282 réponses à ce sujet

[Saintthanksgiving]

Every time I read an interview with one of the developers there is some kind of reference to people being dissapointed in the game because they were expecting it to be:

"origins 2" or
"more like origins" or
"two archdemons stapled together" - my personal favorite

I would like to know what I should have expected when I bought a game with a "2" at the end of the title.  Why is this just accepted as an apparent oversight on the part of the consumer here?  I am not trying to start another thread for people who loved or hated the game to throw digital feces at each other.  I am not even going to say whether I liked the game or not because it is irrelevant to this topic.  What I would like, is some type of explanation as to why it was wrong of me to assume that when I pre ordered Dragon Age 2, it would be a sequel to Dragon Age 1.

I am not saying that every sequel that comes out should just include a graphics update and a new questline.  I am also not saying all of the changes made in Dragon Age 2 are bad.

What I am saying is, if the addition of voice acting to the player character meant the complete elimination of an entire portion of the game (ie. unique origin storylines, deeper roleplaying expierience, a personal investment in the character, REPLAYABILITY)   WHY was the new feature given preference?  I bought Dragon Age 2 becuase I enjoyed Dragon Age 1.  Why would you remove something that made the first game a hit, to add something that I might enjoy?

Shrinking of the game world into 5 "encounter environments" is another bizarre turn of events.  Was someone complainging that they had to travel too much?  Did I miss something in the reviews about people being sick of having places to discover?   Laidlaw cited it as a sacrifice to improve the detail Kirkwall, but again, why was an improvement that no one demanded given a higher priority than a fundamental part of the ORIGINAL SUCCESSFUL GAME. 

notice that i didnt even bring up the fact that Dragon Age 2, being a sequel, and following the universally accepted formula in games and film; should  probably have encompassed a Grander scale world than its predecessor.... if in fact it was a sequel.... which apparently it wasnt.  (perhaps a larger scale environment would have required the use of two archdemons stapled together)

The removal of the inventory items is where the real mystery is for me, mainly because the inventory wasnt really removed.  Character customization and loot have been mainstays of the fantasy rpg genre since its inception.  Dumping that feature for no apparent reason is bizarre enough, but to remove the ability to use Loot while keeping the requirement to collect loot is just dumb.  Why do I care what I picked up?  Why doesnt everything go to the junk menu? If you were "streamlining" the game why wouldnt you just use an inventory system like Mass Effect 2, where your sword is given new powers as you go along through upgrades?  You didnt even do that.  You turned me into a garbage man for no apparent reason.  Why not have me pick up bottles and cans and turn them in at the supermarket?  That would be a more fitting line of work for a penniless refugee.

Regardless of what was intended by the new inventory system, I ask again:  Why am I made to feel like some kind of stick in the mud because I assumed that the inventory system that has been good enough for every other successful game in the fantasy RPG genre would REMAIN in a Dragon Age sequel?  If we were jumping into another genre, maybe someone should have sent me a memo when I preordered it.

I think I have made my point.  I didnt post this to trash the game.  I just want some type of explanation from someone... anyone.... as to why I'm supposed to accept the fact that DA2 was a complete departure from its predecessor.  More than that, I would like to know why I was apparently expected to know about these drastic changes BEFORE I bought it.


(P.S.  This game is an overblown DLC that could have been played in an arcade with one quarter in your pocket.  There I said it.... sorry I tried to remain objective.)

[Alozaps]

Agreed. One would only expect them to maintain the winning formula that made the first game so successful, building and improving upon the broken aspects of Origins and tweaking what needed work. But DA2 is not really a sequel at all. Preserving the uniqueness of the franchise was obviously not a priority for them at all.

[Mad-Max90]

InB4 the defenders rush in and call you a troll because of your opinions, which I agree with

[Elhanan]

So... change is the Fundemental problem? If so, then 'Staying the Same' should be the flip-side of the same album.

I agree with the basic thought that If something ain't broken; don't fix it. Howver, as with car widgets, manual transmissions, and Tech in general, I do not fathom the tools and mechanisms as much as those that work with them daily. They may see more, and gather more daily feedback on usage than I see in a month. Thus, some change may occur.

I agree that I do not see the point in gathering Junk items. This could vanish, and I will not miss it a bit.

I also miss seeing fully written responses from my character, as some options were hilariously tempting to use. I prefer to have these, or completely hidden responses behind 'Charm', 'Romantic', etc banners. That said, I liked the dialogue options more than clicking on trees and statues seen in DAA.

