[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
Shadowbanner, mind if I take a crack at some of those objective flaws you state? For simplicity's sake, I'll only refer to the ones I don't agree with. So anything I don't mention, you can assume I agree with you completely about.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
3. Pre-rendered cut scenes already lay out teams starting position negating -again- player manual tactical positioning. Poor design.
Could you elaborate what this means? I don't remember this being any different than Origins.
[/quote][/quote]
Hi Rockpopple
I’ll address your points one by one.
It means that prior to some important battle, there’s a cut scene and when it’s over the designers place your team right besides the enemy without allowing you to place them tactically negating player tactical planning. Below Nightmare this isn’t much of an issue really, but in nightmare it really kills the game. As I've written before, Hard level is very easy (I can win most battles without even moving -except boss battles-, just letting my companions do all the work), but Nightmare is truly tough. I find combat difficulty unbalanced.
Back on topic, in these type of prerendered cut scenes. E.g. Ser Varnell’s Refuge, a prime of example of how a battle could be easily won -even on Nightmare- with intelligent tactics but regrettably is easily lost because of this huge flaw. With tactics you could place your team in a choke point earlier on with tank at front and DPS and ranged units at the back. But no, in this example they place you right in the middle of an open cave with four Templar archers pinning you, 8 templars or so and Ser Varnell, not to mention the ones that materialize behind you on wave 2. Result: you are slaughtered on Nightmare when this could have been averted by playing intelligently backtracking on the choke point.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
4. Side-quests are menial, repetitive and souless almost like running mindless errands. "I believe this leg I found in some dump pile is yours "Oh my, thank you Serah, I just don't know what I would have done without
it". Stupid, stupid, stupid fed ex (fetch-type) quests that are mind-numbing. I mean really, what in God's name was the point of that. Well this type of quests abund in all three acts. They feel like tedious repetitive chores. Did I mention they were stupid? Lame and lazy.[/quote]
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
Hmm, well that's certainly one way to look at it. However, when I looked at those quests I thought that if they had done what Origins did for those quests and simply have a cutscene bookending them, most people wouldn't complain about them. After-all, that's about the only difference between the fed-ex quests here and in DA:O - the cutscenes and additional dialogue.
[/quote][/quote]
Erm, I beg to disagree.
If you mention DA:O, then so will I. In DA:O some side quests were basic, granted, but only a minority really and were optional to a large extent. In DA2 you have to raise 50 gold no matter what in Act 1 so you are forced to do them all. In DA:O you were at all times reminded of a great picture (stopping the blight, the archdemon).
This for example was cleverly achieved whilst travelling on the map. Random encounters were triggered such as fighting darkspawn on travelling from one place to another doing a side quest. In DA2 half of the quests are mindless, as it’s just a case of handing over some mcguffin and receiving a pittance in return. This was unnecessary and should have been removed. It feels as a filler, as a need to justify 50 hours of a game when there’s really only content for 10 hours or less; the rest is just re-used areas. I think no player takes pride in such fed ex quests which account for half of the game’s quests. Crass mistake.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
6. You spend over 50 hours collecting armor that is mostly useless, as neither you nor your companions can use it. In the case of the player, because he lacks the required specific player-class that enables its use (mage, warriror, rogue). Your companions are ruled out because that was the intended game design. So, unless you want to collect useless trash and stash it in your home, you might as well sell it; it's the only logical thing you can really do. Lame.
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
I only disagree because of the game's skewed economy. If the economy was more fair, I wouldn't mind this at all. Just more loot to sell.[/quote][/quote]
Ah, the economy, yes. Don’t get me started on that one…
Anyway, the only thing you can do is sell all this armor loot as it’s useless to both you and your companions.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
7. Game is riddled with glitches and bugs. QA wo bist du?
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
True, but most games that come out these days - especially RPGs for some reason - ship with bugs and glitches. Origins did too. You're mostly right about this.
[/quote][/quote]
Fair point. To be honest I’ve found no bugs that kill the game outright. I have no major complaint on this. But there are quite a few.
I’ve had the screen freezing on me three thrice, which is not bad considering these type of complex RPG games. I’ve seen NPC’s stuck in the middle of ox-carts in Kirkwall etc..In the Long Road quest in the Wounded coast you have a case of dead companions coming back to life if you distance yourself from the enemy raiders.
