314 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

Hurbster wrote...

Nah, nothings more repetitive than those...

You'd think.

These forums have proven that wrong and then some.

[Hurbster]

Persephone wrote...

Hurbster wrote...

Nah, nothings more repetitive than those...

You'd think.

These forums have proven that wrong and then some.

I'd agree, then I'd run into that cave campsite again...

[Persephone]

Hurbster wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Hurbster wrote...

Nah, nothings more repetitive than those...

You'd think.

These forums have proven that wrong and then some.

I'd agree, then I'd run into that cave campsite again...

A fair prospect compared to the hyperbole drama.

[KilrB]

Morroian wrote...

SphereofSilence wrote...

I didn't read everything that was said before in this thread. But without a doubt in my mind, the very best course of action for the DA team is to emulate the process by which Casey Hudson, the executive producer of Mass Effect series, took feedback from the players on ME1 and made MASSIVE improvements across the board for ME2, resulting in the one of the highest rated game for XBox360, in the history of EA/Bioware. It's a simple idea, but I believe one that has proven to be effective if making a great game/franchise is the goal of Bioware.

The changes made to DA2 were similar to those made for ME2 in fact ME2 went further away from being an rpg than DA2 did, and initially they were received badly, not quite as badly as DA2 but still badly. What mitigated the ME2 case is that the series is seen as more of shooter rpg hybrid whereas DAO is seen as a traditional rpg.

Exactly.

I didn't like all the changes between ME and ME2, but the majority were needed and an improvement.

What's more, Mass Effect was STILL Mass Effect.

The changes made from DA:O to DA2 altered it in such a way that it may as well have been some other game entirely.

Any improvements are entirely negated by the "non-improvements".

It just doesn't feel like I'm in Thedas any more.

Justy my opinion I know.

[OhoniX]

This argument rings hollow, and strikes me as the last desperate
shield to use to defend a horrible product. This "Well that's just your
opinion!" line can be used to defend -LITERALLY- any game, or book, or
movie. And it seems like this is all the pro-DA2 faction on this forum
can muster, these days.

Yes, which is kinda the point. You can say that YOU do or do not like a given feature. Thats fine. What you do not have the mandate to do is claim that Bioware was wrong for doing something just because you didn't like it. You haven't earned that.

Someone was nice enough to link the promised features bullet
list, but just so you don't have to scroll up...

Umm, I commented on that in the post you just quoted. They met that features list. You may not like what you got, but you got what they promised.

Can't we all just assume that everyone knows their opinion is subjective because that's obvious and they're not a moron, rather than saying
"OPINION IS SUBJECTIVE - YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID" in every other post
on every thread on this forum, because somebody had the audacity to
like/dislike something?

You'd think so, really you would, but then you have threads like this filled with "OMG, Bioware totally owes me because they didn't make the game that I commissioned them to make, just for me!" posts. If it really were obvious then people would get that their opinion only counts for 1/2,000,000th of the total opinions that count relative to this game.

Unlike DAO; DA2 had no real story line and no real set goal.

IT did, they just built it up over the course of the game, rather than laying it all out in the prologue. Some of my favorite books work this way, and I think DA2 did a good job of it. The main storyline was to show how the Chantry revolt started, the one teased in the begining, and hinted at throughout the game. Each portion of the game was a step in making it happen.

DAO you had to stop the Blight. Your actions through out the game
matter. DAO not so much as no matter what you decide at the end both
Orsino and Meredeth turn on you.

That's just wrong. I mean, you're mostly right about DA2, in that the outcome is pretty much set whichever way you go, but the same is true of DA:O. You can't change the end of DA:O. You defeat the Blight. Case closed. The only wy you can avoid that is to die and not load your last save. You can tweak some of the minor details, but the ending is as set in stone as DA2's. You can do a lot of screwing around in the first two acts of DA:O, but that makes no real difference on the final outcome, all it changes is the number of random NPCs you have to support you in the final push, and you don't need any of them to succeed so that doesn't actually matter. The same thing happens in DA2, btw, with all the various NPCs that you've turned to your side over the game supporting you in the final battles.

