282 réponses à ce sujet

[Saintthanksgiving]

I dont care if the thing was number one on every best seller list.  My problem with Dragon Age 2 is not that it sucked. (it did)  My problem with DA2 is that it is not a sequel to Dragon Age Origins.  

Sidenote:  If I have to hear one more person say "It isnt Dragon Age: Origins 2" I might lose my mind completely.  What in the hell does that even mean?  The Game is called DRAGON AGE 2..... making it the second DRAGON AGE GAME.  Is it the sequel to another Dragon Age that I somehow missed?  Should I go to GAMESTOP and ask for a used copy of "Dragon Age: Hawke's Adolescent Adventures"? 

If you want to make the claim that I should have read the Dev Diaries before I preordered the game, fine.  I disagree with you wholeheartedly.... but you can make a loose claim that I have a responsbility to be an informed consumer.  Maybe I dont want to meet all the characters before I play the game.  Maybe I choose to learn about Kirkwall through my own expierience.  MAYBE I TRUSTED THAT BIOWARE WAS COMPETENT ENOUGH TO PRODUCE A GAME WITH A COMPETENT ATTENTION TO ITS EXISTING FANBASE.

If you want to make the claim that change is good for the franchise, fine.  I will refer you to my original post where I defended changes that altered the game without interfering.  I will not agree that the wholesale FIREBOMBING of the orginal game is anything but a slap in the face to people who purchased and enjoyed it.

I WILL NOT entertain the notion that DA2 is some type of standalone product that can not be judged in comparison to ORIGINS.  If you loved Dragon Age 2 I wish you nothing but continued happiness, but do not think for one second that DA2 has the right to stand independant of ORIGINS.  The game was made for one reason, because ORIGINS made BIOWARE a lot of money.  To put it simply, DA2 only exists because everyone who played ORIGINS wanted MORE Dragon Age.  Laidlaw completely disregarded those people.  Apparently the people who shelled out money for the game and DLC had no idea what they really wanted.  Laidlaw knew better than everyone else.

They didnt even have an autoattack option in the console versions.... I mean cmon.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, but please.... stop with the nonsensical defenses.

[Dragoonlordz]

I have to concur with the feeling that they forgot what DAO was about and what made it so highly rated and special with the end result being awards and great sales in the RPG genre base. I do get that feeling when I played DA2 whether or not people agree with me is irrelevant, it's just how it felt to me. I did not compare it to DAO in my first playthrough but on my second I reserved the right to do so because it is a sequel. Whenever I think about playing it again (which cannot bring myself to do because did not like it on its OWN merits or in relation to being a sequel), I see the title on box and think.. No, there was too many changes it became something else and on it's own merits of being that other thing it still was a average at best game full of flaws. A sequel imho is baby steps making improvements not a complete change in direction which DA2 was. Amongst all the 'Jutsu' I was semi expecting to see lightsabers and such being it wouldn't have been much of a jump from one to the other.

[Saintthanksgiving]

and before everyone jumps all over the "DA2 was not supposed to follow the warden from origins" that is not my point.  I am not criticizing the plot elements or companions.  I am not completely  against DA2 following a different protagonist than the first game.  Creating a new PC is a much more suitable way to start the adventure fresh without having to.... oh I dont know... arbitrarily kill off the protagonist and then bring him back to life in the first 3 minutes of a game... through cutscenes. 

I do have a problem with limiting the options of that fresh character creation to the point where its a waste of time to even bother.

which is a small example of my problem with the game as a whole.

[Ariella]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

I dont care if the thing was number one on every best seller list.  My problem with Dragon Age 2 is not that it sucked. (it did)  My problem with DA2 is that it is not a sequel to Dragon Age Origins.  

Sidenote:  If I have to hear one more person say "It isnt Dragon Age: Origins 2" I might lose my mind completely.  What in the hell does that even mean?  The Game is called DRAGON AGE 2..... making it the second DRAGON AGE GAME.  Is it the sequel to another Dragon Age that I somehow missed?  Should I go to GAMESTOP and ask for a used copy of "Dragon Age: Hawke's Adolescent Adventures"? 

