398 réponses à ce sujet

[Esbatty]

In Exile wrote...

Sabriana wrote...
I don't wish them ill. Not ever. But I want them to turn back. I (personally) want EA to see that a good RPG is worth something. It does have its utterly devoted fans. It will sell well, and the niche is definitely not as small as they make it out to be. I want them to go after new customers, but I want them to hook people into RPGs, as only bioware knows how to make them. /end lament. A good RPG has staying power. It will keep on selling. It's revenue that can be counted on. Oh, I so wish they would see that.

It costs a lot. That's the reality of an RPG. DA:O took 5 years of dev. time. It sold very well, but we don't know what the profit margin is and the actual design principle is not in-line with EA's business model, which is close to annual release (I believe that was their most recent PR annoucement insofar as their executive side is concerned).

DA2 is a bad game because Bioware wanted to make their traditional sort of game on a tighter timeline. That just isn't the product that works.

If DA2 completely cut Act I and a companion, maybe you'd get the same quality within EA's vision. But the kind of sprawling epic people want (re: content) is at odds with the publishing schedule that seems to exist.

The lesson that Bioware (and EA) will take from this won't be to re-create DA:O, because that was never on the table (IMO). The series will need to push closer toward ME2 to be a commercial and critical success, with much smaller areas, narrower content, and a return to the secret warrior order design (Jedi, Spirit Monk, Grey Warden, Spectre).

I'm not hating on Mike Laidlaw. I do think he genuinely believes in his "vision". But he failed to understand the niche. He would be superb for an action RPG. He has the right idea for that genre. His vision is not so much at fault, but it was utterly misplaced on a RPG, and on DA. It was (to me) simply a case of a vision not fitting a genre. He is enthusiastic. He believes in himself. Unfortunately, he was not a good fit for the DA franchise, imo, personally, me, I, no one else, etc.

Bioware doesn't design the sort of RPGs that people want. DA:O was a product of a very different approach (they initially wanted a quasi multiplayer-RPG like NWN was; the origins were starter areas for each of the PCs). It's a game that went through multiple revisions to become what it was and in the meantime Bioware produced:

KoTOR, JE, ME, (and effectively) ME2.

The vision didn't fit the genre, but that's because the company didn't fit the genre anymore.

I love you.

[Dave of Canada]

Merced652 wrote...

Does this mean i can accuse any group, like peta, of assassinating kennedy, despite offering no proof and then state that your dismissal is purely denial and that just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it didn't happen? 

You can look at the first reviews and see hundreds of people rating it the lowest score possible all in short bursts, how Portal 2 was similarily raided shortly afterward, how they were bought up, how some people came to the forums saying they were from "anonymous", how Gaider brought up the cursed word and got a lot of hate for it and how a few of us have seen the post with our own eyes?

Oh, must be one gigantic coincidence. 4chan is a bunch of nice folk who would never do such a thing.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 mai 2011 - 07:31 .

[Persephone]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Does this mean i can accuse any group, like peta, of assassinating kennedy, despite offering no proof and then state that your dismissal is purely denial and that just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it didn't happen? 

You can look at the first reviews and see hundreds of people rating it the lowest score possible all in short bursts, how Portal 2 was similarily raided shortly afterward, how they were bought up, how some people came to the forums saying they were from "anonymous", how Gaider brought up the cursed word and got a lot of hate for it and how a few of us have seen the post with our own eyes?

Oh, must be one gigantic coincidence. 4chan is a bunch of nice folk who would never do such a thing.

Never mind those who openly admitted to it. Proudly too. :innocent:

[Dave of Canada]

Persephone wrote...
Never mind those who openly admitted to it. Proudly too. :innocent:

They too were mythical.

[Persephone]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Persephone wrote...
Never mind those who openly admitted to it. Proudly too. :innocent:

They too were mythical.