But change is not the fundemental issue in my opinion. This could be aided thru greater peeks at the growing product along the way to adapt to desired change, or at least gather discussion earlier. I am uncertain as to what I would call the primary issue, but would have to sy that this is not it, Change will occur, or the game becomes stagnant.

[Dragoonlordz]

Elhanan wrote...

I am uncertain as to what I would call the primary issue, but would have to sy that this is not it, Change will occur, or the game becomes stagnant.

It is the fiddling and changing that breaks things and not the leaving it alone. The fear mongering 'the end is nigh' approach of 'stagnation' is nothing more than a fallacy. Change should only occur after such stagnation, not in fear of it. The fans asked for changes after DAO, small things akin to improvement through baby steps and not wide sweeping changes.

[Mad-Max90]

He never said anything about not changing ******, it's that they completely changed the ****ing genre of the game, you can't admit that next to origins or any other rpg, that this game is a solid rpg, it's not, this game is nothing but a broken game, and if that's the fall of the franchise, then so be it, I will not buy a sequel to Dragon age 2, origins on the other hand if that game had a real sequel I would buy that, but wish in one hand **** in the other see which one fills up faster

[Dragoonlordz]

I honestly had more fun in Enchanted Arms than I did with DA2. That means either DA2 is a badly made game both story and enjoyment or my tastes are bad. Now given I enjoyed ME1+2, Kotor(s), BG(s), DAO and so on if my tastes are crap then I guess Bioware make crap games. In reality almost all Bioware games are good *except* DA2 and my tastes are good. This is my opinion incase some silly git points out the obvious trying to 1up me which is just as bad as the silly people who point out when someone makes a poll that it 'is limited and not speaking for every single person who bought the game' ...Really? ...derp.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 25 avril 2011 - 04:54 .

[Saintthanksgiving]

to clarify, I am not against change in the game. I wasnt looking for DA2 to be an expansion pack to Origins.

A perfect example of changing a game without completely departing from its predecessor is the ability trees. The ability trees, besides giving you new abilities to keep the game fresh, eliminated having to stack useless abilities to get to powers you actually wanted to use. Do i still pick the type of character I want to play? The weapons I use? the combat role I want my PC to play? Yes I do. It was a change made to the game without completely changing fundamental gameplay.

The cunning requirement for conversations and lockpicking is another change. Do I need a high cunning to pass checks? yes I do. Do i need to dump ability points into levelling up my conversation and lockpicking skills? no. A part of the game was fixed without blowing it up and going in a completely different direction.

I dont dislike DA2 because they changed things. I dislike DA2 because it is not DA2. It is the equivalent of calling "Fallout: Tactics" a sequel to Fallout. They exist in the same fictional universe... and thats about as close as they come.

[Saintthanksgiving]

Again, I am not arguing the merits of the the talent tree, maybe you liked it, maybe you didnt. But it did not fundamentally alter the experience from Origins.

[Elhanan]

Mad-Max90 wrote...

He never said anything about not changing ******, it's that they completely changed the ****ing genre of the game, you can't admit that next to origins or any other rpg, that this game is a solid rpg, it's not, this game is nothing but a broken game, and if that's the fall of the franchise, then so be it, I will not buy a sequel to Dragon age 2, origins on the other hand if that game had a real sequel I would buy that, but wish in one hand **** in the other see which one fills up faster

I do admit that DA2 is a solid RPG. I do not personally like it more than DAO, but have enjoyed it more than DAA, and the NWN OC. Or are those not RPG's?

And may I suggest more fiber? Decaf?

And as there is an open sequel now available, pls clean it and save it for me.

[Sabriana]

Well, of course everyone has a different opinion about *their* RPG requirements, but to me, DA 2 was not a solid RPG, because most of what I value in RPGs was taken out, and too much of other genres was put in.

Changes are not automatically positive, they can also be negative. Stagnation occurs when nothing changes, ever, but to take away what *I* (as in personally) think is highly important for an RPG is not a positive change. I never purchased DA:A, because to me, it was not a solid RPG. It moved too far into the direction of an adventure/action game with RPG elements.

If I was against changes "evah", I'd be sitting around moping and bemoaning the passing of the sprites. Change can be very positive, and is definitely necessary, but it can be horribly overdone, and the wrong things can be changed, while the right things were cut back severely or simply taken away, imo.

Yes, I let myself be fooled by the "2" in the DA title, and yes, I also fell for the advertisements. I did something I usually never do, and rush-bought DA 2 without doing my usual "wait and see, plus research" when purchasing expensive items. Do I carry part of the blame? Yes, indeed I do. That was silly and immature buying behavior on my part. It'll never happen again.

