282 réponses à ce sujet

[Aratark]

I think the fundamental problem was that the EULA for the game didn't have a 'you can't complain incessantly' clause

On a slightly more serious note, the trophy and achievement systems on the ps3 and xbox respectively are starting to change the way a number of games are played. Whereas 10 years ago, people would buy BG/BG II, for example, and play through multiple times to see how the different characters play, you are seeing a lot more people playing the game the least amount of time possible to earn all the trophies, then moving on. Regardless of whether the majority of posters on here are happy with that fact, it is going to start having a knock on effect on games. Terminator:Salvation, for example, is seen as a 'trophy ****' game, because it's relatively easy to complete, gives loads of gold trophies and can boost the trophy count simply. As a result, it was bought by quite a few folk and rented by a lot more. I, unfortunately, do not have sales figures to hand.

While I don't defend change for changes sake, I did enjoy the game for what it is (subject to caveats I have mentioned elsewhere) but the audience a game appeals to changes over time and more sales can be acheived by appealing to the trophy hunter community as well. It isn't necessarily a good change as they aren't guaranteed to buy the next installment of a franchise.

With regard to the Mike Laidlaw 'I' statements in the interviews, it could well be that it has been suggested to him to make those statements, so there is a recognised bad man to fall on their sword if it all goes pear-shaped, it could be purely the way he speaks or another of many other potential reasons.

This is purely a post to try and get people examining every possibility for changes, rather than BW hates DA:O fans.

Edit:  Just noticed that the filter won't allow me to use a phrase to describe a large number of players of Terminator Salvation.  The phrase began with W and has been used to describe Isabela on numerous occasions.  I'm not trying to get around the filter, but unfortunately my meaning can be lost without the phrase.  I'm happy to amend if someone has a similar phrase that can be appended.

Modifié par Aratark, 26 avril 2011 - 10:09 .

[Sabriana]

Well, you see, that might be the best way to put it. I've played DA:O numerous times, and I'm still playing it, but I couldn't tell anyone which "trophies" I achieved to save my life.

[elenilote]

I prefer games where you either a) get a trophy automatically upon reaching certain milestone in the game, work a bit harder for a trophy (like 'complete x number of this type of quests to get y') or c) combination of above. DA2 seems a little too much trophy-oriented, and it seems easy to play just for the trophies.

[Aratark]

Look at the Dragon Age trophies, most of them are along the lines of get to x part of story, romance first character, etc. The only two that spring to my mind without checking the list are do over 200 damage in one hit and kill over 1000 darkspawn, that people may have to work towards.

I'm not saying trophies are inherently bad, just that the introduction of them has changed some peoples game playing styles.

Modifié par Aratark, 26 avril 2011 - 10:52 .

[Saintthanksgiving]

I said earlier that I wanted to stick with this thread until it was exhausted... I think we've gotten there.
After being accused of violating DA2's civil rights, being told that I have no place insulting DA2 because I didnt make it... ok... and being told to go eat a cookie... I think we have reached the end of meaningful discussion. I am moving on to throw Gasoline on another aspect of the game in a new thread. Feel free to bring me a cookie.

Just to sum up: The fundamental problem that is being ignored in these forums is that DA2 owed a lot more to the people that loved ORIGINS. Even if you loved the game, this is not a sequel to ORIGINS. I dont mean the story, or the Player Character. I dont hate Hawke or Kirkwall. I am saying that DA2 was a hijacking of the Dragon Age IP into an entirely different genre. More than that though, I resent the fact that I am made to feel like some kind of moron because I was expecting Dragon Age 2 to be the sequel to Dragon Age 1.

and Laidlaw hates puppies.

[Dagiz]

Elhanan wrote...

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!

Hey El!  It has been a long time hasn't it.  It's funny to note that this type of discussion comes around again isn't it.  Seems like yesteryear the Bio forums were once again in flames due to a sequel.  Always a good time...and don't forget to bring marshmellows!

Sabriana wrote...

Well, you see, that might be the best
way to put it. I've played DA:O numerous times, and I'm still playing
it, but I couldn't tell anyone which "trophies" I achieved to save my
life.

Yeah...the trophies in any of the games...doesn't and won't ever affect me.   I don't need them to know how awesome I am at the game.   If I  survive than I  must be doing something right.  If I  get the NPC to do what I want (as much as one can in a game)  than I must be doing something right.  If I  finish the game and complete the story than I did something right.   I don't need a stinking trophy telling me that I  did that.