There is one however that is serious. When you return to the holding caves (the ones with the hidden slaver’s den), outside Kirkwall, there’s a glitch that does not allow you to exit the scene through the only exit point. Once you enter you are trapped. You actually have to reload your latest save outside of this area to continue playing.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
8. Story is disjointed and lacks purpose, drive. Poor plot.
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
You were doing quite well with your objective list until this one. This is 100% purely subjective. Unless you're ready to list exactly what established criteria makes that statement objectively true, you can't in good conscience say this is objective.
I agree with you that, especially in the 3rd Act, there are is a lot of inconstancy and it's very disjointed, but not on the whole. Find me a story that doesn't have plot holes. As for lack of purpose - that's really subjective, and you know this. [/quote][/quote]
Act 1 = boring. You have to raise 50g and are forced to do all incoherent quests, even the mindless McGuffin ones. One whole year is fast-forwarded without your input. Say what? I know starts are always slow in Bioware games, no problem with that. But this is waaaay to slow. You are a good 15 hours doing idiotic quests. There’s nothing epic about it.
Act 2 = without shadow of a doubt the best act. Even great fun at times. Incredibly enough I’m introduced in my own playthrough 65 hours into the game my would-be archrival (Whether Orsino or Meredith). Imo this is far too late to introduce them. Earlier hints (such as the letter signed by “O” from Hawke’s missing mother quest are not enough).
Act 3 = apalling. It’s just a huge step back and repetition.
Then you have dead DA:O companion cameos coming back to life: Zevran (you can killed him in DA:O), Lelianna (killed her in Urn of Ashes), Nathaniel Howe (killed in DAO Awakening) etc. these are some plot holes or inconsistencies. But meh, forgivable.
What's not so forgivable is just how linear and predicatable from the onstart you are going to have to choose one or the other side.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
9. The antagonist is introduced far too late into the game to really care about him/her. Poor plot.
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
Not only is this subjective, not objective, it's not true. If you're talking about Meredith, you see her in the start of the 1st Act, and people are talking ominously about her as early as the prologue. You only actually communicate
with her the 1st time in the end of the 2nd Act, and when you do.... personally I thought it was all the more epic because up until then she was just a spectre - a rumour - a shadow. Orsino is the one you never really even hear about until very late in the game. [/quote][/quote]
In my case, I was introduced to both 65 hours into my game. Far too late.
Earlier hints, as pointed above, are insufficient imo. You must hate these people, ominous intros in prologues simply does not cut it imo.
I have nothing against either of them in-game, except perhaps Orsino because of him knowing about the necromancer that killed my mother. But that’s about it really.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
11. Lack of environments, lack of exploring. You do not journey anywhere. In RPG's you are always exploring, not
stuck -for ten years, no less- in one venue!!! Remember when you are killed a pop-up says "Your journey ends...". That's because you are meant to be travelling the land, not stuck as a lab rat in the same hellhole for over 50
hours. Poor design.
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
Wow... this couldn't be more subjective. You're saying that an RPG needs you to be exploring different lands or it's not an RPG. This is patently untrue. What I will agree with you though is that the places you do explore in Kirkwall
don't look different from each other. This is more about the use of recycled areas, which I agree is a big huge faux pas. [/quote][/quote]
Fairly objective I may add imo. Read the 4 or 5 star reviews in Amazon and they all complain about this. Nevermind the 1 or 2 star reviews...
Laidlaw himself has acknowledged the lack of environments because “they had to cut corners” given such a tight deadline. That’s his problem, not mine as aconsumer who pays for a product.
That’s like if I walk into a restaurant and I order a well-cooked chateaubriand. And the meat is rare. I complain and the chef comes out saying he just didn’t have more time to cook it because there are so many clients. Not my problem, I’m paying for it, else reduce the price then, that simple. Half content, half price. That sounds fair.
You know the original DA:O had quite a lot of GB storage compared to this one. The recycled areas are common in Bioware (take ME1, nearly all sidequests had similar copy-pasted dungeons that I knew off-by-heart). But in DA2 they have really gone overboard taking it altogether to a new level.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
12. Companions are shallow and one-faceted as opposed to -ehem- other games. X hates Templars. Y hates Mages. There is no innuendo, no subtleties, no nuances. Or it's black or its white, period. People tend to be far more complex than that. Poor script.
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
Once again, subjective. It seems the more you go on the more you stray from your original intent in order to bash the game for what you didn't like. Which is fair! Just don't call it "objective". It's untrue. I didn't think the Companions were shallow and one-faceted at all, and I thought for the most part they were at the same level or better than the Origins Companions. [/quote][/quote]
Not so. Morrigan was very complex. So was Flemeth. As was Anders, Lelianna etc. You could actually “harden” some of them such as Lelianna through a careful dialogue choices, opening new dialogue options. In DA2 you donot influence or change any companion one iota. From start to finish they already have their minds set up and its actually YOU, the gamer, who must adapt siding with one or another school of thinking. Hence my its “black or white” options. No subtleties, no nuances.