If you want to make the claim that I should have read the Dev Diaries before I preordered the game, fine.  I disagree with you wholeheartedly.... but you can make a loose claim that I have a responsbility to be an informed consumer.  Maybe I dont want to meet all the characters before I play the game.  Maybe I choose to learn about Kirkwall through my own expierience.  MAYBE I TRUSTED THAT BIOWARE WAS COMPETENT ENOUGH TO PRODUCE A GAME WITH A COMPETENT ATTENTION TO ITS EXISTING FANBASE.

If you want to make the claim that change is good for the franchise, fine.  I will refer you to my original post where I defended changes that altered the game without interfering.  I will not agree that the wholesale FIREBOMBING of the orginal game is anything but a slap in the face to people who purchased and enjoyed it.

I WILL NOT entertain the notion that DA2 is some type of standalone product that can not be judged in comparison to ORIGINS.  If you loved Dragon Age 2 I wish you nothing but continued happiness, but do not think for one second that DA2 has the right to stand independant of ORIGINS.  The game was made for one reason, because ORIGINS made BIOWARE a lot of money.  To put it simply, DA2 only exists because everyone who played ORIGINS wanted MORE Dragon Age.  Laidlaw completely disregarded those people.  Apparently the people who shelled out money for the game and DLC had no idea what they really wanted.  Laidlaw knew better than everyone else.

They didnt even have an autoattack option in the console versions.... I mean cmon.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, but please.... stop with the nonsensical defenses.

None of the arguments are nonsensical, but it's obvious you don't wish to entertain them. Bioware DID consider the fanbase when the changes were made, and it's been stated over and over by many different that they considered both critical and fan reception and feedback.

It seems all you want to do is blame somebody, and play poison pen disguised as reasonable debate. You weren't the only one who paid for DAO, and you weren't the only one who paid for DA2. Bioware, to survive as a business, has to take all feedback into account, and it seems there was a lot of feedback that disagreed with your perception of DAO. Did the dev team swing too far when they tried to correct what some of the fanbase in DAO saw as oversight? Maybe, but it has nothing to do with Mike Laidlaw thinking he knows better. So if you're going to make some kind of criticism, make it informed, rather than assumed.

[Dragoonlordz]

Ariella wrote...

None of the arguments are nonsensical, but it's obvious you don't wish to entertain them. Bioware DID consider the fanbase when the changes were made, and it's been stated over and over by many different that they considered both critical and fan reception and feedback.

It seems all you want to do is blame somebody, and play poison pen disguised as reasonable debate. You weren't the only one who paid for DAO, and you weren't the only one who paid for DA2. Bioware, to survive as a business, has to take all feedback into account, and it seems there was a lot of feedback that disagreed with your perception of DAO. Did the dev team swing too far when they tried to correct what some of the fanbase in DAO saw as oversight? Maybe, but it has nothing to do with Mike Laidlaw thinking he knows better. So if you're going to make some kind of criticism, make it informed, rather than assumed.

Don't even go there, in all interviews he (Mike) tends to reply with either "What i thought",  "What I wanted" or "What I believe" and not what the fans want. It seems you need to get better informed first. Whether or not he's just being arrogant or not putting himself first through the questions asked or if really was based on fan feedback that I do not know. But his words speak for themselves. Ray on the other hand tends to phrase it in the basis of "fans wanted" or "fan feedback" style wording but he creates discontent by the fact he minimize the negative and pushes the positive to extremes.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 26 avril 2011 - 03:18 .

[spacepopeadventures]

GammaRayJim wrote...

"Q: Blood Magic is a forbidden art in the world of DA2, but the main character uses it freely during the game against civilians and Templars. How is that logical?

A: Well, sometimes you have to give up perfect inner logic to make the game more fun. This is one of these cases. Anyway, this can be explained by the fact that the champion is someone who can do whatever he wants. No one is bold enough to lecture him about that. This is kind of like when the authorities ignore certain crimes because the criminal's aid is of great importance."

Unbelievable! As if Bioware couldn't think of a third fun mage spec that wasn't blood mage. Like, oh, arcane warrior, maybe?