:lol:

[BloodyWereWolf]

Congratulation Bioware:wizard:

I like DAO and Also DA2... I woudln't mind a DA3 with the same approach of DA2

*Run away from all DA2 haters and hide behind a pile of rock

[gamedog2408]

man can we have 1 thread were its just positive things said i loved DA2 and all this hate is depressing :-(

[Tommy6860]

gamedog2408 wrote...

man can we have 1 thread were its just positive things said i loved DA2 and all this hate is depressing :-(

Thn create a thread that ask for only positive thoughts in DA2. Just because you like it, doesn't mean that everyone else has to as well. I am glad you found it enjoyable, I mean that. But I didn't at all.

[Persephone]

Tommy6860 wrote...

gamedog2408 wrote...

man can we have 1 thread were its just positive things said i loved DA2 and all this hate is depressing :-(

Thn create a thread that ask for only positive thoughts in DA2. Just because you like it, doesn't mean that everyone else has to as well. I am glad you found it enjoyable, I mean that. But I didn't at all.

I don't believe that's what gamedog2408 asked for at all. Creating such a thread would achieve little, as such threads are always invaded by negativity, no matter what.

[BloodyWereWolf]

Persephone wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

gamedog2408 wrote...

man can we have 1 thread were its just positive things said i loved DA2 and all this hate is depressing :-(

Thn create a thread that ask for only positive thoughts in DA2. Just because you like it, doesn't mean that everyone else has to as well. I am glad you found it enjoyable, I mean that. But I didn't at all.

I don't believe that's what gamedog2408 asked for at all. Creating such a thread would achieve little, as such threads are always invaded by negativity, no matter what.

True, I don't know why but when I see a negative comment, ppl debate alot about it, why this... why that...  In the end.. what's the point? Sounds like politic to me

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...


It costs a lot. That's the reality of an RPG. DA:O took 5 years of dev. time. It sold very well, but we don't know what the profit margin is and the actual design principle is not in-line with EA's business model, which is close to annual release (I believe that was their most recent PR annoucement insofar as their executive side is concerned).

DA2 is a bad game because Bioware wanted to make their traditional sort of game on a tighter timeline. That just isn't the product that works.

If DA2 completely cut Act I and a companion, maybe you'd get the same quality within EA's vision. But the kind of sprawling epic people want (re: content) is at odds with the publishing schedule that seems to exist.

The lesson that Bioware (and EA) will take from this won't be to re-create DA:O, because that was never on the table (IMO). The series will need to push closer toward ME2 to be a commercial and critical success, with much smaller areas, narrower content, and a return to the secret warrior order design (Jedi, Spirit Monk, Grey Warden, Spectre).

I don't know.  This, of course, assumes that the 2-year development cycle is the cause for DA2 being a 'bad' game.   But I'm not sure  that's the case.  We've seen Bioware put out great *classics*, chock full of content, in about 2 years time (BG2's development time was 2 years).  Also, they didn't have to create a new engine from scratch, like they did with DA:O.    That alone  shaves years off a 5 year development cycle.


No, you know what I think the problem was?  MIS-allocation of  the time and resouces that they did have.  They probably spent  an entire year overhauling the combat and the UI.  (read: fixing things that weren't broken), then once that was done, they  realized that they had about a year to slap together some content.  So they did.  And the end result:  A bad game that feels rushed.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 08 mai 2011 - 10:27 .

[AkiKishi]

Yrkoon wrote...

In Exile wrote...


It costs a lot. That's the reality of an RPG. DA:O took 5 years of dev. time. It sold very well, but we don't know what the profit margin is and the actual design principle is not in-line with EA's business model, which is close to annual release (I believe that was their most recent PR annoucement insofar as their executive side is concerned).

DA2 is a bad game because Bioware wanted to make their traditional sort of game on a tighter timeline. That just isn't the product that works.

If DA2 completely cut Act I and a companion, maybe you'd get the same quality within EA's vision. But the kind of sprawling epic people want (re: content) is at odds with the publishing schedule that seems to exist.

The lesson that Bioware (and EA) will take from this won't be to re-create DA:O, because that was never on the table (IMO). The series will need to push closer toward ME2 to be a commercial and critical success, with much smaller areas, narrower content, and a return to the secret warrior order design (Jedi, Spirit Monk, Grey Warden, Spectre).

