279 réponses à ce sujet

[Abispa]

Story -- I'm not offended by the serendipitous hero as opposed to the stereotypical epic hero, so fighting to survive the tsunami of history didn't bother me. What DID bother me was that the Mage storyline (the so-called cannon storyline) MADE NO SENSE! It's so hard to take the Templars seriously when they are shown to be such utter morons. "7" for figher/rogue, "2" for mage.

Graphics -- I LOVED the redesign making each race look truly alien, but I hated the implementation of the new look. Merrill, Fenris and the Keeper looked awesome, but the other elves looked like the N64 beaten with a Sega Saturn. The Arishock looked great, but the other Qunari and Tal Vashoth were pretty much the same model. Kirkwall was BORING, which is nearly unforgivable since the entire game takes place there (Hint, Bioware, play "Assissin's Creed"). "5."

Combat -- I LOVE me some awesome button. True, it could be better, but I found SO much better than the KotOR and DA:O "push a button and watch your character automatically run up to an opponent and whack it till one of you dies." It made it easier to play DA:O while eating or talking on a cell phone, but I found it painful. On nightmare, where I was forced to used tactics, I did miss the DA:O camera angles, though. "8."

[Philao]

I havent finished playing DA2 but I would say it is a good game. The problem is that Bioware always create a high standard of RPG games. They were bound to create one that was didnt raise the standard. Okay, the game hasn't blown me away but it I still like it. It like the fact I have something to play until TOR and ME3.

I think the problem with the whole DA series is that it has never really become the new Baldurs Gate.That doesnt mean they are bad games though.

[Demx]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

And how is DA2's story not cliche? .

Well it's certainly not the BioWare cliche.   Except for the humble origin and 2 companions parts.

But like I implied, I prefer "DA2's cliches" despite their execution issues to "DAO's cliches" in my opinion again despite their execution issues.  I don't think DAO pulled off its own story all that well, either, certainly not as well as the forums seem to think it did nowadays.  

I think it got most of the Bioware cliches.

1. Refugee (Humble Origins)
2. Village was attacked by darkspawn (devastating battle sends your life spinning out of balance)
3. You do end up with only two fighting companions, but you won't have another mage if you are one.(The attack leaves you with two companions, one mage and the other martial prowess)
4. You are not given authority until the end of the game. (You recover quickly and are given a position of power or authority over the rest of humanity)
5. Kirkwall, The Wounded Coast, Deep Roads, and Sundermount(Traveling to four locations)
6. Not a single organization, but everyone seems hell bent on killing you. (An evil organization thwarts your mission)
7. You still enter the fade in the game. Or is that quest optional? (At some point you fall asleep and there is a dream sequence)
8. That ancient city in the deep roads in act 1 (you discover the ruins of an sprawling ancient civilization)

Modifié par Siradix, 10 mai 2011 - 11:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

It looks like ME3 will be my final game from BioWare afterall. It's been good knowing you, old friend... *waves goodbye*

*shrug*

That comment was directed specifically at Sylvius, whose position on BioWare games could be generally - and potentially incorrectly, as I'm obviously not his appointed spokesman - summarized with "downhill since Baldur's Gate 1."

Siradix wrote...

I think it got most of the Bioware cliches.

I wouldn't interpret them that liberally, but you're free to of course.  In any case it's subjective, it didn't feel like a typical BioWare story to me.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 mai 2011 - 11:03 .

[BigC-VI]

Story- 3 (Poor story, and hard to play through ((as in, actually running around the same, re-used areas over and over and over)) and many plot holes. Anders personality flip brings the score down a lot)
Graphics- 5 (I personally liked some of the new character designs ((i.e. Elves, Templars)) but some definitely not ((Qunari!)), all that aside, the game it's self, like many mentioned above, felt cartoony, and I would much rather see the grit of DA:O return in DA3, also, I hope to see less glichty cutscenes.)
Gameplay- 8 (The only reason it gets such a high score in my rating is because of how much more fresh it was. Using the wheel from Mass Effect and a fully voiced character was an uber plus, and not clicking a watching my fight go down was a blessing. I loved the new fighting system, though I think then need to stray a bit more toward SW:TFU in the aspect of timing, you really feel like you're in control of Starkiller, as where with Hawke, you still feel a bit click and watch-y)

*edited typo

Modifié par BigC-VI, 10 mai 2011 - 11:03 .

[Wozearly]

Savber100 wrote...

Most of you have stated what you don't like about DA2' improvements but how would you take it from there? Were there any improvements made in DA2 that you will keep?

