for writing an op ed puff piece about why we need the concept of Hell in RL...

[Tommy6860]

wobble55 wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

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.

He really did say that, and I was surprised too.  I think that remark was contained in a long (and interesting) video interview on the Skyrim site.

Oblivion was developed by Bethesda and published jointly by Bethesda and Take-Two (a subsidiary of 2K).  I detested Oblivion but I hear the extensive mod community has turned it into a pretty good game now.

I liked Oblivion for reasons of character builds and stats, I could messa around with htos all day.. The world was really cool as well, but it was sorely lacking in true RPG elements though, I surrender that point without argument.

[KLUME777]

Shadowbanner wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

*snip*

Muzyka:

We’ve actually attracted a lot of new people to the franchise. Dragon Age II is selling faster than Dragon Age Origins. It’s probably part because it’s drawing a lot of new fans in. And that’s exciting to us. But our core fans are really important to us. I can’t emphasize that enough. They helped get us to where we are today. They’re the core of what we do, and we want to make sure we’re making games that satisfy them.

Uhh!, How can they get so far from the truth! Its obvious why DA2 is selling faster than DAO. Becuase its the sequal to a fantastic game that everybody loves. The people that are buying DA2 are fans of the first game who of coarse are going to buy the sequal regardless of its quality (like me).

After those first two weeks however, the game has taken a massive nosedive in sales because of bad word of mouth that the game was dissapointing. Plus, it isn't very attractive to a gamer unfamiliar with the series when there is so much other competition that can offer better than what DA2 has. DA2 has a bad reputation now.

It's great how he ignores nearly half a million pre-orders in those calculations isnt it ?

Ooops, yes the pre-orders, come to think of it, gosh hand't thought one iota about them.

Not to mention DAO was a game that sold succesfully over time. Its not going to sell like hotcakes in week 1 because its the first in a series, but it got a lot of good feedback and more and more people started to buy it. 

All the original fans bought DA2, but other than that, its sales have been steadily decreasing.

[Ariella]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

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?

Immersion and imagination, that's something that DA2 does not foster by using cinematics and a framed narrative in storytelling.

That doesn't answer the question as posed. It's easy to say immersion and imagination, but when it gets down to actually having to build the game, it's a different story, especially considering the dev team has to consider budget and having a reasonable delivery date.

Also I don't agree with your supposition that DA2's cinimatics and framed narritive do not foster immagination and immersion. Tommy, you're not presenting a fact, just your opinion, which has as much weight as mine or anyone else's.

Not an opinion, you're side-stepping what I said just to defend DA2, I see this here endlessly. We all know it's a different story, and most that didn't like DA2 wasn't because it isnn't a story like Origins, only that the gameplay is not RPG style, it is action/adventure. You don't make choices that have any effect, you cannot direct how to go about the main plot, etc. that is the issue as just to name few. Role-playing is about imagination and immersion, being able to project yourself into your PC as your PC make descision about plots and and the effects of those decisions and those comapnions and NPCs aroud you. Those aspects are all but removed from DA2. So, why call it Dragon Age II, call it something else. Or remove the RPG tag and call it an action adventure game.

I'm not side stepping at all. I found more than enough immersion and and immagination in the game, as did many others to read these boards. And you do have choices that have effect on you, on how your companions see you, on even if they stay or leave, much like DAO, though unlike DAO it's not just a 1 or 0 thing.

And if you want to address side stepping, my point still exists. Using words like immersion and immagination are great, but when you put them up against budget and deadlines... How do you make a decade lenght game at a price people are willing to pay? Two acts? eight or ten, but that increases how much one has to budget toward various things like design, new art, voice work etc which increases the cost of the game.

You know the story behind WHY Lord of the Rings was divided up into three books rather than being one, like Tolkien wanted? Because after the war there was no way anyone could print the thing and price it where anyone could reasonably buy it.

The same principles are in operation here, so you need to tell a story that spans a decade in a way that also isn't going to up your budget or delivery time. Framed narrative is a good device for that.

But the question remains, how would YOU have built the game without breaking the bank?

[Tommy6860]

Sigurdr Isolfsson wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

wobble55 wrote...

Here's what all game studios would like to say right now but are afraid to say it:

"Look guys.... complex, highly detailed, hardcore RPGs with great graphics and skilled voice acting are far too expensive to make now, and fewer and fewer customers want to play them.  So, it's over... action games on consoles are the future and that's where we're headed!"

No doubt, I think they'd have far less critcism if they just came out and said "listen, EA won't give us years to make games anymore, so we've decided to just focus on streamlined console games with voice overs" Because to me that's the basic jist of DA2, rushed, console focused, dumbed down. etc.

