143 réponses à ce sujet

[zeejay21]

Aww, OP. There are people who like the game despite it's flaws so don't feel that you're an 'odd one out'.

It's just that most people expect highly (and differently) of the game and after they found it wasn't up to their expectations, well, tempers fly.

Fortunately, it has since cool down.

[MerchantGOL]

OP no matter how dark things get know you are not alone

[Lesdeth]

The Metalion wrote...

No offense, but is English your first language?  What you said makes no sense.  Maybe it's a language barrier.

To complain is to vocalize dissatisfaction.  People who dislike the game are more likely to vocalize their dissatisfaction.  Therefore, they are louder.  People who like the game are less likely to continuously voice their praise.

Anyway, the critics are obviously fewer but louder than the fans.

You can be loud while typing on a forum?  I must be missing something.  There is also this thing called critisism and this can be constructive.

And no, if you enjoy a game and actually have the ability to create builds/strategies to incorporate into someone else's playstyle, you would post them quite often.  There are some on these forums for DA2, but not very many.

Fanboy is a term used to describe a male who is highly devoted and biased in opinion towards a single subject or hobby within a given field.

There are plenty of them.

Modifié par Lesdeth, 28 avril 2011 - 04:13 .

[A.Saturnus]

Bioware made a lot of artistic and design choices that were very different from Origins. People who wanted mainly Origins with a new story were pissed off by that. Also, alas, the game was rushed and didn't get the development it deserved.

[Heresis]

I'm re-playing it for 4th time!!
The only con for me is the fact that DA3 will take too much time to continue the story.

The dialogues are philosophical between the characters with an amazing sense of humor.

Can't everything be perfect and as we want it,the gameplay is much more factional and easier,as it should.

Just loved it!!!

[LyndseyCousland]

*posts a reply which contains the word 'vitriol' a few times*

Sorry, couldn't resist. xD
Yes, it's a very clever-looking word but sometimes one simply yearns for a thesaurus.

Also, I will enjoy the game despite its problems... when it's fixed and I can play it.

[KBomb]

You aren’t alone. The game has it’s flaws, but I still enjoyed it immensely. You shouldn’t worry if you’re the only one who likes it. Don’t even let it cross your mind. Respect other people’s opinions, but never hold them higher than your own. Chin up.

[AkiKishi]

It depends if you feel odd liking it, or you just feel odd liking it when so many other people do not.

[nicethugbert]

ChickenDownUnder wrote...

Dragon Age 2 is neither the worst or best game out there. It does have it's good moments. Just focus on those while playing and you should be fine.

Agreed. 

Incidentally, I just bought and started playing BG yesterday, Teh Gold Standard of All RPGs FO EVA! and it sucks.  It's plodding dialog is amateurish, and that is ignoring all the old tech it's built on.  Yet, it's DA2 that has the "Major Flaws".  News Flash:  If DA2's flaws are major, then all games have Major Flaws.

Interesting thing about playing BG is that it shows how little growth there has been in RPGs over the years.  I suppose that is a result of The Devs responding to the demands of the rabid BG crowd with Spiritual Successors to BG.  Boring.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 28 avril 2011 - 11:28 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

BG 2 > BG 1. BG 1 is good, but not great imo. BG 2 is the best Bioware game of that time and likely the gold standard for most old school Bioware RPG fans.

Though I guess you'll want to play through BG 1 to get a better understanding of BG 2, if only at the beginning.

Personally, my gold standard for RPGs in that time period goes with PS:T, or perhaps FO 2.

But what do you mean plodding dialog? The dialog is of low quality? Or the fact that there is a lot of it?

Because if your problem is that there is too much dialog... well...

Modifié par mrcrusty, 28 avril 2011 - 11:38 .

[Roxlimn]

mrcrusty:

I thought that both BG2 and DAO had way too much dialogue, and in places that shouldn't have them. If Morrigan doesn't like me because I'm clearly on the side of Wynne, she shouldn't be waxing eloquent on the failings of Circle teaching. She should be ignoring me.

[Sabriana]

I am a vocal critic of DA 2. However, I would never belittle anyone for liking, or loving it. I'm genuinely happy that you had fun and were entertained by it.

Even though I, personally, find it a sub-par game, it is by no means a bad game. It is simply an average action/h&s with RPG elements for me. As far as I'm concerned, it is nowhere near the talent level of Bioware, who are superb story-tellers. I love most of their stuff. The reason I criticize is because I care - a lot. I do that in hopes that they will continue with the sparkly, delicious goodness that I know they are capable of.