What complex companion did we have in DA2? You can tell right away how they think. Not very deep. Isabela (****ty), Merrill (innocent), Anders (obsessed), Fenris (obsessed too), Sebastian (righteous), etc the best companion was Varric imo because he actually was complex, brushing aside unorthodoxy issues re his dwarf condition. That would be nitpicking.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
13. Dialogues are not very well written out imo. Poor script.
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
See, this is where I think you start trolling us. You state out to make an objective list of faults - which means factual faults, and then you write "in my opinion" here. It's like a rick-roll or something. =D.
Obviously I disagree, but that's cuz it's subjective so that's cool. [/quote][/quote]
Whose the majestic plural "us"?
You must be kidding me. I’m a registered user and both EA and BioWare know fully well my real name and surname, from where I’m from and all the games I have bought from them as well as all the DLC I’ve purchased over the years for DA and ME. I’m not a random guy that has joined in March to troll the forums. In fact I’ve only started posting because I wanted to voice my discontent with this disturbing trend of streamlining games which started off with ME2 to appeal to mainstream console-players (I’m actually one of them, player of COD et al to boot!) dumbing-down beloved IPs. I can almost picture EA Focus Groups/ Marketing guys telling BioWare who is the target audience they must cater to on designing these RPGs: “******: the larger the jugs all the better; Isabela needs’ em bigger, kids can’t get enough of them, ya know? Big ****** = massive sales. Just look at how Bethesda started off in the business with the cover of
TES: Arena RPG”.
There is no trolling in anything I write. I never write “Dude, DA2 sux ass big time”. I argue and counter argue each and every point I write giving examples of what I write when requested.
Dialogue options are not complex. Moreover they have been heavily streamlined to massificated them following ME2 dialogue wheel. This may work in ME2 because its an action shooter RPG, but in the DA IP it simply doesn’t work because the game is more a “thinker’s man game”. Although in this second installment this is no longer the case (ref removed tactical options, simpler dialogues, childish all around etc).
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
14. Soundtrack is uncompelling. Yes I know Mr Inon Zur is behind it and I respect his prior work. Rushed?
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
Again, subjective. [/quote][/quote]
Correct, its subjective.
I loved Mr Zur’s work in DA:O but his work is meh at best in DA2.
In any case, if you read interviews with Mr Zur, he acknowledges that he was unhappy at how EA forced to rush DA2 subject to tight deadlines. In fact he specifically declares that he’s never worked in a more rushed title than DA2:
http://social.biowar...index/6465400/1So maybe, not that subjective after all, eh? Wouldn’t you agree?
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
15. And the game ends. Wot? Just like that? After playing for over 50 hours? That's it? Are you sure? WTF?
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
This is mostly subjective, but I know a lot of people would have preferred there be some sort of epilogue card or something at the end. I didn't mind, but I did feel the ending cut too short as well, so we mostly agree. [/quote][/quote]
Well, letting aside the epilogue cards and such, most people’s reaction was a mild surprise to say the least. It’s a classic cliffhanger to be revealed in future DLC’s or in an expansion.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
16. And finally, my biggest gripe is that this game is mis-sold as an RPG. Meaning choices matter. Well my friend, they don't matter one iota because you can save and reload and the vast majority of times the same outcome happens regardless of your dialogue choices. Big deal. For me, this is a game-breaker in an RPG. Moreover, take away the "RP" from RPG more like, and leave it at G.
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
I only quoted this because - even though I agree with you about how the majority of choices came eventually to the same result - a lot didn't, and I found enough to definitely have a role-playing aspect to it. So though this is mostly an objective criticism, we come to different conclusions for it. [/quote][/quote]
Sure, there were some choices that were very good. i.e. taking or not Bethany to the Depp Roads, caving in and giving Isabela to the qunari etc. but they are few and apart to give me a sense that my decision-making has any impact whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. Most of the time I feel rail-roaded no matter what choices I make. In ME1 for example you could choose in Vermire between saving Kaidan or Ashley. THAT had impact in the story which carries over to ME2 and ME3 presumably. I know you are no big fan of epilogue cards, but these little details wrap-up the story in a nice way making your decision all the more meaningful. It is then when you actually feel you have fulfilled a role, you have played a pivotal role in the story, as in role-playing.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
18. And finally, in line with the above, it feels more like an "Action-RPG" than say a traditional RPG. Umm, the button-mashing thingy you know...so much for the "Think like a general and play like a Spartan". This line is so cool and catchy, but WTF does it mean? Anyone? It's just a click fest. Have you actually tried to play-and-pause it. The game is NOT suited for that type of gameplay and rewards playing it on real time.