[Elhanan]

For the record, few are more opposed to "Change for the sake of change' than myself. And as a rule, most are opposed to it; tis the reason why a decent analyst will explain and suggest new hardware and software; not just dump it on you out of a box.

But changes will occur, and helpful feedback and crit are valuable. And while I see some willing to grant thoughtful time to their posts on this game, many are less mature; many simply abrasive. And I bear this group little good will.

@ Sabriana - am curious as to what consider viatal RPG elements takem away. FWIW; I do hold that a better title may have been DA: The Champion of Kirkwall.

[Kilshrek]

+1 OP.

Though the inventory system half nailed it. Were there less "junk", a couple more meaningful items to pick up rather than buy at ridiculous prices, perhaps armour sets for companions instead of sad piecemeal pickups that force you to play your companions in a certain style rather than the other way around(that is, you choosing how to play your party) it would have been a better inventory system for DA 2's purposes.

[Droma]

have you guys ever played any final fantasy game? btw it's the same whining after every ff game "uh it isn't like the last one mimimi".

bioware gets lot of respect from me to try something new and don't just made origins 2. I'm sick of games like CoD who don't change at all over the years. but well of cause changes allways bare the risk to dissappoint people. but in my opinion it's often the fault of the people himself who don't go open minded in a game and expect the hell out of it. of cause you are dissappointed if you expect ANY game to be perfect. and yes i know da2 has lots of flaws and it isn't a perfect game, but it isn't total garbage as well.

and seriosly what does this game not make a rpg? the combat? play on hard or nightmare, if you just play it on normal then yeah combat is hack'n slay.

Modifié par Droma, 25 avril 2011 - 06:45 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

It was rather obvious from the very beginning that it wasn't simply going to be a direct continuation of Origins, both story- and gameplay wise.

[Kilshrek]

Droma wrote...

have you guys ever played any final fantasy game? btw it's the same whining after every ff game "uh it isn't like the last one mimimi".

bioware gets lot of respect from me to try something new and don't just made origins 2. I'm sick of games like CoD who don't change at all over the years. but well of cause changes allways bare the risk to dissappoint people. but in my opinion it's often the fault of the people himself who don't go open minded in a game and expect the hell out of it. of cause you are dissappointed if you expect ANY game to be perfect. and yes i know da2 has lots of flaws and it isn't a perfect game, but it isn't total garbage as well.

In what sense? I thought it was pretty obvious that every FF game never follows on from the previous. With the only exception of X and X-2.

And there's nothing wrong with leaving unbroken things alone, trying to improve on it sure, but when you break something that used to work why shouldn't you get some flak for it?

[Sabriana]

I want a RPG to be something that is shaped by me through game-play. I happen to like PC - NPC interaction, the more, the better. I want to see relationships between PC and companion NPCs grow and develop all through, not only when the CompNPCs need something. I want to customize the companions, in my opinion, the eternal same-ness of the companion was getting annoying. I love lore, background, item uniqueness. I love reading the in-game books, notes, etc.

I want my choices to matter in the long run, I don't want my PC to be the cleaning lady, clearing up messes that NPCs make through their choices. To me, a game has to be consistent and it needs to adhere to its own logic. Hawke, by the beginning of act III has killed so many people by simply walking around after dark, that entire sections of the city should be empty and ghost-town like. Or should I say even more empty than they already are.

I don't like being pressed into choices that don't even matter, and are there for show only. At least give me the illusion of choice. By the end of Act III, I didn't even bother to consider anything, I went the "ene mene mine mo" route to decide between the two factions, because by then I already knew it wouldn't make a lick of a difference.

The family angle was terribly underdone and over-dramatized at the same time. I was shocked to see that uncle and cousin survived, I was expecting them to die in dramatic fashion by the time Act II was coming to a head.

Hawke had all of appr. 4 conversations with Mother. I didn't know anything about her, other than her insisting to take her 2 apostate daughters into the central hive of the templars in all of Thedas. The place she run away from with her apostate husband, and living a life of continual worry and anguish because 3 members of her family had magic and was hiding from the Circle. So I should care about her because I was told to? Sorry, but that doesn't work for me, personally.

I dislike plot-holes that you can drive a truck convoy through. MageHawke is the most glaring one. I don't want to be told that it was necessary because of the story. It's *their* story, so they should write something that won't clash with the lore and background *they* came up with.

I want to be shown, not told. The more "show" the better.

Those are just a few points. It's early morning here, so my brain is not at full running speed yet. There is more, but those are major points for my personal RPG requirement.

NOTE!!!!!: Mind you, this is a personal taste/opinion/subjective post. Your mileage may vary.