I don't know.  This, of course, assumes that the 2-year development cycle is the cause for DA2 being a 'bad' game.   But I'm not sure  that's the case.  We've seen Bioware put out great *classics*, chock full of content, in about 2 years time (BG2's development time was 2 years).  Also, they didn't have to create a new engine from scratch, like they did with DA:O.    That alone  shaves years off a 5 year development cycle.


No, you know what I think the problem was?  MIS-allocation of  the time and resouces that they did have.  They probably spent  an entire year overhauling the combat and the UI.  (read: fixing things that weren't broken), then once that was done, they  realized that they had about a year to slap together some content.  So they did.  And the end result:  A bad game that feels rushed.

Sounds about right.

[Morroian]

Yrkoon wrote...

No, you know what I think the problem was?  MIS-allocation of  the time and resouces that they did have.  They probably spent  an entire year overhauling the combat and the UI.  (read: fixing things that weren't broken), 

Yet combat has improved.

Assuming by UI you mean graphics well I agree there, while I like the new graphics, with the shorter timeframe an overhaul of the graphical look should have been near the end of the priorities. 

[Tommy6860]

Persephone wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

gamedog2408 wrote...

man can we have 1 thread were its just positive things said i loved DA2 and all this hate is depressing :-(

Thn create a thread that ask for only positive thoughts in DA2. Just because you like it, doesn't mean that everyone else has to as well. I am glad you found it enjoyable, I mean that. But I didn't at all.

I don't believe that's what gamedog2408 asked for at all. Creating such a thread would achieve little, as such threads are always invaded by negativity, no matter what.

Hmm, aside from the gist of his post that it should have been made in the form of a question or a request, it sure seems like that's what he wants. Otherwise, what's the point of making such a post?  I view DA2 negatively because my experience with the game was not a good one. Is that bad to say that now?

Not all responses to others who like DA2, that are not in agreement, means they are haters. I think my reply was just right. Aside from a few of those on both sides who seem more rabid with their spiteful responses, the ones who like or dislike the game for their own valid reasons is what I go by. To make a post (or seemingly request) "man can we have 1 thread were its just positive things said i loved DA2 and all this hate is depressing" that which I responded, appears to be a correct response.

[Tommy6860]

BloodyWereWolf wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

gamedog2408 wrote...

man can we have 1 thread were its just positive things said i loved DA2 and all this hate is depressing :-(

Thn create a thread that ask for only positive thoughts in DA2. Just because you like it, doesn't mean that everyone else has to as well. I am glad you found it enjoyable, I mean that. But I didn't at all.

I don't believe that's what gamedog2408 asked for at all. Creating such a thread would achieve little, as such threads are always invaded by negativity, no matter what.

True, I don't know why but when I see a negative comment, ppl debate alot about it, why this... why that...  In the end.. what's the point? Sounds like politic to me

Well, personally it seems you are just generalizing. If you're indicatiing by "what's the point?", then why do any of us post anything regarding our thoughts on games at all? Exactly what are your expectations regarding one's thoughts about this game, what do you want said about the game? Should there be no criticisms at all? Seriously, I am glad you liked the game and I mean that. But I had a very hard time liking it myself. This doesn't mean anything other than MY own experience is mine, the same as your experience is yours.

[Sabriana]

Yrkoon wrote...

In Exile wrote...


It costs a lot. That's the reality of an RPG. DA:O took 5 years of dev. time. It sold very well, but we don't know what the profit margin is and the actual design principle is not in-line with EA's business model, which is close to annual release (I believe that was their most recent PR annoucement insofar as their executive side is concerned).

DA2 is a bad game because Bioware wanted to make their traditional sort of game on a tighter timeline. That just isn't the product that works.

If DA2 completely cut Act I and a companion, maybe you'd get the same quality within EA's vision. But the kind of sprawling epic people want (re: content) is at odds with the publishing schedule that seems to exist.

The lesson that Bioware (and EA) will take from this won't be to re-create DA:O, because that was never on the table (IMO). The series will need to push closer toward ME2 to be a commercial and critical success, with much smaller areas, narrower content, and a return to the secret warrior order design (Jedi, Spirit Monk, Grey Warden, Spectre).