I really don't see how coming back from the Deep Roads with some phat lewt makes Hawke "someone who can do whatever he wants". At that point, Hawke has no visible influence at all. Even in Act 3, the only way we "know" Hawke's important is that everone keeps telling them how important they are.

Lazy thinking on the devs' part.

[Saintthanksgiving]

the informed criticism of Mike Laidlaw comes from interviews that he gave describing Origins and DA2.  They have been quoted in every thread on this forum,

"We knew going into Dragon Age II we were making some changes. I wouldn't necessarily say changes to make it more accessible, but to make it present itself in a different way.  - ummm why?

Well it's hard to know exactly what's going on with (metacritic) scores that
are really, really negative. One possible culprit could just be a change
backlash, i.e. this isn't Origins and I wanted Origins 2. There may be
some degree of what I would honestly say is emotional investment in the
Origins story, or in the way Origins was presented which is leading to a
stronger than average reaction of disappointment. That's
understandable, and if anything that really is a compliment to the work
on Origins. I'm not sure it's an entirely fair assessment to say all
games must be like the previous game. I think we would have seen just as
much negativity if we just, as I used to joke, stapled two Archdemons
together and called it a super blight. It boils down to a game that
challenges a fair amount of convention: it doesn't tell the usual
fantasy story or present the usual fantasy combat, and in doing so it
does run the risk of someone going, "Wow, this is just too different and
I cannot handle it."  - I cannot handle it apparently.  Completely disregard that it wasnt necessary or asked for.  To put it simply I am not cutting edge enough for DA2.  I think a video game designer just called me a nerd.

Honestly I don't feel it's a game that's been designed to appeal far and
wide and so on. If it were, there were choices we could have made that
would have taken it much, much further. We would have probably
simplified down to a single character, maybe with companions; probably
looked at doing some even deeper changes to inventory management, making
sure that... You wouldn't want to confuse people with enchanting or
anything complex like that.   - This is my favorite because he actually DID all those things.

 and to address your claim that Laidlaw was responding to Fan criticism:

The first thing we did with Dragon Age 2 was to start looking at forums,
reviews, focus groups, to see what the key areas were that needed
improvement. So starting with that point we focused on the three things
we wanted to improve – making the visual style more distinctive, making
the combat more reactive, and while there wasn’t much negative feedback
on the story, we didn’t want to rest on our laurels, which is why we
went with the frame narrative. 
Maybe those criticisms gave them liscence to rip the game apart and maybe it didnt.  I for one think that the changes made were basically using a howitzer to kill a housefly.... but again... maybe I just cant handle it.

[Dragoonlordz]

spacepopeadventures wrote...

Unbelievable! As if Bioware couldn't think of a third fun mage spec that wasn't blood mage. Like, oh, arcane warrior, maybe?

I really don't see how coming back from the Deep Roads with some phat lewt makes Hawke "someone who can do whatever he wants". At that point, Hawke has no visible influence at all. Even in Act 3, the only way we "know" Hawke's important is that everone keeps telling them how important they are.

Lazy thinking on the devs' part.

Why he even needed to go to the deep roads imho is debatable. You see the size of the gold piles at the end of the trip it's quite large, but you see the same size gold piles a few times once in Sundermount cave and again in Wounded Coast cave. It's not like he made any money from the Idol so he was only rich because of the gold and of which could have been gotten from either Sundermount or Coast.

[jds1bio]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

I dont care if the thing was
number one on every best seller list.  My problem with Dragon Age 2 is
not that it sucked. (it did)  My problem with DA2 is that it is not a
sequel to Dragon Age Origins.  

Sidenote:  If I have to hear one more person say "It isnt Dragon Age: Origins 2" I might lose my mind completely.  What in the hell does that even mean?  The Game is called DRAGON AGE 2..... making it the second
DRAGON AGE GAME.  Is it the sequel to another Dragon Age that I somehow
missed?  Should I go to GAMESTOP and ask for a used copy of "Dragon Age: Hawke's Adolescent Adventures"? 