[Droma]

@kilshrek: you can say the same thing after every ff game. ff7 was a huge success. nevertheless they made 8 total different. some hated it, some loved it. for me it was pretty clear after watching lots of interviews and trailers of da2, that they tried the same with dragon age 2. make a completly new fresh game (in the same universe). they didn't totally success with that. they never said that dragon age 2 will be the same as dragon age 1, so if someone expected that, he/she was just not informed in the first place.

they also said many times before the game came out, that it will be quite easy for rpg fans if they play it on normal, and that it feels like a "action rpg" if you play it. they said many times, if you want tactics and positioning and stuff, then you have to play the game on hard or nightmare. and they didn't lied about that either. so many of the criticism here comes down to not beeing informed in the first place. not every game nowadays is exactly like it's predecessor.

Modifié par Droma, 25 avril 2011 - 07:02 .

[Tommy6860]

Droma wrote...

they said many times, if you want tactics and positioning and stuff, then you have to play the game on hard or nightmare. and they didn't lied about that either. so many of the criticism here comes down to not beeing informed in the first place. not every game nowadays is exactly like it's predecessor.

Exactly how do you play tactics on those difficulty settings when the set piece enemies do not exist on the map?

Firstly, most areas are so small, that you can throw any tactics out of the window when using AoE spells or powers, there's simply not enough room. Even when you try to use tactics in a somewhat larger area and you use those spells and have your other allies use ranged weapons, then the enemies are beamed down from a Klingon vessel right upon you and your squad, where again, you cannot use power and have to melee you way to another area and hopefully not die with the surpirse party. Then you reset and then enemy paratroopers arrive for the third wave. Aside from making each wave more powerrful and harder to kill with certain mini-bosses that appear to spam health potions to no end, making the combat tedious.

I actually had to resort to spamming my ally powers and hope the one spamming didn't get killed whilwe having a tank stonewall and my other two do all of the fighting. Those are not tactics, that's unhinged action gaming with little to no thought put into how one goes about it.

[Kilshrek]

Droma wrote...

@kilshrek: you can say the same thing after every ff game. ff7 was a huge success. nevertheless they made 8 total different. some hated it, some loved it. for me it was pretty clear after watching lots of interviews and trailers of da2, that they tried the same with dragon age 2. make a completly new fresh game (in the same universe). they didn't totally success with that. they never said that dragon age 2 will be the same as dragon age 1, so if someone expected that, he/she was just not informed in the first place.

they also said many times before the game came out, that it will be quite easy for rpg fans if they play it on normal, and that it feels like a "action rpg" if you play it. they said many times, if you want tactics and positioning and stuff, then you have to play the game on hard or nightmare. and they didn't lied about that either. so many of the criticism here comes down to not beeing informed in the first place. not every game nowadays is exactly like it's predecessor.

I haven't played a FF game in ages, but I don't recall the combat system ever radically changing from the turn based combat it always had. VIII brought in the swap system, or was that X? I forget, I never played IX anyway. Though I suspect you're missing the point of the more reasoned complaints against the game here. Whole areas were recycled, the story was as water tight as a wicker basket in Act 3, the inventory system seemed to be caught between ME 2's streamlining and DAO's depth. Your claims of misinformation are rather hollow because many of these changes weren't fuly advertised. Combat was said to be faster but nobody expected cheapspawning waves or ninjutsu fighting, or even teleportation. Companion armour was set but I never expected it to be as weak as it was. Everyone knew the story would be set in Kirkwall but I don't think anyone could have expected Kirkwall to be quite as small as it was, and to be as unchanging as it was.

Your claims to play the game on Hard as well, tsk, where do I start? Just read any of the hundreds if not thousands of complaints about the game's difficulty system then come back and discuss it. Hard offers nothing, and I do mean nothing, different to Normal or even Casual beyond a HP and resistance difference for enemies. Tactics still mean nothing thanks to cheapspawning enemies, powerplayers seem plenty interested in Nightmare because it's the only mode that comes close, but playing on Hard is just a chore.

It's not that people are uninformed, friend, I can assure you of that.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Just a side note...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

A perfect example of changing a game without completely departing from its predecessor is the ability trees. The ability trees, besides giving you new abilities to keep the game fresh, eliminated having to stack useless abilities to get to powers you actually wanted to use.

I am sorry that I picked just one item from your reply, but even that change didn't make sense. And here's why. To get a given talent you want to use, you must follow a given route in the talent tree. So, you cannot select anything at random. Some talents are also blocked until a certain level. Which is fine when it comes to powerful talents. However, some talents require you to spend a given number of talent points in the tree. That forces you to select a talent that you may or may not like at all, just to get the one you need. To make talents really useful, you have to upgrade most of them using the same system. Because of these 4 limitations the end result is just as bad or good as the talent system in DA:O. All in all it's a change I can do without.