I don't know.  This, of course, assumes that the 2-year development cycle is the cause for DA2 being a 'bad' game.   But I'm not sure  that's the case.  We've seen Bioware put out great *classics*, chock full of content, in about 2 years time (BG2's development time was 2 years).  Also, they didn't have to create a new engine from scratch, like they did with DA:O.    That alone  shaves years off a 5 year development cycle.


No, you know what I think the problem was?  MIS-allocation of  the time and resouces that they did have.  They probably spent  an entire year overhauling the combat and the UI.  (read: fixing things that weren't broken), then once that was done, they  realized that they had about a year to slap together some content.  So they did.  And the end result:  A bad game that feels rushed.

Thanks for saving me the time to type out a reply. I took it for granted that my argument included making the point that building up a franchise from the ground up would involve a lot more time than going forward with most of the basics already in place. 

I shall be more concise in the future. 'Tis necessary here now.

[Tommy6860]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

In Exile wrote...


It costs a lot. That's the reality of an RPG. DA:O took 5 years of dev. time. It sold very well, but we don't know what the profit margin is and the actual design principle is not in-line with EA's business model, which is close to annual release (I believe that was their most recent PR annoucement insofar as their executive side is concerned).

DA2 is a bad game because Bioware wanted to make their traditional sort of game on a tighter timeline. That just isn't the product that works.

If DA2 completely cut Act I and a companion, maybe you'd get the same quality within EA's vision. But the kind of sprawling epic people want (re: content) is at odds with the publishing schedule that seems to exist.

The lesson that Bioware (and EA) will take from this won't be to re-create DA:O, because that was never on the table (IMO). The series will need to push closer toward ME2 to be a commercial and critical success, with much smaller areas, narrower content, and a return to the secret warrior order design (Jedi, Spirit Monk, Grey Warden, Spectre).

I don't know.  This, of course, assumes that the 2-year development cycle is the cause for DA2 being a 'bad' game.   But I'm not sure  that's the case.  We've seen Bioware put out great *classics*, chock full of content, in about 2 years time (BG2's development time was 2 years).  Also, they didn't have to create a new engine from scratch, like they did with DA:O.    That alone  shaves years off a 5 year development cycle.


No, you know what I think the problem was?  MIS-allocation of  the time and resouces that they did have.  They probably spent  an entire year overhauling the combat and the UI.  (read: fixing things that weren't broken), then once that was done, they  realized that they had about a year to slap together some content.  So they did.  And the end result:  A bad game that feels rushed.

Sounds about right.

It's very plausible. I would add this regarding the allocation of resources in which resources were used. I know this is only speculation, but going by the style and scripting of game, and how, IMO, it just clashed and didn't flesh out very well, seems to be because the team working on the game was a mix of the Mass Effect and Dragon Age personel. Totaly different styles. Again, I am just speculating on this.

[Well]

Tommy6860 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

In Exile wrote...


It costs a lot. That's the reality of an RPG. DA:O took 5 years of dev. time. It sold very well, but we don't know what the profit margin is and the actual design principle is not in-line with EA's business model, which is close to annual release (I believe that was their most recent PR annoucement insofar as their executive side is concerned).

DA2 is a bad game because Bioware wanted to make their traditional sort of game on a tighter timeline. That just isn't the product that works.

If DA2 completely cut Act I and a companion, maybe you'd get the same quality within EA's vision. But the kind of sprawling epic people want (re: content) is at odds with the publishing schedule that seems to exist.

The lesson that Bioware (and EA) will take from this won't be to re-create DA:O, because that was never on the table (IMO). The series will need to push closer toward ME2 to be a commercial and critical success, with much smaller areas, narrower content, and a return to the secret warrior order design (Jedi, Spirit Monk, Grey Warden, Spectre).

I don't know.  This, of course, assumes that the 2-year development cycle is the cause for DA2 being a 'bad' game.   But I'm not sure  that's the case.  We've seen Bioware put out great *classics*, chock full of content, in about 2 years time (BG2's development time was 2 years).  Also, they didn't have to create a new engine from scratch, like they did with DA:O.    That alone  shaves years off a 5 year development cycle.


