380 réponses à ce sujet

[Mad-Max90]

Really it just boils down to they needed money fast, a quick grab at the expense of a good franchise to put right back into bioware's mass effect trilogy, which might actually pay off with mass effect 3, the catch-22 is you leave a bad taste in the customer's mouth with this particular franchise, and now we are more wary of them, it's not EA's fault really, all they did was ask for it to be completed by this date, they had no real contol over the contents of said game, and good teams have been able to produce high quality games within that time, I personally think this team dropped the ball early on, not knowing exactly where they were heading with the sequel in terms of content and story, that made for the actual development to be cut back time wise as writing is first priority then developing around the story. You can see that they wanted to elaborate on the story but ultimately cut big chunks out, just look at all those wasted years, with only a quick cut scene talking about things we just did, not really what happened in-between the multiple three year hiatuses, and the lack of any plot changing choices only go to further my argument as it is easier to not give choices and let players watch rather than participate in the changing world. I'm not saying they didn't learn a valuable lesson, but what I am saying this is a lesson already learned by the mass effect team, it seems that this team didn't really pay much attention to the critics of mass effect 2, yes there are some with good reasons to not liking it, if you played the first you will see how they tossed out good rpg elements for a more refined combat experience, but the still had choices in mass effect 2, they might not have been as big as some in mass effect 1(aside from the whole give a reaper or destroy it) but they still had them, this team didn't look at the critics who wanted more rpg in an rpg franchise.

You may say it's ok, that it's their mistake to make, it is and I won't argue that, but what is disturbing is not doing the research of another one of their titles to say hey, more people want more of this that was left out of their sequel, let's try and put that into our game so we're covered in that area, it's like they didnt listen very well, I will applaud them for improving some aspects of combat, it's better faster, at least to me, but story wise, this game was more miss than hit, the acts are not that well bridged over from the time gaps, and the lack of choices was the biggest issue to me, they told us when origins came out that our "decisions" will write the history of thedas much like our decisions did with Shepard's story, but instead of a protagonist's story we're changing the story of a continent, and that aspect is completely lost when no decisions can be made, I'm upset because origins was a story where the player chooses how they want the game to end, whereas dragon age 2 is the story the devs pre-chose for us, because apparently I can't think for myself. Then the devs knock on origins for having an ancient evil, when DA 2 essentially had the same thing only instead of archdemon it's both he/she who didn't get along, only they didn't implement this well enough for the observer to realize it, they did however give the player an idea with multiple conversations and little hints here and there. But don't knock the whole ancient evil that must be stopped only to have it in the game you marketed as having none

[JPR1964]

Dariuszp wrote...
...

You're my god!!!!



I laughed all the way

But it's sad it's so true

Have fun!

JPR

[Rockpopple]

I didn't want to get involved in this conversation since it just seems to be a vortex of the same opinion revolving around and increasing in magnitude with each revolution.

Let me just say this, tho - DA 2 did not have an Ancient Evil as Protagonist as DA:O did. If you think that, you didn't get the story of DA 2. Just because the you-know-who in the end used the ancient evil of the you-know-what to be the thing you have to slay at the end, doesn't make her the same as the Archdemon. You-know-who was bringing about elements of the story that brought the climax long before she got a hold of you-know-what.

Gah - this is too confusing without spoilers. Suffice it to say: Lyrium sword does not equal soulless angry Archdemon. Not in a million years.

In any case, forgive my intrusion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled hand-wringing.

[Mad-Max90]

^did you witness the power the sword had, it turned giant statues into souless killing machines, she was mad-crazy using the "ancient" lyrium, she had to be stopped just as the archdemon, and in both games mind you, you are just at the wrong place at the wrong time but in both games you manage to conquer the ancient evil, you may not have gotten that, but like I said both have an ancient evil that must be stopped, just because you didn't know about it untill act three doesn't make it any less so.

[Rockpopple]

@ Mad Max

In Origins, the ancient evil that needed to be killed was a mindless, souless destroyer of people who hated them because they existed, who killed them because they lived, who ate them because it hungered. There was no rhyme, no reason. It was a disease, a blight, that needed to be killed in order for life on Thedas to continue.

In DA II, the villian was a protector of the people pushed to the limits of reason by a threat that she could never in reality ever destroy or be permanently rid of - a threat that continued to grow by the day - Mages. Because of her own backstory and her own experience, she became more and more paranoid as the years went on, and pushed her enemy into more and more desperate actions against her. This wheel of violence and pressure finally broke when she came in possession of an ancient artefact that sparked her paranoia into full-on madness and gave her the power to become a threat to all peoples in Kirkwall, to wit, she needed to be put down like a dog.

Origins and DA II's villains are not alike. There's a clear difference between the big bad in one and the big bad in the other. Don't let the glowing red eyes fool you. The lyrium idol is not the enemy in the game - it's just a means to an end.

[Xeranx]

Rockpopple wrote...