You can just about count any console version of a game that is on both platforms, to sell better on the consoles. Origins sold on the consoles much better than it did on PC, IIRC.

Okay, quick response/rant here: Last I checked some of the best RPG's bioware has put out in recent years were designed/optimized for the CONSOLE or sold better on the consoles then on the Computer (Both KotOR and MAss Effect come to mind). Dragon Age II was NO WHERE near as good as either of those games. That is not to say that I don't LIKE DA2, I love it. The new combat system was awesome, the more active animations for the mages were absolutely gorgous and the full voice was very cool, but the game was batt-f!@#ingly glitchy to the point of immersion breaking with several of the cut scenes looking like the characters were going to shake apart from some kind of magical parkinsons desease if they tried to walk and talk at the same time. And thats not even starting in on some of the brain cripplingly stupid no way to change them NPC actions in the game (Both party member and major npc ...) Sorry a badly written, poorly executed, glitchy  game can still be fun, and DA2 is proof, I'm on my 3rd playthrough. But it was not as good as many games bioware has made in the past, and there is no excuse for that. Rather then this being better than Mass Effect 2 it felt more like KoTOR 2 and that is most definately not a good thing.

Sigurdr

Don't ask what happened, but I noticed the text didn't show, anyways, EDIT:

Any game that is on both platforms will sell better on the consoles. Origins sold much more on just the 360 than it did on PC for example. But it was developed on PC then proted over. Since about 2007, most games taht are cross-platformers, are ported over to PC from the console now. I don't think that's a bad thing though, because the PC version nearly always have the higher res textures and keyboard/mouse input with a better more functional on-screen commands than on console.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 26 avril 2011 - 03:59 .

[Pandaman102]

Ariella wrote...

I'll grant a little on the first (though it does seem to shape how Cassie sees Hawke). The second however does have a couple paths with different results and different quests depending on what road you in the prologue. If I really have to I can go through the SG for all the reactivity, but not tonight. I'm pissy and ready to award a  Hugo to the next person who comes up with better than "suck it up, Princess". I apologize to you personally, Panda, for being snappy. You didn't deserve to be on the recieving end of wanting to smack the NYT for writing an op ed puff piece about why we need the concept of Hell in RL...

Nothing to apologize for, I didn't even know you were being snappy until you said so, you've been much more civil than a lot of people on the board. I don't deny that Hawke's decisions to influence how some of the NPCs perceive him/her, I just felt that the story, Gaider's talent, marketing, and premium EA pricing suggested something a lot grander and can't help but complain because I'm still a Bioware fan.

That is until they release FIFA Age (imagine Hawke, a mabari, and hurlocks superimposed over the lineup in http://www.ea.com/soccer/fifa)

[Tommy6860]

Ariella wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Pandaman102 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.

Why should you be sorry? You weren't in charge of marketing. Fact is DA2 promised something and didn't deliver on it, it's nothing that hasn't been done before in the industry... it's just surprising to see Molyneux working for Bioware.

That aside, how do you figure your conclusions were shaped around your choices? Did your two Champions become legends in any other way beside the fixed "Bribed in -> Deep Roads -> Invasion -> civil war" path?

Same could be asked of the Warden did his/her path go any other way than obligatory Origin>Ostagar>four treaties (solve the wold going to hell while you're at it)> Landsmeet> Redcliff> back to denerium> kill the archdemon?

Boil any game down to its bones strips a lot of illusion of choice away.

Covered this before, but Origins simply simply does not work the way DA2 does. Yes, the main end plot is set in stone in both games, as is most games, but you actually can alter plot states with companions in Origins, choices made during many quests, how you interact with your companions and other NPCs and how they actually view you. This, all reflected at the end of Origins. Did you die a hero, or live to go on? Did you change the effects of the main quests in Orgins by making certian choices, cause the death of a few of your companions because they hated your  your choices, just to name a few? You cannot do any of this in DA2. Nothing I do changes how my companions fight with me, talk to me or how they are at the end. Only Anders and Isabela actually have plot effects on the game that cannot be changed, no matter hwo I want them to change. If I don't want Anders to do a certain horrible act, he does it anyway. No matter what faction I side with at the end, the end doesn't change. In Origins, I could do that and that is "role-playing", DA2 is action/adventure, pure and simple.

Again we were discussing the main plot line (ie the bare bones), but you CAN do the same thing with the NPCs in this game as you can in DAO, there are crisis moments where they may choose to fight against you because they disagree with you, and there's no unlimited gifts to convince people to like you anymore. You actually have to work at it. As for Anders' act, Morrigan leaves no matter what either, they're plot points and how you deal with them is the role play, and how you deal with Anders act has a lot of consequences for Hawke.