No, you know what I think the problem was?  MIS-allocation of  the time and resouces that they did have.  They probably spent  an entire year overhauling the combat and the UI.  (read: fixing things that weren't broken), then once that was done, they  realized that they had about a year to slap together some content.  So they did.  And the end result:  A bad game that feels rushed.

Sounds about right.

It's very plausible. I would add this regarding the allocation of resources in which resources were used. I know this is only speculation, but going by the style and scripting of game, and how, IMO, it just clashed and didn't flesh out very well, seems to be because the team working on the game was a mix of the Mass Effect and Dragon Age personel. Totaly different styles. Again, I am just speculating on this.

Funny you should mention the mix of DA and ME people.The way the npc turns their head after a dialog reminds me of ME.Like Bran and a few others..

[spirosz]

The whole mixture of Mass Effect and Dragon Age really tuned me off in Dragon Age 2. They are both DIFFERENT games, with both having their own unique style and that's the reason I enjoyed both games so much. Even though I prefer the Mass Effect series, Dragon Age Origins was still amazing. The thing that annoys me about Dragon Age 2, is that the Origins sold really well and had well received scores, but they still felt the need to change and overhaul most of the system for Dragon Age 2? That's what makes no sense to me. In my opinion, the series had the right direction/vision for the series, but went completely 180 when the second game came out. I did enjoy Dragon Age 2, but I just didn't have the connection with it, compared to all the other Bioware games I've played, which is what disappointed me the most.

[aphelion002]

Congratulations Bioware, you got my money for this game. Is it going to be worth all the lost sales you might have gotten from me in the future? We probably won't know until the DA3 sales are released.

[Dominator24]

aphelion002 wrote...

Congratulations Bioware, you got my money for this game. Is it going to be worth all the lost sales you might have gotten from me in the future? We probably won't know until the DA3 sales are released.

LOL sooo true.

[erynnar]

spiros9110 wrote...

The whole mixture of Mass Effect and Dragon Age really tuned me off in Dragon Age 2. They are both DIFFERENT games, with both having their own unique style and that's the reason I enjoyed both games so much. Even though I prefer the Mass Effect series, Dragon Age Origins was still amazing. The thing that annoys me about Dragon Age 2, is that the Origins sold really well and had well received scores, but they still felt the need to change and overhaul most of the system for Dragon Age 2? That's what makes no sense to me. In my opinion, the series had the right direction/vision for the series, but went completely 180 when the second game came out. I did enjoy Dragon Age 2, but I just didn't have the connection with it, compared to all the other Bioware games I've played, which is what disappointed me the most.

Okay, you said what I feel too. I did enjoy DA2 (mage only, rogue not so much) but I wasn't as connected to it. I never understood the 180 either.

[Chairon de Celeste]

Aside from the storywise overfed drama-llama
for me the writer team did their very best to create
a good game.
Not to forget other teams:
The physicil behavior of hair is tech detail
I've anticipated to watch ingame for years.

Shipped copies aside (shipped doesn't mean sold),
imho the fixing of wich wasn't broken (improved lighting
and hair physics / look would've been enough, gui, class
and environment-style changes et c. were unnessecary, imho...)
not only was a waste of time and money
- it is (again imho) one of the reasons wich turns the product
into a dust-collector.

Modifié par Chairon de Celeste, 10 mai 2011 - 11:18 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Persephone wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Does this mean i can accuse any group, like peta, of assassinating kennedy, despite offering no proof and then state that your dismissal is purely denial and that just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it didn't happen? 

You can look at the first reviews and see hundreds of people rating it the lowest score possible all in short bursts, how Portal 2 was similarily raided shortly afterward, how they were bought up, how some people came to the forums saying they were from "anonymous", how Gaider brought up the cursed word and got a lot of hate for it and how a few of us have seen the post with our own eyes?

Oh, must be one gigantic coincidence. 4chan is a bunch of nice folk who would never do such a thing.

Never mind those who openly admitted to it. Proudly too. :innocent:

As is the case with most sequels.  There isn't really anything unusual about Dragon Age 2 at all when it comes to the bashing/promoting of it on Metacritic.  The only difference between it and other Bioware games is, it genuinely got much lower scores from genuine reviews, than other Bioware games ever have.