382 réponses à ce sujet

[Pandaman102]

Geez, it's people like the OP that I rarely look at the Non-Spoiler forums.

"GIVE ME EXAMPLES!"
"Specific examples can't be listed in the non-spoiler section. Go to the spoiler section."
"NAH-UH UR JUST HATIN."

And then they proceed to go to the spoiler section and ignore the examples they demanded.

[Realmzmaster]

There is the point. There is no set definition of what is the average standard. For example neppakyo states her standard for sci-fi movies is Serenity while mine is 2001:Space Odyssey or I, Robot. If I were talking about a sci-fi book it would be Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin. Is my standard or her standard wrong? What constitutes average standard?
Do a group of people get together and decide the average?

[neppakyo]

Realmzmaster wrote...

There is the point. There is no set definition of what is the average standard. For example neppakyo states her standard for sci-fi movies is Serenity while mine is 2001:Space Odyssey or I, Robot. If I were talking about a sci-fi book it would be Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin. Is my standard or her standard wrong? What constitutes average standard?
Do a group of people get together and decide the average?

*cough* "he" I just like the avatar of my female warden >.<

And as long as no one is using twilight as an average standard for movies. C'mon, vampires that glitter? Really?

And thats a good book and author, myself I'd say L.E Modesitt jr's Parafaith War and Octagonal Raven for sci-fi books

[TEWR]

Brave New World for me. Science fiction and dystopian fiction that is eerily accurate to what the world is like today on some levels.

[moilami]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

It is wrong because a lot of people do not like the direction Mike Laidlaw took based on the design of DA:O.
It it wrong? In Mike Laidlaw's mind, No. It was his vision.
Many do not agree with that vision. Mike made the game he wanted to make. It is simply not the game a lot of people want.

IF DA2 had actually been good and well polished then most people would have accepted it in the same way that most people accept ME2. It's not really the roleplaying game they wanted but it was still a good game.

If DA2 was the game Mike wanted then Mike needs his head examined. DA2 is more like what could be cobbled together in the alloted timeframe. 
 
DA2 is all about padding, from reused areas to waves, these things make a short game appear longer. Other games do the same thing, but in DA2 it's so obvious it borders on cynical.

True.

We can only hope BW will not try to sell cheap crap with DA3 with ages old bad excuse "we had no time to do better".

Or actually, you can only hope. Since I'm not gonna buy it 

[moilami]

I am wondering if the fail of DA2 made BW to pay some attention on ME3.

[Perles75]

First of all, the problems of this game are beyond mere technical issues. For example, there is an evident lack of focus in the story plot that makes it too erratic. This is not a "personal impression", this is a fact, as the lack of continuity within the acts, giving the feeling of abrupt jumps instead of a naturally flowing story.

Other points that are only loosely related to technical stuff are, for example
- lack of differentiation of the areas of the game, that makes the environments bland and without atmosphere, hindering game immersion
- inconsistencies as casting spells in the city without reaction from the bystanders, or groups that roam Hightown in the night with no trace of a guard
- in general, total absence of interactions with city inhabitants, with the result that the city looks lifeless
- almost no changes in 10 years!
- misuse of the waves
- in dialogues, you cannot select what you actually say, just a (sometimes badly) paraphrased version of it
- too flashy combat, with very fake (and cheap) animations

More strictly technical stuff:
- combat has problems if one wants to play as puppeteer
- repetitive areas are a big issue
- carelessness in several graphic details (the weapons that float on your back cry out for vengeance)
- you have a nice exchange with one of your companions, but you gain rivalry points because you are in a "rivalry path" with him (so silly)

Just to mention the ones that came on my mind in the last 5 minutes.
I also hate the 90% of the bashing comments of this forum, but I cannot avoid thinking that with DA2 they could have made a small jewel of a game and they wasted the opportunity.

[SkittlesKat96]

 They rushed the game...I don't mind most of the changes really, but the game needed less re-used environments, a more better storyline and Kirkwall should have changed more and been more interesting or bigger (and Sundermount should have been bigger too)

[fightright2]

neppakyo wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

An average standard I assume is one that can quantified. Therefore the average standard must be based on something. What is it? Are we assuming that the average standard for blockbuster movies is Titantic or Avatar? And the average standard for literary works of mediveal fantasy fiction is Lord of the Rings or the Chronicles of Naria?