@ Mad Max

In Origins, the ancient evil that needed to be killed was a mindless, souless destroyer of people who hated them because they existed, who killed them because they lived, who ate them because it hungered. There was no rhyme, no reason. It was a disease, a blight, that needed to be killed in order for life on Thedas to continue.

In DA II, the villian was a protector of the people pushed to the limits of reason by a threat that she could never in reality ever destroy or be permanently rid of - a threat that continued to grow by the day - Mages. Because of her own backstory and her own experience, she became more and more paranoid as the years went on, and pushed her enemy into more and more desperate actions against her. This wheel of violence and pressure finally broke when she came in possession of an ancient artefact that sparked her paranoia into full-on madness and gave her the power to become a threat to all peoples in Kirkwall, to wit, she needed to be put down like a dog.

Origins and DA II's villains are not alike. There's a clear difference between the big bad in one and the big bad in the other. Don't let the glowing red eyes fool you. The lyrium idol is not the enemy in the game - it's just a means to an end.

If I may, in other words: DA:O's story was evil versus good while DAII's story is good versus good.  The latter we don't usually get too much of and I wish we did.

[JoHnDoE14]

99% agree. In fact, the only thing I didn't agree with, was liking the forgotten realms!

[Rockpopple]

Xeranx wrote...

If I may, in other words: DA:O's story was evil versus good while DAII's story is good versus good.  The latter we don't usually get too much of and I wish we did.

That's a great way to put it, and I agree - there aren't enough rpg plots where the big bad wasn't something you could negotiate with or feel sympathy towards.

To be fair to Origins, the Loghain subplot had this, and it was the biggest "subplot" in the game.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 03 mai 2011 - 07:44 .

[Xeranx]

Rockpopple wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

If I may, in other words: DA:O's story was evil versus good while DAII's story is good versus good.  The latter we don't usually get too much of and I wish we did.

That's a great way to put it, and I agree - there aren't enough rpg plots where the big bad wasn't something you could negotiate with or feel sympathy towards.

To be fair to Origins, the Loghain subplot had this, and it was the biggest "subplot" in the game.

My view on it is it had an element of that, but it's incredibly overshadowed by...(*notices no spoiler tag*) everything we see in-game.  

[Yrkoon]

Mad-Max90 wrote...

Really it just boils down to they needed money fast, a quick grab at the expense of a good franchise to put right back into bioware's mass effect trilogy, which might actually pay off with mass effect 3,

I *seriously* doubt this was their motive/Plan, considering DA:O was Bioware's biggest selling game.

Lets think about that for a second....  DA:O was Bioware's  Biggest.  Selling.  Game.  It sold more than Mass Effect.  It sold more than Mass Effect 2.   Why would they sacrifice/kill a franchise containing their Biggest.  Selling. Game.  in order  to boost funds  for a franchise containing games that don't sell as well?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 04 mai 2011 - 02:00 .

[Tommy6860]

Yrkoon wrote...

Mad-Max90 wrote...

Really it just boils down to they needed money fast, a quick grab at the expense of a good franchise to put right back into bioware's mass effect trilogy, which might actually pay off with mass effect 3,

I *seriously* doubt this was their motive/Plan, considering DA:O was Bioware's biggest selling game.

Lets think about that for a second....  DA:O was Bioware's  Biggest.  Selling.  Game.  It sold more than Mass Effect.  It sold more than Mass Effect 2.   Why would they sacrifice/kill a franchise containing their Biggest.  Selling. Game.  in order  to boost funds  for a franchise containing games that don't sell as well?

To be fair though, when comparing the game to ME and ME2, DA:O was released across three platforms at the same time. ME was, for the first 6 months Xbxo360 only, then PC. ME2 was 360 and PC only. When they were respectively released on other platoforms ong after the initial release, they didn't do so well. But, if you take ME an ME2 just on the 360, Origins didn't sell as well as those two.. So, comparing it to the ME series is subjective when considering this.

[Last Darkness]

Yrkoon wrote...

Mad-Max90 wrote...

Really it just boils down to they needed money fast, a quick grab at the expense of a good franchise to put right back into bioware's mass effect trilogy, which might actually pay off with mass effect 3,

I *seriously* doubt this was their motive/Plan, considering DA:O was Bioware's biggest selling game.

Lets think about that for a second....  DA:O was Bioware's  Biggest.  Selling.  Game.  It sold more than Mass Effect.  It sold more than Mass Effect 2.   Why would they sacrifice/kill a franchise containing their Biggest.  Selling. Game.  in order  to boost funds  for a franchise containing games that don't sell as well?

Your trying to explain socialogy and economics to people who are incapable of understanding anything beyond the pseudo-science they assume is reality.

[Boiny Bunny]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Mad-Max90 wrote...

Really it just boils down to they needed money fast, a quick grab at the expense of a good franchise to put right back into bioware's mass effect trilogy, which might actually pay off with mass effect 3,

I *seriously* doubt this was their motive/Plan, considering DA:O was Bioware's biggest selling game.