I had fun through parts of it, and I certainly liked the premise of the story. To me it was not told well through the game, but tastes differ, and they should.

I'm glad you liked it. If someone jumps down your throat for loving the game, ignore her/him/them. They have as little right to bash you for liking it, as someone being bashed for not liking it. Enjoy it. There are others here who like it as well, and they have some great ideas on how to get even more fun out of it. Sadly, it doesn't work for me, but it might for you.

[SilentNukee]

I enjoyed the game, but was no where near truly loving it. It has many, many flaws that outweigh the good. (Re-used maps, too easy of a combat system (thought the combat was fun), not much interaction with your companions even though they said it was better than DAO?, an ending that leaves the WTF feeling and I hate it. (DAMN YOU BROTHERHOOD, you're the king at that.)) I could go on...
It was good, but I assure you those who truly love RPGs liked DAO a lot more. DA2 felt more like a JRPG, not that it isn't that bad, but I like to forge my own "destiny" and have interactions with my companions. That's why I like BioWare. That's why I really hope DA3 is heading in the right direction.

[LeBurns]

I don't care if you like it. Some people like Liver and Onions too and that doesn't bother me. Just don't try to convence me that Liver and Onions is really great because BioWare makes it and they make the best Beef Pot Roast in town. I love BioWares Beef Pot Roast also, but it doesn't mean I'm going to like thier Liver and Onions. What really ticks me is when BioWare tries to sell me their Liver and Onions by calling it Beef Pot Roast 2. Now that really ticks me.

... man I'm hungry.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Roxlimn wrote...

mrcrusty:

I thought that both BG2 and DAO had way too much dialogue, and in places that shouldn't have them. If Morrigan doesn't like me because I'm clearly on the side of Wynne, she shouldn't be waxing eloquent on the failings of Circle teaching. She should be ignoring me.

Depends really, but that really falls under the "dialog is poor/low quality" category as it's out of character. If her overall disposition is still positive however, it is possible that she's ranting at you to convince you how stupid you are. Angry, but still cares enough about your opinion to try and convince you. As opposed to a low or negative disposition, where she is much more likely to be apathetic or just plain angry. In which case, you'd be right.

But there are people who genuinely dislike dialogue in RPGs. Not because the dialog is inappropriate for the character or context, but simply because there's too much of it. These usually fall under the "tl;dr, sucks. If I want to read, I'll buy a book instead" category. People who want the narrative and story of an RPG, but only getting to the "good parts".

Though, they are much more likely to enjoy games like Oblivion.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 28 avril 2011 - 12:15 .

[Teredan]

The Metalion wrote...

Lots of people love the game.

It's just that the complainers are louder than the fans.

We'll see if they're enough when a DA3 unchanged in direction hits the shelves.

[LeBurns]

Roxlimn wrote...

mrcrusty:

I thought that both BG2 and DAO had way too much dialogue, and in places that shouldn't have them. If Morrigan doesn't like me because I'm clearly on the side of Wynne, she shouldn't be waxing eloquent on the failings of Circle teaching. She should be ignoring me.

Dialog, good dialog, gives characters depth, which is really important to those that want to really get into a role playing game.  It's not important at all to those who just want to get into the next battle so they can hit something.

Some people want to read a long novel, others want to read the cliffsnotes, others still want to read the graphic novel and some just want to see the movie.  Who's right, well all of them if it makes them happy.

[Roxlimn]

mrcrusty:

As boring and monotonous as most of DAO dialogue is, if you let it get that way, I actually went through nearly all the expository dialogue in it. Read the Codex entries as well. One of the things that I thought was a massive improvement in DA2 was that your companions were no longer walking tourist guides who waxed eloquent about anything and everything at the slightly provocation. Character dialogue was greatly shortened, but it was kept coherent and it characterized the companions better.

In point of fact, this is a major development as far as most RPG dialogue goes. Most RPG quest-givers and companions are altogether generally too wordy in all the wrong ways.

[Roxlimn]

LeBurns wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

mrcrusty:

I thought that both BG2 and DAO had way too much dialogue, and in places that shouldn't have them. If Morrigan doesn't like me because I'm clearly on the side of Wynne, she shouldn't be waxing eloquent on the failings of Circle teaching. She should be ignoring me.