I base my average movie standards on the following

Comedy;
Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike back.

Action:
Equilibrium, 300.

Sci-fi:
Serenity

Fantasy:
LoTR

What about drama? For me that would be The Abyss.

[Yrkoon]

Chugster wrote...

if people did stop using opinions as facts then i would not have an issue, its people doing this that make me angry...and that is not an unreasonable thing to ask for

It's a ridiculously  unreasonable  (not to mention illogical) thing to ask for.

When someone says something is "bad", it's ALREADY an opinion of taste.  you don't need *facts* to  prove an opinion of taste.  At the very most,  you'd need an explanation, or an elaboration on why they think it's bad.    And you've gotten Both in this thread.

But hey, you want a fact?  I'll give you one.  In fact, I'll give you several.

It is a FACT that  weapon style choices have been Reduced  (read: gimped, removed, nerfed)  in DA2.  In DA:O  my warrior could use a bow.    In DA2 he can't.    In DA:O  my warrior could dual-wield.  In DA2 he can't.  In DA:O my Mage could use a sword, or two, or 2 daggers, or a greatsword, or a mace and a shield, or a dagger and a shield.   He can't do ANY of that in DA2.     And    here's another fact:      The above  are examples of a player having  less choice by  definition.

And  a few more Facts: 

-In DA:O, your rogue could pick pockets, and backstab at will.  He can do neither in DA2.
-In DA:O you could  engage in dialogue with your companions any time.  You can't in DA2.
-In DA:O  you could zoom the camera out and get a  bird's eye, isomentric view of the battle field.  You can't in  DA2.
-DA:O had detailed finishing moves.  DA:2 doesn't.
-In DA:O you could lay traps.   in DA2, you can't.

You want to know why  I call DA2 a Bad Game?  Because of ALL of the above facts, as well as everything else that has been said  on this thread  (recycled maps, dumbed down combat,  Endless, mindless, tedius waves and  ****** poor retard  enemy AI,  Terrible story ending, lack of choice etc.)

Modifié par Yrkoon, 09 mai 2011 - 11:23 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Yrkoon wrote...

Chugster wrote...

if people did stop using opinions as facts then i would not have an issue, its people doing this that make me angry...and that is not an unreasonable thing to ask for

It's a ridiculously  unreasonable  (not to mention illogical) thing to ask for.

When someone says something is "bad", it's ALREADY an opinion of taste.  you don't need *facts* to  prove an opinion of taste.  At the very most,  you'd need an explanation, or an elaboration on why they think it's bad.    And you've gotten Both in this thread.

But hey, you want a fact?  I'll give you one.  In fact, I'll give you several.

It is a FACT that  weapon style choices have been Reduced  (read: gimped, removed, nerfed)  in DA2.  In DA:O  my warrior could use a bow.    In DA2 he can't.    In DA:O  my warrior could dual-wield.  In DA2 he can't.  In DA:O my Mage could use a sword, or two, or 2 daggers, or a greatsword, or a mace and a shield, or a dagger and a shield.   He can't do ANY of that in DA2.     And    here's another fact:      The above  are examples of a player having  less choice by  definition.

And  a few more Facts: 

-In DA:O, your rogue could pick pockets, and backstab at will.  He can do neither in DA2.
-In DA:O you could  engage in dialogue with your companions any time.  You can't in DA2.
-In DA:O  you could zoom the camera out and get a  bird's eye, isomentric view of the battle field.  You can't in  DA2.
-DA:O had detailed finishing moves.  DA:2 doesn't.
-In DA:O you could lay traps.   in DA2, you can't.

You want to know why  I call DA2 a Bad Game?  Because of ALL of the above facts, as well as everything else that has been said  on this thread  (recycled maps, dumbed down combat,  Endless, mindless, tedius waves and  ****** poor retard  enemy AI,  Terrible story ending, lack of choice etc.)

Good points, therefore good post. Was there even any AI for enemies in DA2? All they did imho was run at you like lemmings, no tactics or anything just zerg mode.

[Tommy6860]

Sabriana wrote...

There are things that I really like about DA 2. The companion quests far outshine the DA:O yawnfests. I just wish there was more companion interaction - lots more.