The changes made from DA:O to DA2 altered it in such a way that it
may as well have been some other game entirely.

Wow, like a . . . sequel or something? Like a totally different game with a different version number? Huh, that'd be weird.

Modifié par OhoniX, 13 mai 2011 - 02:42 .

[MassEffect762]

*Badly damaged holovid on Ilos* CAN....T...... BE STOPPED!

It's too late, EA full steam ahead. Bioware is gone.

Quality/Story/RPG elements are not things EA cares about imo.

ME2, DA:0 A, DA2. All victims of EA in one way shape or form. Bioware is nothing more than a puppet.

Just my crazy opinion.

[SphereofSilence]

KilrB wrote...

Morroian wrote...

SphereofSilence wrote...

I didn't read everything that was said before in this thread. But without a doubt in my mind, the very best course of action for the DA team is to emulate the process by which Casey Hudson, the executive producer of Mass Effect series, took feedback from the players on ME1 and made MASSIVE improvements across the board for ME2, resulting in the one of the highest rated game for XBox360, in the history of EA/Bioware. It's a simple idea, but I believe one that has proven to be effective if making a great game/franchise is the goal of Bioware.

The changes made to DA2 were similar to those made for ME2 in fact ME2 went further away from being an rpg than DA2 did, and initially they were received badly, not quite as badly as DA2 but still badly. What mitigated the ME2 case is that the series is seen as more of shooter rpg hybrid whereas DAO is seen as a traditional rpg.

Exactly.

I didn't like all the changes between ME and ME2, but the majority were needed and an improvement.

What's more, Mass Effect was STILL Mass Effect.

The changes made from DA:O to DA2 altered it in such a way that it may as well have been some other game entirely.

Any improvements are entirely negated by the "non-improvements".

It just doesn't feel like I'm in Thedas any more.

Justy my opinion I know.

I agree that ME2 was lacking that bit of RPG elements, I didn't like that as well, but ME2 managed to get the fun out of the game moving into a shooter-like game, while still retaining its identity.

Still, one feedback they got from fans is that they wanted more RPG elements, and thus we should see in ME3 more stuff like weapons modification and more options in terms of character customization and progression.

@Morroian: In the case of DA, I believe that it should be treated as a game of its own. While there are similarities with ME series, they aren't really the same type of games, even though they seem to be moving in parallel in terms of stripping down traditional RPG elements so far. You're right that ME had an advantage here because fundamentally it was a RPG game with shooter mechanics. That made the transition to shooter with a bit of RPG elements more readily well-received. DAO was a traditional RPG, coming from a background of other RPGs that came before. However, I think the point still stands, I strongly believe DA franchise will stand to benefit from taking that approach of very high level of commitment to improvement via taking feedback from all quarters, especially from players. Hopefully, the DA team does that now. With all the below par reviews, lots of negativity from fans, and bad sales from the 4th week after release onwards, if the DA leads still stucked to their claim that RPGs need to evolve fundamentally and dismissing feedback, then I can only shake my head and walk away. 

[TheTranzor]

erynnar wrote...

TheTranzor wrote...

erynnar wrote...
 Careful, and cautious, not dismissive.

That's the same tactic I use when I pick up chicks at the grocery store. 

Hey that restraining order says 100 ft....

Have you seen my nifty new binoculars?  

[Everwarden]

OhoniX wrote..
Yes, which is kinda the point. You can say that YOU do or do not like a given feature. Thats fine. What you do not have the mandate to do is claim that Bioware was wrong for doing something just because you didn't like it. You haven't earned that.

They aren't wrong for making a game that I, specifically, don't like. They're wrong for making a game that was widely disliked by their core audience and didn't bring in the hordes of "CoD fans" they were trying to get. 

 They met that features list. You may not like what you got, but you got what they promised.

No.

You'd think so, really you would, but then you have threads like this filled with "OMG, Bioware totally owes me because they didn't make the game that I commissioned them to make, just for me!" posts. 

Enjoy beating up the straw man. 

 The main storyline was to show how the Chantry revolt started, the one teased in the begining, and hinted at throughout the game. Each portion of the game was a step in making it happen.