Definitely, although ironically all of them are relatively 'fringe' concepts;

The lack of OTT character-effects from sustained abilities - as the worst example known to mankind, Fade Shield from Awakening. The additional subtlety was much more in-keeping with how Origins looked once you'd put in the Personal Annoyance Remover mod.

Not having to keep c.15 slots of your bag dedicated to random pieces of crafting materials where, for me at least, most crafting was done in between major plot locations when there was time to work out the number of flasks (etc) that I'd need - rather than bringing along a supply of concentrator/corruptor agents in the hope I'd get the other component pieces dropping from foes.

I'm not sure the DA2 crafting solution was perfect, though - I'd personally have gone with requiring the recipe (find / purchase) in order to make particular items, then requiring either the drops and/or access to a source material + collection cost to provide the components, with higher level crafting pieces requiring drops that can't be sourced infinitely. So in the early stages, you make low-ish level poisons with venom extracts from mobs (e.g. 4 medium strength vs 8 low strength). As you progress, you'd find a more permanent source of venom...at that point, you'd have the option for paying for additional venom poisons, but would be getting drops for something more effective. And as you start collecting permanent sources of, say, venom and deathroot, you'd be able to use demonic ichor drops to combine into something more nasty.

The hotbar appoach that autolocks in combat, but can be changed at will at any other point - nicely intuitive.

The additional conditional options for companion tactics.

The concept of fortitude/force, magic linking to magic resistance and constitution affecting health regen...but the other attribute changes came close to wiping this out by generating such an obvious "Warriors must have a/b, Rogues must have c/d, Mages must have e/f - any other choice is frankly weeeeird" combination. The trade-offs that came along from hybrid classes in DA:O, like DW non-dagger medium-armour rogues, or AW/BM mages, or the drastically different focuses and consequences of a dodge-tank versus a hitpoint-tank...well, technically they exist in DA2, but...they're pretty darn pointless to explore, as DA2 railroads you down certain stats.

Glancing blow as a variation of outright miss.


To be honest, you could take the rest, including the visual layout from the menus through to the game itself, lob it in the trash can and dust off the Origins concepts ready for DA3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I also believed it's been established that BioWare has mostly stopped making games you find fun. 

DAO was fun.  That's only two games back in the library.

To suggest they have stopped making those games require considerable foreknowledge which I think we lack.  If the ME2-DA2 sequence is enough to conclude that, then they also stopped making games with tactical, stat-driven after KotOR, as neither Jade Empire nor Mass Effect had that.

Except then came DAO, so clearly they hadn't stopped.

If I could get through the Jade Empire-Mass Effect sequence, then the ME2-DA2 sequence is no greater threat.

[Philao]

Oh yeah and Graphics get 10 because I can still play it with my below system requirements graphics card like Mass Effect 2. A bit selfish but I have loved Bioware games since the first Baldurs Gate.

[upsettingshorts]

DAO strikes me as a bit of an outlier, given recent trends. Would you agree?

I think quite a bit of the frustration from its loudest critics is the result of this - Dragon Age represented a throwback, and was... thrown back.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 mai 2011 - 11:08 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If it wants to tell a particular personal story - one written by the designers - then I agree.

However, having the game tell a story at you isn't fun gameplay.  It arguably isn't gamplay at all.

You seem to be implying that adhering to a predetermined story is somehow somehow mutually exclusive to gameplay.

I had a ton of fun playing games that did just that - Shadow of the Colossus, Portal, God of War, Call of Duty, and Uncharted all more-or-less forced me into following a predetermined path, but I still found them all to be enjoyable and fun games with terrific gameplay.

But it is not the type of games i'm looking for in a WRPG. JRPGs, sure. WRPG? No.

I hope you can understand that there's a pretty big semantic difference between "Not gameplay at all" and "Not gameplay I personally want in a game".  

[mesmerizedish]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Really? BG1? I thought it would be BG2.

You'd be wrong.

[upsettingshorts]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Really? BG1? I thought it would be BG2. I prsonally felt BioWare games started going downhill after BioWare was purchased by EA. Sure EA published Origins, but it was already late in development, if not practically finished. No time to streamline it.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Personally I haven't seen many of the dramatic changes others have at all.  But I have theories about that.

And I'll let Sylvius speak to BG1->BG2 if he's interested in doing so.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 mai 2011 - 11:11 .

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Really? BG1? I thought it would be BG2. I prsonally felt BioWare games started going downhill after BioWare was purchased by EA. Sure EA published Origins, but it was already late in development, if not practically finished. No time to streamline it.

Correlation does not equal causation.

On that note, Mass Effect was developed before the buyout, and I don't really consider it an RPG at all.

[Demx]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Siradix wrote...

I think it got most of the Bioware cliches.