If
you want to make the claim that I should have read the Dev Diaries
before I preordered the game, fine.  I disagree with you
wholeheartedly.... but you can make a loose claim that I have a
responsbility to be an informed consumer.  Maybe I dont want to meet all
the characters before I play the game.  Maybe I choose to learn about
Kirkwall through my own expierience. 
MAYBE I TRUSTED THAT BIOWARE WAS COMPETENT ENOUGH TO PRODUCE A GAME WITH
A COMPETENT ATTENTION TO ITS EXISTING FANBASE.

If you want to
make the claim that change is good for the franchise, fine.  I will
refer you to my original post where I defended changes that altered the
game without interfering.  I will not agree that the wholesale
FIREBOMBING of the orginal game is anything but a slap in the face to
people who purchased and enjoyed it.

I WILL NOT entertain the
notion that DA2 is some type of standalone product that can not be
judged in comparison to ORIGINS.  If you loved Dragon Age 2 I wish you
nothing but continued happiness, but do not think for one second that
DA2 has the right to stand independant of ORIGINS.  The game was made
for one reason, because ORIGINS made BIOWARE a lot of money.  To put it
simply, DA2 only exists because everyone who played ORIGINS wanted MORE
Dragon Age.  Laidlaw completely disregarded those people.  Apparently
the people who shelled out money for the game and DLC had no idea what
they really wanted.  Laidlaw knew better than everyone else.

They didnt even have an autoattack option in the console versions.... I mean cmon.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, but please.... stop with the nonsensical defenses.

First you create a topic stating that a fundamental problem is being ignored.  Then, when several people do the opposite of ignoring and address your statement, you don't want to entertain their posts.  Instead you write them off as having "nonsensical defenses".  So what is going to happen is that everyone is going to end up ignoring you anyway.  A self-fulfilling prophecy.

And yes, Laidlaw may be on the defensive here.  He may not know the best immediate way to respond to the criticism, this may be his first go-around at receiving a public critical rebuke.  It might be yours as well, and your above statement isn't exactly shining in temperament.  Perhaps you might have more of an appreciation of Laidlaw's current position after running this thread for a while.

It is obvious you are quite passionate over DA2, enough so to deny it its rights, as if DA2 is a legal entity or person.  Perhaps you may instead light a candle, put on some Allman Brothers, go start a new character in DA:O, have a cookie, and enjoy the game.  I guarantee you that by the time you finish that cookie, you will feel as right as rain.

Modifié par jds1bio, 26 avril 2011 - 03:45 .

[LadyRae9]

My opinion on the origin story....

No, there is not a separate origin story...

However, there are 3 separate acts and each act is dependent upon the ones before. The choices made will effect the quests and even the things your character says. (If you usually use the 'nice' response then, even when unprompted, you character will respond nicely.)

Also, since you have a choice of which 'outcome' you use from DA:O, you're game play is effected by that as well.

And, to make it more fun, your family is changed depending on the preset you start with.

I see an 'origins' like beginning without duplicating the choice of different races/professions.

[Saintthanksgiving]

I am always here to entertain. In fact I was sad that no one acknowledged my dig at me2. I apologize if im being intolerant but the idea that da2 cannot be judged by its predecessor just seems ridiculous. Everything else is a matter of personal preference.

[Saintthanksgiving]

@Ladyrae, I don't think there is anything wrong with hawke or his origin. My problem is that there used to be six distinct origins that were stripped out of the game so that a voiced npc could be installed. A large reason for origins success was removed to add a feature that someone decided was more important.

[jds1bio]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

I am always here to entertain. In fact I was sad that no one acknowledged my dig at me2. I apologize if im being intolerant but the idea that da2 cannot be judged by its predecessor just seems ridiculous. Everything else is a matter of personal preference.

Ok, just for good sport I'll acknowledge your dig at ME2 - yes it was a convenient reboot of a sort, to give new players a chance to be Shepard also, while giving veterans a chance to re-spec.  Just as The Arrival is a funneling of all our Shepards to give ME3 a common starting point. 

BioWare seems to be wrestling with how and where to start its own sequels, while trying to please veteran players and newcomers alike.  It does bother me if a veteran player's action in a previous game gets overriden in a sequel without an in-game or game-world-related explanation.  But this is starting to get off-topic.

[Saintthanksgiving]

My next thread is going to address the apparent laziness in storytelling that seems to be infecting biowares recent releases... but I want to thoroughly exhaust this topic first. Anyone exhausted? I also want to provide ample opportunity for dev input here... not that im holding my breath.

