143 réponses à ce sujet

[Boiny Bunny]

Fieryeel wrote...

astrallite wrote...

Fieryeel wrote...

astrallite wrote...

Just because you enjoy something doesn't mean it's good. I "enjoy" playing QWOP too and it isn't a good game.

No offense mate, but that made no sense.

Bioware made a game. A game is meant to be enjoyed. If DA2 has fulfilled that purpose, then why would it not be a good game for people who like it?

Your logic makes sense. Greasy food is enjoyable. Therefore it is good high quality food.

Since when did I say DA2 was a quality game? Don't mistake goodness with quality.

Greasy food is enjoyable, but that does not mean I would call it good high quality food, merely good food.

No...

'Enjoyable' is subjective.  'Good' is not (or should not be used in a subjective context, at any rate).

You may call greasy food 'enjoyable' - but that does not make it 'good' nor 'quality'.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

So...Arby's isn't really Good Mood Food?

[ozonemania]

I enjoyed playing DA2 very much! I have to say tho, coming to these boards was ruining it for me. I initially came here to research on strats and builds, but the more you read you realize there's alot of negativity here. I started seeing issues that had not even been an issue for me in the first place.

Honestly, after reading through alot of gripes by posters here, I can't say I disagree with them but somehow through the power of text on message boards they get blown out of proportion. People extend themselves to extreme points of view just to get their points across, and get themselves noticed.

Few of these 'flaws' ruined the game for me... sure it may have caused confusion, brought questions in my mind, or had some vague annoyances that I couldn't quite put my finger on.. but they weren't game breaking for me -- because perhaps I was immersed in the experience of the story, from beginning to end.

I may not have exactly been pleased with the ending, or the way the plot went, but that doesn't mean it was bad. There are plenty of movies for example that don't go the way I would want them to but that doesn't make it a bad movie.

I really take these gripes with a grain of salt... even the best games always have their contingent of diehard whiners. Which is fine, that's the way they are. Haters gonna hate.

I think the thing that bugs me tho is that so many people are so self-absorbed that they fail to see anything valid beyond their narrow view of things. It is narrow because it's just their point of view -- and only their 'truth' matters. That's what it sounds like to me.

I'm not claiming by any means that DA2 was perfect. Not perfect -- if there is such a thing. But I am enjoying it, but I'm not too arrogant to discount that people have genuine dislikes about the game, as long as they realize that what they see as major flaws aren't necessarily major flaws for everyone else.

Anyway, speaking of dislikes... I do have a couple of my own -- for some reason they bugged me:

1. Running around keeping my tab key down so that I wouldn't miss any doors, objects or codices. I found an autohotkey mod for that eventually.

2. Not being able to do a manual save or convert a checkpoint at the beginning of certain cinematics/cut scenes. I like to experiment a bit with outcomes as I play, or keep saves of favourite scenes -- perhaps there's a way of doing this but I just don't know how. Would have been nice to be able to rename saves too.

[Fieryeel]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

No...

'Enjoyable' is subjective.  'Good' is not (or should not be used in a subjective context, at any rate).

You may call greasy food 'enjoyable' - but that does not make it 'good' nor 'quality'.

So you 've never eaten a fried drumstick before and went, "Mmmm! This is good!"

Ever had a sundae dripping with caramel and hot fudge and said, "This is a good ice-cream~"

[0x30A88]

Sure, I enjoyed it -- even played it through three times. However, the replayabillity goes straight down after that as it is too short, and every playtrough is similiar, there are not many choises and ways it can turn out differently, and thus ruin the replayabillity.

This is the internet, it's either outright love, or furious hate among most. Thinking the game was a bit good or okay.... impossible.

Another reasson: hating something popular makes them feel like iluminated wisemen among "drones".

Boiny Bunny wrote...
No...

'Enjoyable' is subjective.  'Good' is not (or should not be used in a subjective context, at any rate).

You may call greasy food 'enjoyable' - but that does not make it 'good' nor 'quality'.

Whether something is good or not is also entierly subjective, and can't be measured other than in an avarage of opinions, which are subjective. Reviews are most often subjective, as one can choose what to put emphasis on and eveln leave out what would impact the review score heavily. That's why a game can get reviews from 3 to 8 out of 10.

One can say DA2 lacks what makes a good game -- for you, for me or for who? What makes a good game for you is different for what makes a good game for -- for instance -- me.

However, in hardware and outside art, one can use good or bad somewhat objectively, like benchmarking a computer component.

Modifié par Gisle Aune, 29 avril 2011 - 07:59 .

[Get Magna Carter]

The act of playing a game is a subjective experience varying according to the player's ability, attitude and approach. Add in different people's tastes in subject matters, game genres and sub-genes, different prejudices and priorities it is quite normal for opinions on games to be divided (and quite common for people to think their subjective opinions are objective). It is impossible to create a game which all gamers will like.

Personally, I wasn't bothered too much by the re-used maps as I focus on completing the mission, killing the bad gus and looting. Sight-seeing is an optional bonus feature.