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

I said earlier that I wanted to stick with this thread until it was exhausted... I think we've gotten there.
After
being accused of violating DA2's civil rights, being told that I have
no place insulting DA2 because I didnt make it... ok... and being told
to go eat a cookie... I think we have reached the end of meaningful
discussion. I am moving on to throw Gasoline on another aspect of the
game in a new thread. Feel free to bring me a cookie.

Just to
sum up: The fundamental problem that is being ignored in these forums
is that DA2 owed a lot more to the people that loved ORIGINS. Even if
you loved the game, this is not a sequel to ORIGINS. I dont mean the
story, or the Player Character. I dont hate Hawke or Kirkwall. I am
saying that DA2 was a hijacking of the Dragon Age IP into an entirely
different genre. More than that though, I resent the fact that I am
made to feel like some kind of moron because I was expecting Dragon Age 2
to be the sequel to Dragon Age 1.

and Laidlaw hates puppies.

To sum up again...just differently.  In your opinion the game owed people more...and you're not alone in that.  I don't know if it owed me anything other than a game that I could enjoy and get a few hours (a little over 65 in one playthrough and 55 in another).   That's my opinion. 

As for you feeling like a moron...well I can't help you there.  I will say though that it's been said over and over that bioware has made it known that this was not going to be a sequel to origins hence the title not being DA:O2.  Could have used a better title I think.  But it does that help that I look at the title of DA2 and read it as "Dragon Age Story Number 2" rather than a sequel.  But again, that's me and I  know there are others out there that viewed it as you do and did.  Which is confusing at times since...well since we were all told that was not going to be the case.  Also if you look at the article I  linked from 2009...they aren't done with this franchise by any means and there are probably going to be more and more different things added or subtracted from the game.  I am sure after DA3 or whatever it's called....we'll have the same exact conversations.  wonderful thing about the forums is that they do keep track of who said what...so it will be interesting to see if the same complaints are made by the same people and if the same people who praised the game up and down say the same thing.  I  look forward to that actually.

[nightscrawl]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

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.

Being a "sequel" has nothing to do with the actual game design, which to my mind is what most people have a problem with. A sequel "continues the narrative of a preceding work." In that sense, taking place in the same universe, with the additional hints given by Nathaniel in the Deep Roads during his quest, means that it IS a sequel.

I hate what Obsidian did with Neverwinter Nights 2, but I certainly don't deny that it's a sequel. There are examples in other forms of entertainment as well: movie sequels being worse than the first, especially if they are under a different team; sequel novels written by different authors (or author's child) after the original dies. These sequels may suck. They may not be done in the same vain as the original. They may not hold the same magic appeal as the original. But if they continue the story, they are sequels, no matter how sucky they are.

Frustrated game devs in interviews saying that people were disappointed because they wanted "Origins 2" are essentially correct, from all of the negative commentary I've read on these forums. People feel they can't connect to Hawke. People don't like the way the companions are developed (compared to DAO). DAO this, and DAO that. Other than specific mechanical issues like combat or various bugs, all people do is compare this game to DAO. How do you think a BW dev saying that is an unfair assessment?

Was I initially disappointed I wouldn't be able to continue my Warden? Yes I was. Was I worried about playing a fixed character in Hawke? Yes I was.

But my goal with Dragon Age is, and always has been, to experience the story. I wanted more content in the same universe, and that's what I got. I was not disappointed with the final result I played. I was left wanting more. I genuinely feel bad for those of you who hate this game and feel it was a waste of money. I feel bad for you because you did not feel the same enjoyment I did, or get the same entertainment value that I did. (This is not meant in a condescending way.)

That's all I can say really =/.

[Galad22]

I also thought I was buying sequel to Dragon Age: origins, instead I got sequel to ME only with swords and much worse. So I really wasn't very happy.

I admit that it was partly my own fault though, because I didn't follow development of the game for months.

[_Motoki_]

nightscrawl wrote...

Being a "sequel" has nothing to do with the actual game design, which to my mind is what most people have a problem with. A sequel "continues the narrative of a preceding work." In that sense, taking place in the same universe, with the additional hints given by Nathaniel in the Deep Roads during his quest, means that it IS a sequel.

I disagree. In a book or movie yes because all you have is the story. In a game? No. It's to be expected that a sequel will be somewhat similar. (ie you don't follow up and RPG with a shooter or a platform jumper with a farming sim etc)

There are even games like Final Fantasy where the narratives are not connected at all in the sequels. It's the style of game that's consistent.

Frustrated game devs in interviews saying that people were disappointed because they wanted "Origins 2" are essentially correct, from all of the negative commentary I've read on these forums. People feel they can't connect to Hawke. People don't like the way the companions are developed (compared to DAO). DAO this, and DAO that. Other than specific mechanical issues like combat or various bugs, all people do is compare this game to DAO. 