[Morroian]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

From the offset day one has been explained through development each time that every FF game was intended to tell a new story, both worlds/plots and characters with each game, out of the 14+ being/been made only 3 have/are sequels if i recall. The difference here is DA2 was supposed to be the same world and was even mentioned they kept all the best bits from DAO to keep fans happy while they tried new things to bring in new players.

Seems to me that BW have always stated that the DA would be a series of different games set in the Dragon Age rather than a continuiing series. And DA2 felt like a DA game to me so IMHO they succeeded in what they set out to do.

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Why he even needed to go to the deep roads imho is debatable. You see the size of the gold piles at the end of the trip it's quite large, but you see the same size gold piles a few times once in Sundermount cave and again in Wounded Coast cave. It's not like he made any money from the Idol so he was only rich because of the gold and of which could have been gotten from either Sundermount or Coast. 

Please tell me you're only being facetious here.

spacepopeadventures wrote...

Unbelievable! As if Bioware couldn't think of a third fun mage spec that wasn't blood mage. Like, oh, arcane warrior, maybe?

You can build an AW, you get armour and even a weapon thats not a staff. I don't see the problem. The problem isn't blood magic, its how its presented.

Modifié par Morroian, 26 avril 2011 - 04:30 .

[Dagiz]

You know I was going to try some semblence of discussion given the OP....and than there are some posts that made it apparent that the entire reason for this post was to just **** about the game.  Which is all fine and dandy.  But to me, in my own wayward and homeble opinion, to answer the question (or statement) of

The Fundamental Problem that is constantly ignored here.


is that your vision of the game is not being met.  That's all it is.  It's the same thing for anyone else who complains about games...all games really.  Is that a generalization?    yes.  yes it is.  It's the same for anyone not happy with changes that were made.  We can all feel that the changes were not necessary...but apparently someone (at it really most likely was not Laidlaw tbh, but the people who asked or placed him in charge of the game) at Bioware said we need change. 

Likewise for those that thought this was the best game ever and defend it ad nauseum...good for you.  They made a game you enjoy.  Wonderful.   For the record, I did enjoy the game but there were some issues with it that I feel could have been handled better.

I reloaded ME and ME2...and I noted some things that I  want to bring up once in another topic so as to not totally derail this thread.  But as I said...the answer to the statement you are making is very clear.  It's not the game you envisioned or wanted.  Unfortunately in this instance...its not your game.  If you made it and it didn't turn okay...I can see saying that something was a fundamental problem.  But since you did not create the game (nor did I  for that matter) that kind of statement well is false. 

I might take the opinions stated more seriously if you had simply laid off the caps lock and did not tell people (paraphrasing here)  that they were idiots for what their own opinion is.  But that's just me.  

Modifié par Dagiz, 26 avril 2011 - 05:14 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Morroian wrote...

Seems to me that BW have always stated that the DA would be a series of different games set in the Dragon Age rather than a continuiing series. And DA2 felt like a DA game to me so IMHO they succeeded in what they set out to do.

I have never seen this statement you speak of, please enlighten me. I mean it, I would like to see it myself.

[Dagiz]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Seems to me that BW have always stated that the DA would be a series of different games set in the Dragon Age rather than a continuiing series. And DA2 felt like a DA game to me so IMHO they succeeded in what they set out to do.

I have never seen this statement you speak of, please enlighten me. I mean it, I would like to see it myself.

Just happened come across it myself.


http://www.zam.com/s...tml?story=20052

It's from 2009. 

Mark Darrah: I'm actually in charge of the creative direction of not just Dragon Age: Origins, but of all of the products associated with the brand. At the moment, it's just Dragon Age: Origins and the one released book, but this also includes more novels in the future, a pen and paper game being developed by Green Ronin, a comic book and any future expansions to come. 

ZAM: When you were creating Dragon Age, is franchising the game something that you wanted to do from the beginning?
 
Mark: Absolutely. It's always been the intention of Dragon Age to establish a new IP, a new universe that we can build and show a new side to fantasy, a darker look at fantasy that allows us to tell a lot more stories. This is just the first game in a universe of games.