Dialog, good dialog, gives characters depth, which is really important to those that want to really get into a role playing game.  It's not important at all to those who just want to get into the next battle so they can hit something.

Some people want to read a long novel, others want to read the cliffsnotes, others still want to read the graphic novel and some just want to see the movie.  Who's right, well all of them if it makes them happy.

I have absolutely no problem with long dialogue if it's well paced, well acted, and appropriate to the character.  Nearly all the lengthy, expository sequences in DAO were not only badly paced and out of character, they also usually involved the character using the same talking animation in the same blocking, from the same viewing angle all the time.  It's like talking to a robot spewing encyclopedic information.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

A good deal of expository dialogue was inevitable in Origins. It was the opening game in a new series and needed to help set out the world of Thedas in a way that was accessible enough to people who weren't willing to read the Codex entries.

Expository dialogue was the delivery mechanism. Not the greatest, but hard to imagine a better one while being able to get the same information and content out of it.

Dragon Age 2 took things too far in the other direction, imo. In Origins, the complaint came up that there was too much "fluff" dialogue with companions that didn't lead anywhere. I'd assume you'd call it expository and bad, whereas I'd say it was expository but filled the important role of providing backstory, character motivations and at certain points, character development.

In Dragon Age 2 however, the companions often become quest dispensaries. You're unable to strike up conversation as you did in Origins, so any chance of "talking" to them had to come in the form of a quest. Any development of the character wouldn't be seen until the next quest. Now, some people like this, but personally, I felt it made character development incredibly mechanical.

Especially since you wouldn't be able to converse with your characters until the next Act (timeskip), the next time you talked to them, a major difference in personality or character development. Which felt jarring. Especially for romances.

Character development happened over time from a narrative perspective, as opposed to instantly in Origins, but from a game play perspective, I felt it did the opposite.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 28 avril 2011 - 12:29 .

[AkiKishi]

Roxlimn wrote...
I have absolutely no problem with long dialogue if it's well paced, well acted, and appropriate to the character.  Nearly all the lengthy, expository sequences in DAO were not only badly paced and out of character, they also usually involved the character using the same talking animation in the same blocking, from the same viewing angle all the time.  It's like talking to a robot spewing encyclopedic information.

It makes the characters well rounded rather than just quest givers.

[Roxlimn]

BobSmith101:

Having ALL the companions being ready and willing to give the Warden long expository dialogues about themselves and their parts of the world doesn't make them well-rounded. It makes them all similar!

mrcrusty:

I think most gamers have this weird notion that what happens in the game is the ONLY thing that's happening. If they're not involved in it, it doesn't happen.

I find that view incredible. Just because Hawke and Merrill don't have paragraphs upon paragraphs of dialogue in the game doesn't mean that they don't hang out. In fact, it's heavily implied that Hawke hangs out with all his companions in various ways and guises, which are not brought to the forefront because they're not all that important. Just because the player didn't play the three years where Hawke was busy managing his estate doesn't mean that nothing happened - just nothing particularly interesting.

I did not particularly think of the companions in DA2 as "just quest dispensers," as the quests they dispensed generally had something to do with the things they said, in very direct fashion, often as if the quest itself were part of the dialogue, which it sometimes is.

In Origins, the complaint came up that there was too much "fluff" dialogue with companions that didn't lead anywhere. I'd assume you'd call it expository and bad, whereas I'd say it was expository but filled the important role of providing backstory, character motivations and at certain points, character development.

A good deal of expository dialogue was inevitable in Origins. It was the opening game in a new series and needed to help set out the world of Thedas in a way that was accessible enough to people who weren't willing to read the Codex entries.

I quite frankly disagree with this manner of doing things. I would much rather that Morrigan showed me the difficulties of being an apostate rather than tell me. The Way It Should Be is essentially an expository quest where we see what the Guard and Kirkwall is like, but from the perspective of Aveline, and with a mind to developing her, the city, the Guard, and so on. In DAO, we had an opportunity to have a similar expository tale in many places, but they were not taken advantaged of, in general.

Good stories deliver the necessary exposition in visuals, cleverly constructed scenarios with carefully constructed dialogue. Show, not tell. At virtually no time are the character traits of Aveline really mentioned, but we all have a strong impression of who she is and what she's like.

Contrast this to Morrigan, who essentially tells you nearly every essential aspect of her character, or has them told to you by other characters.