Yes, the problem is that the "hero" has next to nothing to do with this story, and just runs a bunch of disjointed errands while the people who actually push the 'story' along do their business. 

That's just wrong. I mean, you're mostly right about DA2, in that the outcome is pretty much set whichever way you go, but the same is true of DA:O. You can't change the end of DA:O. You defeat the Blight. Case closed.

Yes, that -one- aspect is locked in, but everything else varies. In Dragon Age 2 you can't change major or minor details, it's all locked into place in advance. Even the last choice you make (no spoilers) doesn't effect anything except for two words in the ending scene. 

You can tweak some of the minor details,

You change the course of history for several groups. That isn't minor. 

Wow, like a . . . sequel or something? Like a totally different game with a different version number? Huh, that'd be weird.

Like a sequel advertised as an RPG that is actually just a bad action game. If I wanted to hack-n-slash, I'd play Devil May Cry, which does that a hell of a lot better. 

[erynnar]

Persephone wrote...

Hurbster wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Hurbster wrote...

Nah, nothings more repetitive than those...

You'd think.

These forums have proven that wrong and then some.

I'd agree, then I'd run into that cave campsite again...

A fair prospect compared to the hyperbole drama.

I just wanted to be clear...you do mean the hyperbole going both ways, yes?

[erynnar]

TheTranzor wrote...

erynnar wrote...

TheTranzor wrote...

erynnar wrote...
 Careful, and cautious, not dismissive.

That's the same tactic I use when I pick up chicks at the grocery store. 

Hey that restraining order says 100 ft....

Have you seen my nifty new binoculars?  

WOOT!!!! *dances for Tran*

[erynnar]

Everwarden wrote...

OhoniX wrote..
Yes, which is kinda the point. You can say that YOU do or do not like a given feature. Thats fine. What you do not have the mandate to do is claim that Bioware was wrong for doing something just because you didn't like it. You haven't earned that.

They aren't wrong for making a game that I, specifically, don't like. They're wrong for making a game that was widely disliked by their core audience and didn't bring in the hordes of "CoD fans" they were trying to get. 

 They met that features list. You may not like what you got, but you got what they promised.

No.

You'd think so, really you would, but then you have threads like this filled with "OMG, Bioware totally owes me because they didn't make the game that I commissioned them to make, just for me!" posts. 

Enjoy beating up the straw man. 

 The main storyline was to show how the Chantry revolt started, the one teased in the begining, and hinted at throughout the game. Each portion of the game was a step in making it happen.

Yes, the problem is that the "hero" has next to nothing to do with this story, and just runs a bunch of disjointed errands while the people who actually push the 'story' along do their business. 

That's just wrong. I mean, you're mostly right about DA2, in that the outcome is pretty much set whichever way you go, but the same is true of DA:O. You can't change the end of DA:O. You defeat the Blight. Case closed.

Yes, that -one- aspect is locked in, but everything else varies. In Dragon Age 2 you can't change major or minor details, it's all locked into place in advance. Even the last choice you make (no spoilers) doesn't effect anything except for two words in the ending scene. 

You can tweak some of the minor details,

You change the course of history for several groups. That isn't minor. 

Wow, like a . . . sequel or something? Like a totally different game with a different version number? Huh, that'd be weird.

Like a sequel advertised as an RPG that is actually just a bad action game. If I wanted to hack-n-slash, I'd play Devil May Cry, which does that a hell of a lot better. 

This^ And yes you had to kill the Archdemon, but I had the illusion of choice and making changes in the world of Thedas. Not the build up to Act 3 with the final totally ****** wringer..."OMG CHOOSE A SIDE NOW!!! NOW!!! CHOOSE!" and then having the game laugh and go "Oh hai, you chose? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"  If I wanted a cinematic movie with commercials I watch TV.

[Dianjabla]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Using photorealistic graphics and a subjective mark of quality (ie. a preference for such graphics) is perfectly understandable, but not every game uses (or requires) such fidelity in their visual imagery. Many people in this forum have touted Baldur's Gate to be one of, if not the best RPG they've played, and yet that game was not even in 3D, and the technology of a decade ago was somewhat primitive and expensive compared to today. Yet folks continue to use it as a benchmark of RPG quality.