Modifié par Dagiz, 26 avril 2011 - 04:59 .

[Bones40]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

I dont care if the thing was number one on every best seller list.  My problem with Dragon Age 2 is not that it sucked. (it did)  My problem with DA2 is that it is not a sequel to Dragon Age Origins.  

Sidenote:  If I have to hear one more person say "It isnt Dragon Age: Origins 2" I might lose my mind completely.  What in the hell does that even mean?  The Game is called DRAGON AGE 2..... making it the second DRAGON AGE GAME.  Is it the sequel to another Dragon Age that I somehow missed?  Should I go to GAMESTOP and ask for a used copy of "Dragon Age: Hawke's Adolescent Adventures"? 

If you want to make the claim that I should have read the Dev Diaries before I preordered the game, fine.  I disagree with you wholeheartedly.... but you can make a loose claim that I have a responsbility to be an informed consumer.  Maybe I dont want to meet all the characters before I play the game.  Maybe I choose to learn about Kirkwall through my own expierience.  MAYBE I TRUSTED THAT BIOWARE WAS COMPETENT ENOUGH TO PRODUCE A GAME WITH A COMPETENT ATTENTION TO ITS EXISTING FANBASE.

If you want to make the claim that change is good for the franchise, fine.  I will refer you to my original post where I defended changes that altered the game without interfering.  I will not agree that the wholesale FIREBOMBING of the orginal game is anything but a slap in the face to people who purchased and enjoyed it.

I WILL NOT entertain the notion that DA2 is some type of standalone product that can not be judged in comparison to ORIGINS.  If you loved Dragon Age 2 I wish you nothing but continued happiness, but do not think for one second that DA2 has the right to stand independant of ORIGINS.  The game was made for one reason, because ORIGINS made BIOWARE a lot of money.  To put it simply, DA2 only exists because everyone who played ORIGINS wanted MORE Dragon Age.  Laidlaw completely disregarded those people.  Apparently the people who shelled out money for the game and DLC had no idea what they really wanted.  Laidlaw knew better than everyone else.

They didnt even have an autoattack option in the console versions.... I mean cmon.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, but please.... stop with the nonsensical defenses.

You need moar caps.  I don't think you're quite driving your point home strong enough.  We get it, you don't like the game.  There's lots of games I don't like that I've bought.  I don't waste my time writing rant after rant trying to convince other people to feel the same as I.  

Just move on man.  I'm sorry yo didn't like it.

Modifié par Bones40, 26 avril 2011 - 05:19 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I don't know if this was brought up, but I have an example of why "change" is not necessarily a good thing, nor is it necessary to make a succesfuly game.

Blizzard waited a decade to make Starcraft 2 and the fans were clear they did not want a change in the fundamentals. Blizzard, being the awesome studio that it is, listened to its fans and improved upon SC1 without changing it. SC2 was an immense success.

In contrast, Command and Conquer 4 (its studio owned by EA...what a shock), ignored the fans completely, decided to change the fundamentals of everything that defined the Command and Conquer franchise, and it turned out to be a massive pile of complete and utter fail in every possible way the tragedy still shocks me and many fans to this day.

So in short, change is sometimes not required, nor needed to make a good sequel. If change is going to be made, then first the ideas need to be good, second it requires *time*. A long enough development time to be able to execute the innovation properly. DA2 did not have that (it looks like a quick cash in to me), neither did Command and Conquer 4. Not saying DA2 is as bad as CnC4, nor am I saying all the changes made in it are bad. But somethings did not need to change, but rather improved.

This post is just to argue against the general counter argument of "you just don't like change!", as if change is an end in and of itself and that all successful studios who make successful games need to change all the time. Sometimes, listening to fans and keeping things as is, is a good thing.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 avril 2011 - 05:34 .

[Elhanan]

Dagiz wrote...