Lets think about that for a second....  DA:O was Bioware's  Biggest.  Selling.  Game.  It sold more than Mass Effect.  It sold more than Mass Effect 2.   Why would they sacrifice/kill a franchise containing their Biggest.  Selling. Game.  in order  to boost funds  for a franchise containing games that don't sell as well?

To be fair though, when comparing the game to ME and ME2, DA:O was released across three platforms at the same time. ME was, for the first 6 months Xbxo360 only, then PC. ME2 was 360 and PC only. When they were respectively released on other platoforms ong after the initial release, they didn't do so well. But, if you take ME an ME2 just on the 360, Origins didn't sell as well as those two.. So, comparing it to the ME series is subjective when considering this.

To be more fair though, when comparing ME2 to DA:O, the console versions of DA:O were vastly inferior to the PC version, whilst the PC and console versions of ME2 were almost identical.  This inferiority of the DA:O console ports may have put many gamers off and drastically reduced sales across the console platforms.

Or not.

We can blather all day about how they were released at different times of the year, how ME2 got more critical praise than DA:O ever did, different release dates for different versions, etc.  All that matters in the end is that, DA:O outsold ME2.

That said, I don't think DA2's rushed development has anything to do with ME3.  Quite the contrary - EA knew DA:O was Bioware's most successful game, and as Inon Zur revealed, deliberately rushed the game as much as possible in order to quickly capitalise on the success of Origins.

[Yrkoon]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Mad-Max90 wrote...

Really it just boils down to they needed money fast, a quick grab at the expense of a good franchise to put right back into bioware's mass effect trilogy, which might actually pay off with mass effect 3,

I *seriously* doubt this was their motive/Plan, considering DA:O was Bioware's biggest selling game.

Lets think about that for a second....  DA:O was Bioware's  Biggest.  Selling.  Game.  It sold more than Mass Effect.  It sold more than Mass Effect 2.   Why would they sacrifice/kill a franchise containing their Biggest.  Selling. Game.  in order  to boost funds  for a franchise containing games that don't sell as well?

To be fair though, when comparing the game to ME and ME2, DA:O was released across three platforms at the same time. ME was, for the first 6 months Xbxo360 only, then PC. ME2 was 360 and PC only. When they were respectively released on other platoforms ong after the initial release, they didn't do so well. But, if you take ME an ME2 just on the 360, Origins didn't sell as well as those two.. So, comparing it to the ME series is subjective when considering this.

Yes, we can spin numbers and come up with a perfectly 'rational' reason why 3 million units sold is  less than 2 million units sold, but  this isn't a "subjective" topic, and "creativity" doesn't score you points here.     DA:O sold more units than either  of the  ME games.    And that's  the only thing that matters to the investors.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 04 mai 2011 - 02:46 .

[Mad-Max90]

^ no it doesn't, if the game sells more on the 360, than dragon age origins did, and it's already a big name franchise, you can conclude that they would use a new franchise as a quick money grab to put into an already well established game that is still selling well, and no matter how you look at it, there was an ancient evil that needed to be stopped I'm not looking at meredeth but at the power she yielded, it corrupted her and other people as well, like I said, just because it's not the main plot, they still included it while bashing origins for having one. Peace out

[Mad-Max90]

Oh and in the end you could say it was pick a lesser evil, only to fight both, so really you face ancient evil magic and some ancient evil magic artifact.

[KingJason13]

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here... but couldn't man's inability to overcome his baser nature, the driving force behind much of DA2's drama, be considered an "ancient evil"?

[KingJason13]

Perhaps I'm only splitting hairs here... but couldn't man's inability to overcome his baser nature, the driving force behind much of DA2's drama, be considered an "ancient evil"? Therefore...

Modifié par KingJason13, 04 mai 2011 - 06:33 .

[KingJason13]

....hmmmm, isn't the cliche fantasy trope of a force of good vs. an ancient overwhelming force of evil really just a metaphor for our internal struggles against the "evil" of our animal natures anyways? And therefore...

Modifié par KingJason13, 04 mai 2011 - 07:02 .

[KingJason13]

... the battle against an external evil in DAO and the battle against an internal evil in DA2 are really just expressions of the same thing...

[KingJason13]

...both "ancient evils".

[KingJason13]

Sadly, imho, Bioware didn't it off this time.

[Zanallen]

Did you really feel the need to break one post into six?

[KingJason13]

No... it just kind of came out that way... : )

[Yrkoon]

Mad-Max90 wrote...

^ no it doesn't, if the game sells more on the 360, than dragon age origins did, and it's already a big name franchise, you can conclude that they would use a new franchise as a quick money grab to put into an already well established game that is still selling well,

You might have half an argument there, if we were talking about a 360 exclusive game.  But since Neither Mass effect (1 and 2), nor DA:O  are 360 exclusive games,  you don't even have that.