Quite honestly, put the story Bioware is capable of making in the infinity engine again and I'd probably still buy it. I've always tended to view RPGs as interactive books where you get to decide the outcomes. Pretty graphics are fine, but the fun in a game is more than how pretty it looks. My two cents.

[OhoniX]

They aren't wrong for making a game that I, specifically, don't
like. They're wrong for making a game that was widely disliked by their
core audience and didn't bring in the hordes of "CoD fans" they were
trying to get.

First, how do you know what their "core audience" is (forgive me for assuming that you assume yourself to be part of it?), and second, how do you know that they didn't satisfy that core audience? They've certainly had a lot of very vocal criticism, but they've had, what, maybe a couple hundred complaints, tops, out of over two million customers? They obviously pissed off a certain portion of the playerbase, but you have no basis for claiming that that portion has any sort of a mandate.

No.

Ok then, seriously of that bullet list, which item did they fail to meet? Not just things that you don't like how it turned out, where you subjectively decided that it didn't rise to the level sufficient for you to accept it, but things where they made a claim, and in no way, objectively, delivered on that claim.

Yes, the problem is that the "hero" has next to nothing to do with
this story, and just runs a bunch of disjointed errands while the people
who actually push the 'story' along do their business.

At each point along the way, the "hero" makes pivotal moves that shape the course of history. Without the hero's presence in the Deep Roads, the expedition would have been a failure, and the idol never would have reached Kirkwall, setting into motion the events of act 3. This also gave the hero a certain level of fame that was necessary to interface with the upper end of society, positioning her for Act 2. During act 2, the hero defeats (or turns away) the Arishok, saving Kirkwall from otherwise certain conquest, while at the same time driving the city further into chaosDuring Act 3 the hero defeats the maddened rulership of the city, again saving them all from certain doom, but in the process becoming a centerpoint to a holy war. I would say that's pretty epic and pivotal.

That these major story points are unavoidable for the player does not mean that the world would have changed incosequentially without the character's involvement. And as I said, DA:O was the same way, in each vinette you were able to shape the minor details of the outcome, but you were never able to completely derail one, and the ending was as locked in as DA2's.

Yes, that -one- aspect is locked in, but everything else varies.
In Dragon Age 2 you can't change major or minor details, it's all
locked into place in advance. Even the last choice you make (no
spoilers) doesn't effect anything except for two words in the ending
scene.

There really isn't as much variation in DA:O as everyone seems to remember. You can pick one dwarf king or another, but they're both pretty much the same as far as the game's concerned. You can save the wolves or not, just as in DA2 you can save the elves or not. You can kill a kid or not, just as in DA2 you can save Fenriel or not. You can save the circle or not, just as in DA2 you can spare the Qunari or not. There really isn't any difference.

You change the course of history for several groups. That isn't minor.

As you can in DA2 (the Qunari, the Dalish, and of course the Kirkwallish), though the story is more focused on a single location than DA2 was so you don't travel too far.

Like a sequel advertised as an RPG that is actually just a bad
action game. If I wanted to hack-n-slash, I'd play Devil May Cry, which
does that a hell of a lot better.

Then you really should have read that bulletpoint about "Think like a general and fight like a Spartan with dynamic new combat
mechanics that put you right in the heart of battle whether you are a
mage, rogue, or warrior," OR followed ANY of the promotional material about the game that showed it to be much more action oriented than DA:O was. Whether you like the mix they had or not, it IS an RPG, just a more action-flavored RPG than DA:O was, just as Jade Empire was an RPG (whcih was more actiony still) and ME is an RPG as well.

This^ And yes you had to kill the Archdemon, but I had the
illusion of choice and making changes in the world of Thedas. Not the
build up to Act 3 with the final totally ****** wringer..."OMG
CHOOSE A SIDE NOW!!! NOW!!! CHOOSE!" and then having the game laugh and
go "Oh hai, you chose? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"  If I wanted a cinematic movie
with commercials I watch TV.