This is simply so untrue to what happens, so I will give hints. Firstly, what Anders does has no consequences on hawke, because the plot doesn't change, nor does the plot states. tell us what the consequences are, please. The only person that goes nuts and against Hawke is one said from a DLC add-on, and he simply splits after making his threats.  Anders does what he does no mattter how you plead with him and you can off him if you want, or keep him. That's the only one you can kill, but he makes the decision to do what he does, not that you can do it for him, though you have the dialogue to make the request either way, what's the point of even giving that dialogue if your choice doesn't matter??

Fenris goes back to your side no matter how you are against him at the end battle (if you didn't betray him that is). That's nuts. Unless you have Isabela totally maxed, friend or rival, she bolts on you and doesn't show up at the end of Act II, or you simply never play her at all, which is possible. You can flirt Merrill to deatth, only to reject her and then scourn her mercilessly, and she's there at the end. Again, you can only kill one companion because of a choice he made that you ask not. The 3 companions (of my exeriences) you can klll in Origins happens based on your choices with them as you play, not on theirs; that's role playing. What you describe is an action adventure game where everything is framed in the story and set in stone, you have no choice, only some the the feeling of one.

We know Morrigan leaves no matter, she even says that before the ending battle, but she gives you a choice to live or die, you don't get that in DA2, it ends the same for your character, no matter the choices made. Zevran will attempt to kill you if your friendship/romance state isn't high enough with him when the time comes. Because you make choices, not him. Leliana will try and klll you because of your choices, not because of hers. Wynne willl try to kill you (on two occasions) because of the choices you make, not by her own. Leliana will also not kill you if you have her in a certain hardened state and after which achieving, you can get her to respond to a few of your choices of dialogue, where when the time comes, she won't object to the defiling of a certain religious icon, but lets it slide. You get none of this deep interaction in DA2 with your companions, seriously.

I can go on, but I get the feeling that the defenders of Kirkwall may just attack me now.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 26 avril 2011 - 04:02 .

[tariq071]

@Tommy6860

I fully agree with you DA 2 is action/adventure, it's no more different then AC:B, except AC:B has open world and it's actually good for its genre.

Unchangable story and being able to boink someone doesn't constitute RPG...it's trademark of adventure games.

[Elhanan]

Tommy6860 wrote...

This is simply so untrue to what happens, so I will give hints. Firstly, what Anders does has no consequences on hawke, because the plot doesn't change, nor does the plot states. tell us what the consequences are, please. The only person that goes nuts and against Hawke is one said from a DLC add-on, and he simply splits after making his threats.  Anders does what he does no mattter how you plead with him and you can off him if you want, or keep him. That's the only one you can kill, but he makes the decision to do what he does, not that you can do it for him, though you have the dialogue to make the request either way, what's the point of even giving that dialogue if your choice doesn't matter??

Fenris goes back to your side no matter how you are against him at the end battle (if you didn't betray him that is). That's nuts. Unless you have Isabela totally maxed, friend or rival, she bolts on you and doesn't show up at the end of Act II, or you simply never play her at all, which is possible. You can flirt Merrill to deatth, only to reject her and then scourn her mercilessly, and she's there at the end. Again, you can only kill one companion because of a choice he made that you ask not. The 3 companions (of my exeriences) you can klll in Origins happens based on your choices with them as you play, not on theirs; that's role playing. What you describe is an action adventure game where everything is framed in the story and set in stone, you have no choice, only some the the feeling of one.

We know Morrigan leaves no matter, she even says that before the ending battle, but she gives you a choice to live or die, you don't get that in DA2, it ends the same for your character, no matter the choices made. Zevran will attempt to kill you if your friendship/romance state isn't high enough with him when the time comes. Because you make choices, not him. Leliana will try and klll you because of your choices, not because of hers. Wynne willl try to kill you (on two occasions) because of the choices you make, not by her own. Leliana will also not kill you if you have her in a certain hardened state and after which achieving, you can get her to respond to a few of your choices of dialogue, where when the time comes, she won't object to the defiling of a certain religious icon, but lets it slide. You get none of this deep interaction in DA2 with your companions, seriously.

I can go on, but I get the feeling that the defenders of Kirkwall may just attack me now.

While I can understand why some want choice to matter in a RPG, it does not have to be included to be a RPG. Sometimes we just survive the trials and environs ocasionally with our integrity intact, ready to tackle the obstacles that lie ahead. This was especially true of early CRPG's. And while we have seen more inclusive and personal forming games since, this does not equate to forcing them into every RPG.