Wow people comparing a direct sequel to the original it is based off of. What a concept. <_<

[Elite Midget]

I really disliked what happened with items....

Hawke - "Hey I'm a mage! Got Blood Dragon armor and some Heavy Armor...."
Fenris - "That's nice."
Hawke - "Well, you're a warrior... Right?"
Fenris - "Yes."
Hawke - "Well?"
Fenris - "Well what?"
Hawke - "Try it on!"
Fenris - "I can't. It says only you can wear it."
Hawke - "But I'm not a warrior, you are!"
Fenris - "Still can't wear it."
Hawke - "Than what's the point of this stuff dropping than if no one can use it?"
Fenris - "Ask the Maker."
Hawke - "....I'm so burning that Chantry down."

[Saintthanksgiving]

Are we really going back to the" this isn't a sequel" talk?

[Elite Midget]

Yes, some people are intent on fooling themselves to believe DA2 isn't a Sequel to DA:O.

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

Mike's the face of the team, and to personalize that fact he speaks in first person. Ray on the otherhand is no where NEAR the team and speaks more in general terms, that's interviews for you.

[Ariella]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

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.

Attribution for the quotes please. Just because "they show up everywhere on the forum" is no excuse for sloppiness in your arguement, especially since one can take such quote from another post and end up with a game of internet version of "phone".

But if one does take this quote as writ, it's interesting to note that he considers the vehement defense of Origins a complement to that game and the work they put on it. Yet the complement is ignored in favor of specifically looking for insults.

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.

Again you have no citation. Where did thios quote come from, what context is it in?

 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.

Citation.... and even without it. he points out "we" looked at the forums, focus groups etc. So they DID respond to fan criticism, just not criticism that was in line with what you thought. Did they go too far, maybe. Did they take a major risk in changing the narritive style, yes, but that's their right. It's their story. And shaking things up sometimes is a good think, it was a gamble that will either pay off or no. We'll see.

[Gotholhorakh]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

Words that rang like the sword of truth being drawn.

Yep, you pretty much nailed it, I couldn't agree more.

Droma wrote...
in my opinion it's
often the fault of the people himself

Meh, if I hear this argument one more time I'm going to vomit.

I've spent my whole life so far discriminating between books, films, games, music, plays and so on that are great, not so great and so on as I wish, and discussing my conclusions and thoughts with other people in an enjoyable way.

It's only since DA2 came out that people on this forum, and indeed quotes from interviews, started informing me that if something is slipshod in its implementation or has flaws, it must be my fault as a consumer.

(It's also the first time I have been an idiot, or troll, or otherwise terrible person for having the temerity to criticise something after having paid for it)

Go figure, eh?

Bones40 wrote...

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.

Here's the rub. He spent a bunch of cash and has no game to play. It's not unreasonable to discuss and critique the experience on the forums in the time we should be (would be) enjoying the game.

jds1bio wrote...
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".

You see, it doesn't look like that's what happened, if you read through what he said again, he was responding to things people were saying that were garbage.

Refusing to accept something someone asserts because it's complete balderdash is still OK, right?

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 26 avril 2011 - 05:30 .

[TheRaj]

Sabriana wrote...

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.

Yes I did exactly that too. If you look at the threads on weekly sales, someone posted a chart. There is a big spike in the first week where DA2 sold more than DA:O. Afterwards it seems to be selling considerably less. I reckon we are the spike.

That'll teach us...

[SwordsmanofShadow]

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."

I know this might have much to do with the original topic, but...

This is the most inane reasoning I have seen in a while.

I would understanf that logic if it was petty crimes. A real world anolog is celebrities and wealthy figures involved in drugs, prostitution, etc. openly, because thay have wealth and fame to back them up (Charlie Sheen is a good example of this). The police ignore these crimes mainly due to not only the persons said wealth and power, but because the 'crimes' themselves only affect them and no one else.

Blood magic is a- if not THE- cardnial sin of the Dragon Age Universe. That any amount of fame and power can excuse it is ridiculous. That is like saying President Obama or Bill Gates could openly sell WMD's and bio weapons openly to terrorists without fear because of their relative status.

And there are other 'Doh' moments to, like the timeline with Anders being in the first act when the Blight is reportedly just ended, and Awakening happens 6 monthes after that.

Modifié par SwordsmanofShadow, 26 avril 2011 - 05:37 .

[Ariella]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

Words that rang like the sword of truth being drawn.

Yep, you pretty much nailed it, I couldn't agree more.