The only area in your reply in which I differ with you, though it is like any other feeling I got, it is subjective; the companion quests. I felt DA:O's were better, simply because they weren't long and drawn out and I knew my companion's past and learned what made themwho they are a bit, when the time came to do them. I didn't get that from DA2 so much, they were just there and added in my journal, ad-hoc it seemed anyway. When said quests were completed in DA:O, there were those "closure" moments in the talks I had with my companions and depending on how I chose to
talk to them, gave their personalities something extra (like hardening Leliana had very real effect) in my interactions with them the rest of the game.

In DA2, when those quests were completed, it didn't change who my companions were very much, the closure moments just seem to change thefriend/rival stats and the possibility of a romance, if applicable. This may behighlighted for me, in the fact that I have no ability to chat with mycompanions at any time in DA2 to activate these quests, and that any closure was only done at their respective personal chat locations (Merrill's home, the Hanged Man, etc), so that may be a big factor to my take on this. Add also, that we time warp through the years without any more relationship interactions between the acts.

So they like Dog more than Hawke? Pffft. See if she cares *sniffle*.

I sympathize with that experience and felt left out as well. Now, I just hope my companions never find out that I
had a petting zoo put in the back yard of my estate for Sandal.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 09 mai 2011 - 12:10 .

[Aradace]

Yrkoon wrote...



-In DA:O you could  engage in dialogue with your companions any time.  You can't in DA2.
)

Dont remember where I read it, but if you're hoping they're going to remedy this for DA3, you're mistaken.  They've already stated that they are NOT going back to the DA:O way of "party interaction".  Just wish I could find the link where one of the devs actually said that.

[Sabriana]

*Tries for the umpteenth time not to look at Tommy's avatar without bursting into giggles*

That lipstick does so not go with the eyeshadow.

But to clarify. I mean the quests in and of themselves. The companion interaction doesn't figure in at all. Like I stated somewhere previously, *just* the quests, nothing in the perimeter. I liked the setup of them, and the way they played out. It would certainly have been much appreciated (and made me, personally, like the game much better RPG-wise) had the surrounding interaction included getting to know them, grow with them, getting ot like/dislike/love them.

[TEWR]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Brave New World for me. Science fiction and dystopian fiction that is eerily accurate to what the world is like today on some levels.

Oooh, that's a good one!

Thank you. Though I should probably say it's a tie between Brave New World by Alduous Huxley and Year of the Black Rainbow by Claudio Sanchez. Both are my all time favorite sci-fi books.

[Tommy6860]

Sabriana wrote...

*Tries for the umpteenth time not to look at Tommy's avatar without bursting into giggles*

That lipstick does so not go with the eyeshadow.

LMAO! There's a story behind that this avatar (it's Alistair by the way), and I just had to do this.

But to clarify. I mean the quests in and of themselves. The companion interaction doesn't figure in at all. Like I stated somewhere previously, *just* the quests, nothing in the perimeter. I liked the setup of them, and the way they played out. It would certainly have been much appreciated (and made me, personally, like the game much better RPG-wise) had the surrounding interaction included getting to know them, grow with them, getting ot like/dislike/love them.

I knew what you meant, I probably didn't convey that well in my last post, so sorry. But I still didn't get that even from treating those quests individually, since it factors into the whole of the game. Add also, some of those quests were grueling, like having to go to areas of Sundermount again and again, unlike just being able to fast travel there while seeing animated mini-map showing progress. I cannot tell you how many times I etched the same tree I passed on that path to mark that I passed it . Or following sparkly markers for following your companion from one end of the city to the other with my other companons telling me over and over again the same thing about the sparkly markers.

[Perles75]

Aradace wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

-In DA:O you could  engage in dialogue with your companions any time.  You can't in DA2.
)

Dont remember where I read it, but if you're hoping they're going to remedy this for DA3, you're mistaken.  They've already stated that they are NOT going back to the DA:O way of "party interaction".  Just wish I could find the link where one of the devs actually said that.

I don't find this such a terrible loss, having in mind DAO where, after having finished all the interesting dialogues, you could "engage in dialogue with your companions anytime" just to say "seeya" or listen at already known lines.
Of course, speaking with your companions and knowing interesting information on, for example, what they know about the area, or what they think about an ongoing quest, etc., would be really nice, but I wouldn't use DAO as the perfect paradigm of companion dialogue system.