Overall, I enjoyed the game and consider it the best game of the year so far.
I consider it's main short comings to be
1) Hawke's motivations are not sufficiently clear (It's much easier for save the world plots - after all "that's where I keep most of my stuff")
2) player freedom of choice too limited as to what quests to do -forcing players to do story quests with only the flimsiest of pretext of a reason to do them.
3) consequences of player decisions are limited - some affecting one person only, others "normalise" before the end and others are undefined (for future products to resolve?) leading a lack of sense of accomplishment (I'm still not clear whether Hawke actually rose to power in my first playthrough)

[Masako52]

I liked the game. I was a bit disappointed with it, but now I more realize that it's different, and while it has its flaws, I have to say - the characters are captivating for me and I've found myself infinitely more interested in the DA2 fandom than I ever was in the DAO fandom. For what that's worth.

There are a lot of things I wish they had taken more time on with DA2. There are some changes I wish they hadn't made. But there is a lot of pretty brilliant stuff and potential there, so I enjoy playing it and leaving the rest to imagination, I guess.

And don't mind all the haters here. It's the Bioware forums, everyone wants to whine about how Bioware betrayed them personally with DA2. just lol and move on.

[Ballaorf]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

1) Hawke's motivations are not sufficiently clear (It's much easier for save the world plots - after all "that's where I keep most of my stuff")
2) player freedom of choice too limited as to what quests to do -forcing players to do story quests with only the flimsiest of pretext of a reason to do them.
3) consequences of player decisions are limited - some affecting one person only, others "normalise" before the end and others are undefined (for future products to resolve?) leading a lack of sense of accomplishment (I'm still not clear whether Hawke actually rose to power in my first playthrough)

I can see how 2 and 3 might annoy people. I never play a bad guy, so I never really ran into a problem here.

Regarding 1... I hadn't really thought about that... Hawke doesn't really seem to have any motivation, now that you mention it. At first, he's just trying to get away, protect his family. Then a year goes by and he's on the path to be a hero.

From my perspective, he gets sort of caught up in it. He's being pushed around by people, usually people he cares about, until he gets to a point where he doesn't have much choice but to be the hero. Maybe that's why he does what he does at the end (wish I could elaborate more, but don't want to ruin it since we're in the No Spoilers forum!). It's like when you go out and you're like "Okay, tonight I'm going to take it easy, not drink more than two drinks, get home early, and go right to sleep!" then the next thing you know it's 2 AM and you've had way more than you anticipated and everyone is looking at you like "What are we doing next?!" and you're like "Awww crap."

[Whisky]

That would be counter-productive. Praise them and they'll get the wrong idea that DA2 was awesome.

We should show them what they did wrong so that they wouldn't make the same mistakes again.

[Nonoru]

It doesn't matter what other people think, for you,as a gamer.
If you like the game, play it as much as you want and have fun.

[Fieryeel]

I was pleasantly surprised to realize I could torture Qunaris alongside Ser Varnell, and even save Mother Petrice.

Arishok responds by saying he looks forward to my death.

[Dr Bawbag]

Ballaorf wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

1) Hawke's motivations are not sufficiently clear (It's much easier for save the world plots - after all "that's where I keep most of my stuff")
2) player freedom of choice too limited as to what quests to do -forcing players to do story quests with only the flimsiest of pretext of a reason to do them.
3) consequences of player decisions are limited - some affecting one person only, others "normalise" before the end and others are undefined (for future products to resolve?) leading a lack of sense of accomplishment (I'm still not clear whether Hawke actually rose to power in my first playthrough)

I can see how 2 and 3 might annoy people. I never play a bad guy, so I never really ran into a problem here.

Regarding 1... I hadn't really thought about that... Hawke doesn't really seem to have any motivation, now that you mention it. At first, he's just trying to get away, protect his family. Then a year goes by and he's on the path to be a hero.

From my perspective, he gets sort of caught up in it. He's being pushed around by people, usually people he cares about, until he gets to a point where he doesn't have much choice but to be the hero. Maybe that's why he does what he does at the end (wish I could elaborate more, but don't want to ruin it since we're in the No Spoilers forum!). It's like when you go out and you're like "Okay, tonight I'm going to take it easy, not drink more than two drinks, get home early, and go right to sleep!" then the next thing you know it's 2 AM and you've had way more than you anticipated and everyone is looking at you like "What are we doing next?!" and you're like "Awww crap."

I seriously don't see the difference between how the story evolves in DA2 to that of which we see in almost  every other RPG, DA:O included. Every RPG I've ever played has been restricted by the boundaries devs force upon the  PC and almost every choice leads to the same thing, with the only difference being - the wording at the end.  In DA:O the protagonist was the centre of the universe, the one that had everyone looking to the her/him to make the next move, even Alistair whom if we're going to pick games apart, should have been the person making those decisions.  At least until the mid game. when the PC would have had more experiance behind him/her.