Edit: To me the above looks similar to your junk loot argument. I didn't understand the need for junk loot either. But I think I know where it came from. A lot of people didn't want to hunt for elfroot and other cheap items like that. They considered it junk. Others said that they wanted to keep using elfroot and herbs for potions. And yet another group said they loved loot. So the compromise was to have all junk loot into one group that you could easily sell. The elfroot and other resources now have their own hidden inventory (which looks like the distributed inventory in ME) to make sure that they won't be sold by accident. It looks like BW tried to listen, but that they really had no clue how to please all. The same goes for the talents. They tried to implement something people wanted, but screwed up there too.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 avril 2011 - 07:49 .

[Barefoot Warrior]

I didn't expect this game to be 'Origins 2', and thankfully it wasn't. I can't even imagine what would have happened had it been so. I knew that this was a different story, and I knew that there were going to be some changes. I got more changes then I bargained for, most not for the better. What I expected was a game that was at least the same quality or better then Origins, and that wasn't the case either. I do think that changes are good, it is how those changes are implemented that will make or break anything. In this case, I think that 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it' applies. In any event, I don't care what difficulty anyone plays this game, it is (in my opinion) a 'hack n' slash'. Had my Hawke had a gun, I'd be tempted to call it a shooter. Now days it seems that the term 'RPG' has a wide definition and I'm not even sure what a real RPG is any more, but I don't think this game fits my idea of an RPG, if it is, it was certainly on the fringe. I agree with the OP on his thoughts. I was so anxious to get this game and pre-ordered it which I don't usually do. Lesson learned, I won't do it again. Just my thoughts on the subject. As I said in another post, get on the old ore car, pull the brake and go for the ride, and then find out the brake doesn't work anymore.

Modifié par Barefoot Warrior, 25 avril 2011 - 07:43 .

[spacepopeadventures]

@Droma: FF only ever changes gameplay mechanics. Narrative approach remains the same, which makes the changes easier to swallow.

For myself, I have few problems with DA2's gameplay. It's dialogue and plot that give me pause. I don't think I'm alone in this.

[SilentK]

There are some major changes that I thought improved the game.

* voice, and that you have the tones not tied to morality as in ME. I just connect better with a voiced char but that's just me. And I like the replay value when a lot of dialogue is different because a new tone.

* combat, I had more fun this time around. It might feel a hack&slash now but I haven't changed it up to hard yet =) I like the trees in DA2 better than DA:O. At least it's a bit more flexibility.

* rivalry/friendship that I wish could have been used in DA:O as well. I would have been wonderful to be able to rivalmance both Alistair and Leliana. One of the best changes in my opinion.

* On Hawke the 5:th that I'm currently playing I'm starting to to feel a little boxed in in Kirkwall. Wish there could have been one other place that you could have visited at will other than sundermount and the coast. I know that it is for storytelling purposes. We won't know what goes on in Thedas these 10 years until the next game or dlc. But for me that would have made life a little easier.

[Sabriana]

I think the combat was terrible. It was too fast, and it might just have been an impression, but to me it seemed like the attacking NPCs were slower than the PC and her party.

In the end, I just had everyone go in and hack away, hoping that they wouldn't mow down too many of their own allies.

I had the Companions on hold, in a bottle-neck, only to see them charge ahead anyway, or simply materialize right around Hawke at the worst possible moment Varric was especially prone to simply charge right into the middle of melee, just to be killed immediately.

My rogues (not RogueHawke) seemingly only warned me about traps when Hawke (or another "full charge ahead no matter what" melee fighter) had already triggered them. Isabela was especially bad about that. Isabela sees no traps, Isabela knows no traps.

Don't get me wrong, the characters were fine, I love Isabela and Varric, but their AI was at times incredibly terrible, especially in combat and trap recognition.

And please, don't even get me started on the ninja-parachuters materializing right on-top of Hawke's head. Yes right on top of her to the point where they clipped right into her. Or bosses with an insane amount of HP and huge amount of Potions. Or teleporting mages with spells that could single wipe the whole party in one fell stroke, and Hawke & Co had simply no room to avoid that - tactics? What tactics?

In the end, I simply tuned it *down* from NM to hard and even normal. Not because I couldn't handle it, but simply because I wanted it to be over with.

Note: the above holds my opinion, personal observation, and personal impression. For all I know, my game could simply be glitched to the max.