[Elhanan]

Aradace wrote...

Dont remember where I read it, but if you're hoping they're going to remedy this for DA3, you're mistaken.  They've already stated that they are NOT going back to the DA:O way of "party interaction".  Just wish I could find the link where one of the devs actually said that.

I for one will not miss the mis-clicks on the field when trying to move; instead getting some inane response from the party. But I do miss greater party interactions as well. They tried to place markers along the way in DAA, but it did not work well for me.

However, if they were to place interactive markers in the home, and then create multiple interactions for the various members of the party linked to those markers, it would seem to add greater depth to both the party and the home environment.

[Aradace]

@Perles - Neither do I. In fact, of the two, I enjoyed DA2's interactions far more than I did in Origins. So I as well, will not miss it.

@Elhanan - The "mis-clicks" are one of things I miss LEAST of all lol.

[Elhanan]

Yrkoon wrote...

It's a ridiculously  unreasonable  (not to mention illogical) thing to ask for.

When someone says something is "bad", it's ALREADY an opinion of taste.  you don't need *facts* to  prove an opinion of taste.  At the very most,  you'd need an explanation, or an elaboration on why they think it's bad.    And you've gotten Both in this thread.

But hey, you want a fact?  I'll give you one.  In fact, I'll give you several.

It is a FACT that  weapon style choices have been Reduced  (read: gimped, removed, nerfed)  in DA2.  In DA:O  my warrior could use a bow.    In DA2 he can't.    In DA:O  my warrior could dual-wield.  In DA2 he can't.  In DA:O my Mage could use a sword, or two, or 2 daggers, or a greatsword, or a mace and a shield, or a dagger and a shield.   He can't do ANY of that in DA2.     And    here's another fact:      The above  are examples of a player having  less choice by  definition.

And  a few more Facts: 

-In DA:O, your rogue could pick pockets, and backstab at will.  He can do neither in DA2.
-In DA:O you could  engage in dialogue with your companions any time.  You can't in DA2.
-In DA:O  you could zoom the camera out and get a  bird's eye, isomentric view of the battle field.  You can't in  DA2.
-DA:O had detailed finishing moves.  DA:2 doesn't.
-In DA:O you could lay traps.   in DA2, you can't.

You want to know why  I call DA2 a Bad Game?  Because of ALL of the above facts, as well as everything else that has been said  on this thread  (recycled maps, dumbed down combat,  Endless, mindless, tedius waves and  ****** poor retard  enemy AI,  Terrible story ending, lack of choice etc.)

While I did use Stealing in DAO, I cannot say I missed it or laying traps at all. However, as Cunning was linked to Traps (and perhaps Survival),  perhaps both can make a return in DA3.

But I do not understand the Backstab mention. It was a feature of DA2, and one I used frequently. While it may not be as frequently used as it was before, the new version has a relocation feature that is quite handy defensively, too.

I do agree that weapon restrictions should be lifted, and finishing moves should return. The camera worked well enough for me, but the isometric view was nice for exploring the battlefield.

[Dragoonlordz]

In the end if they keep pushing more DA2 direction with DA3 they lose a sale it's as simple as that, I cannot speak for others but I can speak for myself. I don't taint all Bioware teams with same response in such I will wait to see what the ME team to with regards to ME3 but as far as DA goes if keeps heading further away from DAO in design principles I have the right and ability to spend my money elsewhere instead. I imagine a lot of people feel the same way but have no proof of such. I do not think for every loss of sale due to direction taking the franchise will be made up for new customers filling the gap but only time will tell with that regard.

There are some major flaws imho with DA2 aesthetics, mechanics and modus operandi imho and if they push those features more and less the features I have described in my review then I have better games to spend my money on, but such is life.

P.s. With regard to backstab in DA2 I do not like it's method of relocating, it's simply teleporting which unless your a mage you shouldn't be able to do therefore it's immersion breaking for me.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 mai 2011 - 01:01 .

[Sabriana]

Tommy, I see what you mean. But I mean it in an even more restrictive way. I mean the set-up, the writing of the quests. One quest had me rolling in the aisles, the idea was great. However, when executing it into the game, it was saddled with unnecessary... stuff. I can't get any clearer, due to spoilerage, sorry.