You know I was going to try some semblence of discussion given the OP....and than there are some posts that made it apparent that the entire reason for this post was to just **** about the game.  Which is all fine and dandy.  But to me, in my own wayward and homeble opinion, to answer the question (or statement) of

The Fundamental Problem that is constantly ignored here.


is that your vision of the game is not being met.  That's all it is.  It's the same thing for anyone else who complains about games...all games really.  Is that a generalization?    yes.  yes it is.  It's the same for anyone not happy with changes that were made.  We can all feel that the changes were not necessary...but apparently someone (at it really most likely was not Laidlaw tbh, but the people who asked or placed him in charge of the game) at Bioware said we need change. 

Likewise for those that thought this was the best game ever and defend it ad nauseum...good for you.  They made a game you enjoy.  Wonderful.   For the record, I did enjoy the game but there were some issues with it that I feel could have been handled better.

I reloaded ME and ME2...and I noted some things that I  want to bring up once in another topic so as to not totally derail this thread.  But as I said...the answer to the statement you are making is very clear.  It's not the game you envisioned or wanted.  Unfortunately in this instance...its not your game.  If you made it and it didn't turn okay...I can see saying that something was a fundamental problem.  But since you did not create the game (nor did I  for that matter) that kind of statement well is false. 

I might take the opinions stated more seriously if you had simply laid off the caps lock and did not tell people (paraphrasing here)  that they were idiots for what their own opinion is.  But that's just me.  

Hey, ya big hairy tree stompin' Sasquatch! Long time; no post!

I have tried to say that a time or two, but maybe not here, and not as well. Congrats!

[SilentK]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

@Ladyrae, I don't think there is anything wrong with hawke or his origin. My problem is that there used to be six distinct origins that were stripped out of the game so that a voiced npc could be installed. A large reason for origins success was removed to add a feature that someone decided was more important.

We don't know what the next game will give but this time they wanted to introduce Hawke. For me at least this was great because I prefer having a voiced char. I find it much easier to act out different kinds of people when I have a voice, don't know why really. Well, as long as the tone of the voice isn't tied to morality as in ME. My sheps are always full paragon without a doubt. I had a ton of fun with the different voices, even managed to make a direct one which was a first. And after a while the direct one started acting a bit more as her voice and did some not always kind- things. Completely new experience for me.

The warden is stil around so we will see more of our dwarf, elf and human warden. Don't know how they are going to work out the voice-part for that. Hope that there will be a voice for the warden if we get to play her/him again but that's just my own little private wish     =)

[LadyRae9]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

@Ladyrae, I don't think there is anything wrong with hawke or his origin. My problem is that there used to be six distinct origins that were stripped out of the game so that a voiced npc could be installed. A large reason for origins success was removed to add a feature that someone decided was more important.

And here I disagree. I believe that it was for story telling purposes and not because of a voiced character that we played a human named 'Hawke'.

For me, at any rate, I believe there are enough differences in the game based on the choices you make (down to something as simple as the preset character chosen), that I'm satisfied with the lack of completely separate origins 

[SkittlesKat96]

Why do people complain about the lack of Rpg depth in DA II? (Voiced protagonist, less options etc. etc. you know what I mean)

Mass Effect (and Mass Effect 2 specifically) did stuff like that and they are both great games (which one is better is not the argument) and Dragon Age II could have been great too.

The real problem is the recycled environments, bad storyline (I could say specifically what was bad about the plot and storyline but I'm talking generally here) and the non-changing Kirkwall...honestly the game would be at least good or great if those things weren't there. Think of there being heaps of environments and richly detailed places, a more interesting and epic and joined plot and if Kirkwall felt more alive and changing (i.e, the place being repaired and looking ravaged after the Qunari invasion, new buildings opening up and the place overall looking a bit different etc.)

Anyway my point is the fact that Dragon Age II is different to Origins (different combat, voiced protagonist, different dialog wheel, different story and nothing much to connect the two games, new art style, different companion systems and armoring) isn't what I think made it a bad game and a lot of those things I just mentioned have their own perks and are being done for the right reason (although some of that stuff makes me a bit mad) it's other stuff that brings this game down.

[Ponendus]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

I would like to know what I should have expected when I bought a game with a "2" at the end of the title.

I agree. Naming this Dragon Age 2 should, and likely did, imply for many that the game should be at least close to the original in its features. I've said it several times here and elsewhere, naming this game this way was the biggest mistake BioWare made.