The side you choose is a personal choice. It effect you, and it effects the people around you. That it does not change the entire world is not Bioware's problem, as they never offered you such a choice in DA:O either (In fact, very few RPGs offer you any more choice at the end than DA2 did, maybe some of the Fables, but even that's a stretch as the lives potentially saved/sacrificed are all invisible ones). I get that a lot of you seem to not like the ending to DA2, how no matter which side you choose, you can only effect your own character's behavior, and not mind control the behavior of every other NPC in the world, so they will act in their own natures, even if that contradicts your Will, but it's a very realistic outcome, it's how the world actually works. Just because you choose a side doesn't automatically make that side worth choosing.

Modifié par OhoniX, 13 mai 2011 - 01:32 .

[Tommy6860]

Dianjabla wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Using photorealistic graphics and a subjective mark of quality (ie. a preference for such graphics) is perfectly understandable, but not every game uses (or requires) such fidelity in their visual imagery. Many people in this forum have touted Baldur's Gate to be one of, if not the best RPG they've played, and yet that game was not even in 3D, and the technology of a decade ago was somewhat primitive and expensive compared to today. Yet folks continue to use it as a benchmark of RPG quality.

Quite honestly, put the story Bioware is capable of making in the infinity engine again and I'd probably still buy it. I've always tended to view RPGs as interactive books where you get to decide the outcomes. Pretty graphics are fine, but the fun in a game is more than how pretty it looks. My two cents.

This^ and I mentioned these very same sentiments earlier. I would love to have nice graphics, but if I could get an experience like BG, BG2, NWN, Fallouts 1&2 and even to a degree IWD, but especailly like Planescape: Torment, that would make me very happy.

[KilrB]

MassEffect762 wrote...

*Badly damaged holovid on Ilos* CAN....T...... BE STOPPED!

It's too late, EA full steam ahead. Bioware is gone.

Quality/Story/RPG elements are not things EA cares about imo.

ME2, DA:0 A, DA2. All victims of EA in one way shape or form. Bioware is nothing more than a puppet.

Just my crazy opinion.

Well call me crazy too.

(You may as well, everyone else does ... )

Say ... maybe we've got this all wrong.

Maybe DA2 was never meant as a game at all.

It's an allegory:

Kirkwall is the gaming industry, small(er) innovative companies (Bioware,etc.) are the mages.

Threatened by the Templars (banks, ESRB, ??) they naively (or not) seek help from demons (EA, Activision) and inevitably become abominations.

[Persephone]

erynnar wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Hurbster wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Hurbster wrote...

Nah, nothings more repetitive than those...

You'd think.

These forums have proven that wrong and then some.

I'd agree, then I'd run into that cave campsite again...

A fair prospect compared to the hyperbole drama.

I just wanted to be clear...you do mean the hyperbole going both ways, yes?

Considering where 90% of the hyperbole is coming from.....not really.

I've compared DAII's "treatment" to the Ides Of March before. I'll do it again.

Here's what happened on that day to save RPG---er, the Republic.

www.youtube.com/watch (Warning, HBO...so VERY graphic!)

Overkill. Never mind that it led to the end of the franch- er Republic they wanted to save so badly. And they hurt themselves quite literally in the bargain.

The community screaming "Sic semper tyrannis!" at EA/Bioware makes good drama. Or it did. But it is as productive as what happened on that ill fated day 44 B.C.

So....what CAN be done? In a realistic fashion? Posting constructive criticism/praise without extremes. David Gaider himself said that the mixed reviews are the most interesting, if I remember it correctly. And they are the most useful ones too, from where I am standing.

[aftohsix]

KilrB wrote...

EDIT:

That goes for you too aftohsix ...

I stopped listening to your opinion the moment you coined the term "EAware."  If you could demonstrate that you can discuss why you feel the way you feel without such hyperbole maybe you'd be taken a bit more seriously.

As it stands now you're no different than many of the others here saying pretty much this "DA2 is a bad game huh?"

[Persephone]

aftohsix wrote...

KilrB wrote...

EDIT:

That goes for you too aftohsix ...

I stopped listening to your opinion the moment you coined the term "EAware."

While I'd not go that far, such name calling strikes me just as juvenile as "Lamelaw", "Laidlow", "Streamlaw" and "Awzum button lulz!" excuses for wit.