Droma wrote...
in my opinion it's
often the fault of the people himself

Meh, if I hear this argument one more time I'm going to vomit.

I've spent my whole life so far discriminating between books, films, games, music, plays and so on that are great, not so great and so on as I wish, and discussing my conclusions and thoughts with other people in an enjoyable way.

It's only since DA2 came out that people on this forum, and indeed quotes from interviews, started informing me that if something is slipshod in its implementation or has flaws, it must be my fault as a consumer.

(It's also the first time I have been an idiot, or troll, or otherwise terrible person for having the temerity to criticise something after having paid for it)

Go figure, eh?

Thing is, how much of that slipshod is quintifiable and how much is opinion? One could say implementation of DAO was slipshod as there are still bugs in the game that can be game breaking (the alienage orphanage for one). But one has to sit down and honestly separate one's opinion. This game doesn't git your preferences, and that's fine, it doesn't make one a troll or an idiot, any more than like the game makes one a troll or an idiot. It's when people start taking every little thing the developers say (which are generalities) as being pointed at them we run into problems.

People love Origins and it's a great thing, but putting blinders to difference attempts to tell the story of the Dragon Age because of that love can cause problems and make people much more vehement than they need to be, which in turn causes people who enjoyed DA2 or loved both games to get defensive, and thus the mess we're all in.

I've said many time, DA2 possibly swung the pendulum to far in the other direction when Bioware answered fan and critical feedback from Origins, but the best way to find some middle ground is to give reasoned critical feedback, and not point fingers. 

[HeliusOD]

You know what as far as what it was trying to be da2 was good, theres a thread in here by one of biowares new audiance couldnt tell if it was sarcasm or not he was basically complaining about there not enough enemy's in the game. As well as comparing it to god of war which is funny.....

so im guess no matter what light you shine it in a Peice of .... is still a Pieces of ....

[Haexpane]

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

 

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) 

Indeed, Mass Effect 1 is the better game in all aspects except graphics.

But everyone thinks Mass Effect 2 is better because it had better shiny, zoomed in herp derp camera and more underwear secks.

[Aratark]

Dagiz wrote...



Yeah...the trophies in any of the games...doesn't and won't ever affect me.   I don't need them to know how awesome I am at the game.   If I  survive than I  must be doing something right.  If I  get the NPC to do what I want (as much as one can in a game)  than I must be doing something right.  If I  finish the game and complete the story than I did something right.   I don't need a stinking trophy telling me that I  did that.

Unfortunately, for your point of view, there are an ever-growing number of people who play games to get the trophies.  My understanding of it is that Sony and Micro$oft make it a requirement for the game to be released on their consoles  The ever increasing number of websites that are dedicated to getting trophioes/acheivements is another indication that this is not a phenomenon that is going away any time soon.  As long as BW is releasing games on these platforms, the trophy requirement will have to be met.  Whether it has a concrete effect on gameplay and development assets is still to be definitively seen.

[Rockpopple]

W-wait, I thought Mass Effect 1 had more sex/nudity than Mass Effect 2... o_O

[Elhanan]

Aratark wrote...

Unfortunately, for your point of view, there are an ever-growing number of people who play games to get the trophies.  My understanding of it is that Sony and Micro$oft make it a requirement for the game to be released on their consoles  The ever increasing number of websites that are dedicated to getting trophioes/acheivements is another indication that this is not a phenomenon that is going away any time soon.  As long as BW is releasing games on these platforms, the trophy requirement will have to be met.  Whether it has a concrete effect on gameplay and development assets is still to be definitively seen.

While their inclusion does appeal to my compulsive nature, I am not so far gone as to collect everything at any cost. For example, I am a huge fan of films, and adore Alien & Aliens, but any flic past that are still on the store shelves because they taint the adoration I already have. While I do look at the acheivements to see what remains, if the Icon price is doing something that opposes my own beliefs, at6 least for now I have the strength to let it stay deactivated.

I can see where some that adore DAO may feel much the same way, but hope they can also relalize that other opinions differ. For instance, some like Alien IV cause of the creator. For me, not so much, and will rewatch Firefly instead to stoke that fire.

[Reinveil]

Rockpopple wrote...

W-wait, I thought Mass Effect 1 had more sex/nudity than Mass Effect 2... o_O

It did.  Naked blue ass says hi!

[Haexpane]

Reinveil wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

W-wait, I thought Mass Effect 1 had more sex/nudity than Mass Effect 2... o_O

It did.  Naked blue ass says hi!

Maybe it had more PG-13 skin, but ME2 was more sexually charged.  The entire story of ME2 is "don't forget to bone the hawties before you fight the big bad!"