For all it's flaws, the Hero's story is a little bit more believable than that of the Warden's.  A warden for 5 minutes, then suddenly able to tackle a High Dragon with his merry band of outlaws., set the world to rights and so on.  Yeah, i can see why people would think the Warden's plot was more plausable.

Modifié par Dr Bawbag, 30 avril 2011 - 12:05 .

[keginkc]

You probably feel like the odd one out because it's not a lot of fun on the forum for fans of the game, at least not so far. It's hard to find a thread, neutral or maker forbid positive, that doesn't get overrun and overwhelmed by comments along the lines of 'the game sucks and you're an idiot if you like it'. It can be difficult to find simple, straightforward discussion, and that makes it difficult to, on one hand, participate in any discussions (there aren't many), and on the other, remain neutral when you find one (at least speaking for me) and not turn into a flaming avenger and defender of all things DA2 as soon as the usual suspects begin their assault.

So I mostly just stay off the boards now. I'll check in every day or two just to see if there's news, like the dlc (which I did buy...), but other than that I'm staying away. And, unfortunately, it's keeping me away from the ME3 boards, too. The experience on here since release (and, well, leading up to it) has really turned me off. BioWare forums are usually bad, but between this forum and TORs forum (which I've stayed away from for around the last year) I think I'm just going to stay away.

And maybe, in the end, I'll end up liking the games even more because of that. ME3 will certainly be a much more virgin experience than ME1 or 2 if I'm able to stay away until release.

[abaris]

Gisle Aune wrote...

Thinking the game was a bit good or okay.... impossible.

I guess its more along the lines of being polarized. The game introduced many things some people obviously have waited for and some people outright hate.

For the records, I hate the changes, they made.

There may be a middle ground and saying its a bit good might be the right thing to say for this Middle ground. But lets remember, it was advertised and sold as an AAA title with an AAA price tag - as the second part of a highly praised series. It has to be measured by these standards. And I think it offers less content and less interaction than its predecessor.

So, a bit good doesn't quite cut it.

Modifié par abaris, 30 avril 2011 - 12:19 .

[Pandaman102]

Dr Bawbag wrote...

I seriously don't see the difference between how the story evolves in DA2 to that of which we see in almost  every other RPG, DA:O included. [...]

Simply put:

DA:O is about "saving Ferelden by killing the Archdemon." You're railroaded to kill the Archdemon, but your choices determine what kind of Ferelden you saved.
DA2 is about "rising to power and being blamed for the revolution." You're railroaded to be blamed for the revolution, but you're also railroaded in your rise to power.

I accept that Hawke cannot avoid being blamed for the world-changing results of the events at the end, but I expect branching questlines (even if they lead to the same plot events) when the marketing specifically states that the adventure is shaped by my decisions and that I determine how Hawke rises to power (look at the first two key features at dragonage.bioware.com in case you don't believe me).

[Blze001]

DA2, in my mind, suffered from the same problem that ME2 did: it's a filler. A bridge from point A to point B. The start was, more or less, already established, although Bioware kinda skirted that with introducing a new character, and the end had to have enough similarity to be tied into DA3.

So you have an established beginning and a need for the same-ish ending regardless of the player's choices. The only difference between DA2 and ME2 in how the story unfolds is that in ME2, between the three 'acts', you can choose which of the 4-5 required quests you performed when. In DA2, you didn't have that choice, the game said "You do this now to advance the plot".

[Night Prowler76]

Nothing wrong with liking the game, Im glad you had fun:>

[schalafi]

I've been around Bioware forums for quite a long time, and nothing changes when a new game comes out. There are some who hate it immediately, after playing for an hour, and some who are willing to give it a chance and play it all the way through before giving their opinion.

Not everyone should play rpgs (imo). Rpgs are more slanted toward those who like dialogue, plot, and npc interaction, not just swinging a sword, or wielding a staff. If there is the right balance of both then I consider it a successful rpg, but not necessarily perfect. I have never played a "perfect" game, no, not even BG2, although it came close, and so did Origins, again my opinion.

I was expecting a game similar to Origins when I started DA2 and was disappointed at first because of many changes... no changing npc armor, no set place to talk to them, no party banter between my pc and npcs while traveling, the ending left me hanging, wondering if my choices really made a difference, etc. But I thought the story and the writing were totally up to the standards that Bioware has always set in their games. It took me a couple of playthroughs to realize that there was continuity and logic in the plot, it was just sort of sidetracked at times by the Fed-Ex type of some of the minor quests. The npc''s quests were meaningful, or in some cases, (Aveline's), were funny and sweet.

I didn't mean to write this long a comment, I just had to say that there were flaws in every game I've ever played, but in Bioware's games the flaws were outweighed by the excellent writing and plot.

I'm not looking for perfection, just enjoyment, and every Bioware game I've  played had a lot that appealed to me, so I would replay them for that reason. I'm playing DA2 for the third time, and I learn something new each time I play it.  I would rate it a very worthwhile game for being the kind of rpg I like.

Modifié par schalafi, 30 avril 2011 - 05:23 .