*Dodges rotten eggs*

[Everwarden]

Persephone wrote...

Considering where 90% of the hyperbole is coming from.....not really.

You fail to factor in that the people who disliked the game or were lukewarm -are- 90% of the population here, so it's only natural that 90% of the venom will come from our side. 

So....what CAN be done? In a realistic fashion? Posting constructive criticism/praise without extremes. David Gaider himself said that the mixed reviews are the most interesting, if I remember it correctly. And they are the most useful ones too, from where I am standing.

Sometimes an extreme opinion is the correct one.

[Yrkoon]

Stanley Woo wrote...

In the meantime, The Witcher 2 is something we can all (tentatively) look forward to, including no doubt some of the developers and testers an BioWare.

Absolutely. It's looking like it will be an awesome game. The degree of success of The Witcher 2 ultimately has no bearing on whether or not the individual gamer liked or did not like Dragon Age II.

   Well, except  for the fact that  If the Witcher 2   (a classic RPG that seems to take pride in being NOTHING BUT)manages to  outsell DA2, then Bioware will be getting something even  more important, information wise, than  what some  "individual gamer"  thinks of DA2.

They'll get proof positive that  fusing genres together   (what you did with DA2) is not the way to sell more games.   

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 mai 2011 - 02:26 .

[Persephone]

Everwarden wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Considering where 90% of the hyperbole is coming from.....not really.

You fail to factor in that the people who disliked the game or were lukewarm -are- 90% of the population here, so it's only natural that 90% of the venom will come from our side. 

So....what CAN be done? In a realistic fashion? Posting constructive criticism/praise without extremes. David Gaider himself said that the mixed reviews are the most interesting, if I remember it correctly. And they are the most useful ones too, from where I am standing.

Sometimes an extreme opinion is the correct one.

I don't care from which side it's coming from. She asked me whether I was referring to both sides and I pointed out that the 90/10 percentage makes me more frustrated with "your" side. But I hate hyperbole either way.

And there is no such thing as a "correct opinion" and extremes as well as fanaticism are despicable to me. History also teaches us that extremes/fanaticism are bound to do more harm than good. Say hello to Bloody Mary Tudor for me. Her extreme way of "saving souls" that disagreed with her extremist views sure did not work.

[OhoniX]

They'll get proof positive that fusing genres together (what you did with DA2) is not the way to sell more games.

Um, how, exactly? If Witcher 2 does well then it would indicate that DA2 was on the right track, because it looks to be far more related to DA2 than it is to DA:O. If Witcher 2 does better than DA2 then the lesson to take from that is that they had the right ideas with DA2, but maybe needed to polish the execution a bit, with less bugs in the third act, less reuse of maps, etc., but pretty much the same mechanics.

[Persephone]

Yrkoon wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

In the meantime, The Witcher 2 is something we can all (tentatively) look forward to, including no doubt some of the developers and testers an BioWare.

Absolutely. It's looking like it will be an awesome game. The degree of success of The Witcher 2 ultimately has no bearing on whether or not the individual gamer liked or did not like Dragon Age II.

   Well, except  for the fact that  If the Witcher 2   (a classic RPG that seems to take pride in being NOTHING BUT)manages to  outsell DA2, then Bioware will be getting something even  more important, information wise, than  what some  "individual gamer"  thinks of DA2.

They'll get proof positive that  fusing genres together   (what you did with DA2) is not the way to sell more games.   

Let's wait and see how well TW2 does first, shall we? If its original release is as buggy, clunky and messy as TW1....well, you know.

[Yrkoon]

OhoniX wrote...

They'll get proof positive that fusing genres together (what you did with DA2) is not the way to sell more games.

Um, how, exactly? If Witcher 2 does well then it would indicate that DA2 was on the right track, because it looks to be far more related to DA2 than it is to DA:O. If Witcher 2 does better than DA2 then the lesson to take from that is that they had the right ideas with DA2, but maybe needed to polish the execution a bit, with less bugs in the third act, less reuse of maps, etc., but pretty much the same mechanics.

Try as I might, I have no clue what you're saying here

What's more related to DA2? and what do you mean by related?  And who mentioned anything about bugs?