[Tommy6860]

Ariella wrote...

I'm not side stepping at all. I found more than enough immersion and and immagination in the game, as did many others to read these boards. And you do have choices that have effect on you, on how your companions see you, on even if they stay or leave, much like DAO, though unlike DAO it's not just a 1 or 0 thing.

And if you want to address side stepping, my point still exists. Using words like immersion and immagination are great, but when you put them up against budget and deadlines... How do you make a decade lenght game at a price people are willing to pay? Two acts? eight or ten, but that increases how much one has to budget toward various things like design, new art, voice work etc which increases the cost of the game.

Now you're deflecting costs of the game as the reason, as that is not what the game genre discussion is about. Most know why Bioware/EA did with the budget of the game. That doesn't make it immersive, imaginative nor an RPG. You went from adding elemnts that are not in the game, to developer budget costs as some reason that are not about the game style. Budget or no, this thinking doesn't make it an RPG nevertheless. If you like the game, and found immersion, that is fine. My stop is when people say there are these RPG elements in the game in which they do not exist. Fact is, each time I point the differences, replies like these are all too common when it no longer is a discussion about the game, but some outside reasoning.

You know the story behind WHY Lord of the Rings was divided up into three books rather than being one, like Tolkien wanted? Because after the war there was no way anyone could print the thing and price it where anyone could reasonably buy it.

The same principles are in operation here, so you need to tell a story that spans a decade in a way that also isn't going to up your budget or delivery time. Framed narrative is a good device for that.

But the question remains, how would YOU have built the game without breaking the bank?

What does this have to do with DA2 not having Origins RPG elements as was being discussed? What does this have to do with the game being called Dragon Age, and not remotely living up to the RPG style of its predecessor? I understood your budget meme the first time.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 26 avril 2011 - 06:36 .

[Tommy6860]

Elhanan wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

This is simply so untrue to what happens, so I will give hints. Firstly, what Anders does has no consequences on hawke, because the plot doesn't change, nor does the plot states. tell us what the consequences are, please. The only person that goes nuts and against Hawke is one said from a DLC add-on, and he simply splits after making his threats.  Anders does what he does no mattter how you plead with him and you can off him if you want, or keep him. That's the only one you can kill, but he makes the decision to do what he does, not that you can do it for him, though you have the dialogue to make the request either way, what's the point of even giving that dialogue if your choice doesn't matter??

Fenris goes back to your side no matter how you are against him at the end battle (if you didn't betray him that is). That's nuts. Unless you have Isabela totally maxed, friend or rival, she bolts on you and doesn't show up at the end of Act II, or you simply never play her at all, which is possible. You can flirt Merrill to deatth, only to reject her and then scourn her mercilessly, and she's there at the end. Again, you can only kill one companion because of a choice he made that you ask not. The 3 companions (of my exeriences) you can klll in Origins happens based on your choices with them as you play, not on theirs; that's role playing. What you describe is an action adventure game where everything is framed in the story and set in stone, you have no choice, only some the the feeling of one.

We know Morrigan leaves no matter, she even says that before the ending battle, but she gives you a choice to live or die, you don't get that in DA2, it ends the same for your character, no matter the choices made. Zevran will attempt to kill you if your friendship/romance state isn't high enough with him when the time comes. Because you make choices, not him. Leliana will try and klll you because of your choices, not because of hers. Wynne willl try to kill you (on two occasions) because of the choices you make, not by her own. Leliana will also not kill you if you have her in a certain hardened state and after which achieving, you can get her to respond to a few of your choices of dialogue, where when the time comes, she won't object to the defiling of a certain religious icon, but lets it slide. You get none of this deep interaction in DA2 with your companions, seriously.

I can go on, but I get the feeling that the defenders of Kirkwall may just attack me now.

While I can understand why some want choice to matter in a RPG, it does not have to be included to be a RPG. Sometimes we just survive the trials and environs ocasionally with our integrity intact, ready to tackle the obstacles that lie ahead. This was especially true of early CRPG's. And while we have seen more inclusive and personal forming games since, this does not equate to forcing them into every RPG.

Then they should call the game(s) something other than RPGs, no? Why not action/adventure RPGs. This way, I would more than lilely not buy the game, while these devs get the audience they want in their pocktes. Don't market a game after a similarly named predecessor on its successes by making totally different, while keeping the genre tag the same and pawning it off as something I expected. I hardly feel that is unreasionable considering why I bought and loved Origins so much. I learned one lesson, I will never buy a game from Bioware on pre-order or when first releasd again, that's a fact.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 26 avril 2011 - 06:40 .