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
Well... auto-attack was fixed for the consoles, so there's no button-mashing thingy anymore. As for "think like a General", I agree that was a dumb catchphrase, especially since that would apply more to Strategy RPGs than cRPGs. It's a click-fest like Origins was. I never had to play-and-pause Origins on the consoles, just on the PC (at the same difficulty, mind), and that was purely because of the interface, not because it was complex. [/quote][/quote]
Yup, great addition. I saw it last week or the week before and enabled it as soon as it was available. Shame it wasn’t shipped from the get-go with the auto-attack option.
That phrase is catchy, I have to give it to them…but no one can explain what it really is although we all have an approximate idea: blend the old-school tactical pause-and-play with the modern real-time action. Fact is,
DA2 caters to console-players more, unlike DA:O, and rewards playing on real-time, that is button-mashing.
I cannot say about playing on DA:O on a PC as I only play RPGs in consoles. I leave my PC rig for complex strategy gaming that requires the uber mouse control. I know, it’s kinda weird but it works for me.
[quote]Shadowbanner wrote...
19. And finally it feels all-round rushed and that too many corners were cut. Kirkwall feels dead. It never changes and nothing ever happens. NPC's are all brain dead. Bustling activity in a city is missing a la Assasins Creed.
[quote]Rockpopple wrote...
Wait, didn't you already have a "finally"? Like, twice? Never-mind. I agree about this, which is my eternal sadness with Dragon Age II is that it wasn't complete. At the same time though, asking for a city as busy and big as Rome in Assassins Creed for a game like Dragon Age might be a bit much to ask for.
The rest of what you said is your opinion, so I'm not gonna comment on it.
Well, that's that. I think the lesson is that it's fine to criticize the game - but if you're gonna cloak your criticism in the veneer of "truth" and indisputable facts"... which is what "objective" means, you should have the facts to back it up. =)
Place nice![/quote][/quote]
Ha ha ha. You are right. I’ve repeated the “finally” thrice. Its just that every time I thought I had finished one more point cropped up and I had to add it to the “objective” point's list.
I agree again. To be honest I’m not asking BioWare to design cities as complex as AC. In fact, even the graphics they have on DA2 are superb. But an RPG is not about graphics imo, it’s about the story and this is where DA2 falls flat on its face. Which coming from BioWare is a first-timer and a big surprise at that given their impressive track record. If there is one thing that BioWare does well, is to tell a good compelling story. But not this time.
Make no mistake, I don’t wish BioWare ill. In fact. Because I’m a huge fan of their work, my disappointment is huge and DA2 feels like a total letdown very far from their traditionally high standards which makes it all the more infuriating. So in a way, they are victims of their own success as they are the ones who set their own high standards, not me.
When you compound the sloppy remarks from Gaider, Laidlaw and now even Dr Muzyka with his false “nostalgia” argument you are left but wandering what in God’s name is wrong with these people. They seem to have lost touch with reality and its customer base. Oh well, I guess EA played its role in that…
BioWare and Bethesda are for me the best wRPG companies.
In any case I uphold my 20 points are objective and unrelated to my expectations on a DA:O sequel. The “nostalgia” argument Ray uses is a fallacy. DA2 taken by itself is a bad game, mediocre. And nosediving sales and word of mouth are doing the rest. I’ve actually had to write to Amazon to have my review published after 10 days (sic) because it was “being held back for –undisclosed- technical reasons”.
But oddly enough, Amazon's
technical glitch had no trouble whatsoever in printing my 5-star review of S2TW the same day I submitted it; hmmm…conspiracy!!
Trust me, I could easily write another 40 DA2 points/flaws this time strictly related to it being an unworthy successor to DA:O. That would be subjective indeed.
But we are all humans and I’m sure BioWere is having a tough time of its own besieged by disgruntled fans such as myself. A first-timer for them.
Modifié par Shadowbanner, 26 avril 2011 - 01:48 .
Retour en haut
) and i haven't seen any variation of RPG that has one way road to the end, with almost no influence, until recently(with DA2 and Arcania)