I wouldn't interpret them that liberally, but you're free to of course.  In any case it's subjective, it didn't feel like a typical BioWare story to me.

I believe 3, 4, and 6 are the only ones that could be taken as a stretch. The rest seem to match with the pic you provided.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You seem to be implying that adhering to a predetermined story is somehow somehow mutually exclusive to gameplay.

I'm implying nothing at all, as implication doesn't exist.

I'm saying that being told a story is not gameplay.  To be gameplay the player needs to be doing something.  He needs to have input.  Whether the game reacts to that input I genuinely don't care, but the player needs to be involved in some aspect of the game for it to be a game rather than some other form of entertainment.

I had a ton of fun playing games that did just that - Shadow of the Colossus, Portal, God of War, Call of Duty, and Uncharted all more-or-less forced me into following a predetermined path, but I still found them all to be enjoyable and fun games with terrific gameplay.

A game with a wholly pre-determined story can still be a game, and can still have gameplay, but none of that gameplay is story-related.  The gameplay in God of War (as I understand it) has nothing at all to do with the story.  It has to do with combat.  If the story never changes, then the player can't have done anything with regard to to the story.

I enjoy story-based gameplay, so I require a much looser narrative than is offered by the games you describe.

[Morroian]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

But it is not the type of games i'm looking for in a WRPG. JRPGs, sure. WRPG? No.

But that implies you don't like DA2 purely because of expectations not because its a bad game. 

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

 Whether the game reacts to that input I genuinely don't care

Wheras to me the game reacting to a story decision is key to what I want out of BioWare gameplay.

And around and around we go!

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Didn't that John Riccietelo guy recently say that  they aim to "appeal ME3 to a wider market"? This statement came after Casey Hudson said they were bringing back deeper RPG elements to ME3 that were missing in ME2. What does this mean, exactly?

I don't know.   I know it means people are going to speculate though. 

I tend to look at statements like both of those and consider the audience.  But I'm not taking either of them particularly seriously, I'm waiting for more substantial information.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 mai 2011 - 11:19 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You seem to be implying that adhering to a predetermined story is somehow somehow mutually exclusive to gameplay.

I'm implying nothing at all, as implication doesn't exist.

I'm saying that being told a story is not gameplay.  To be gameplay the player needs to be doing something.  He needs to have input.  Whether the game reacts to that input I genuinely don't care, but the player needs to be involved in some aspect of the game for it to be a game rather than some other form of entertainment.

I had a ton of fun playing games that did just that - Shadow of the Colossus, Portal, God of War, Call of Duty, and Uncharted all more-or-less forced me into following a predetermined path, but I still found them all to be enjoyable and fun games with terrific gameplay.

A game with a wholly pre-determined story can still be a game, and can still have gameplay, but none of that gameplay is story-related.  The gameplay in God of War (as I understand it) has nothing at all to do with the story.  It has to do with combat.  If the story never changes, then the player can't have done anything with regard to to the story.

I enjoy story-based gameplay, so I require a much looser narrative than is offered by the games you describe.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. I personally like all sorts of games. However, I fear that with the rising cost of AAA titles, you're going to be less and less likely to find big-budget games that cater to your particular demographic, simply because the number of folks who require gameplay that actually affects the story simply aren't that many in number.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

DAO strikes me as a bit of an outlier, given recent trends. Would you agree?

In that it mostly reversed the general downward trend since BG?  Yes, I would say it's an outlier.

But it's still a datapoint.  We can't just ignore data because it doesn't suit our hypothesis.

Incidentally, on the narrative front I think DA2 did quite well.  Admittedly, I haven't seen the whole game, but much of what I've seen is remarkably unstructured as far as the story goes, and that's exactly what I want from an RPG.  The story isn't where DA2 let me down.  Even the dialogue system isn't where DA2 let me down (it's still not anywhere close to ideal, but it's an improvement over ME and ME2 - though I still insist that a silent protagonist would be unequivocally better for every player interested in character design).  It's DA2's combat that let me down, which I didn't expect at all.

[Apollo Starflare]

Story: Difficult to rate in comparison to Origins. I think the IDEA is better, more original and ambitious (certainly for a Video Game). However the execution left something to be desired in comparison to Origins. I guess I will have to give it a 4 if only because of the weirdness surrounding party Mages.

It's funny though, I actually prefer the cast of companion characters in DA2 though. In fact I love a lot about it. It would score higher from me on a traditional 1-10 scale, but if 5 is Origins level then I do think the lack of polish hurts it.

Graphics: Definitely higher than Origins, and if it wasn't for The Witcher 2 (a game with the freedom of having been designed purely for PC as well as a long time in development) I think it would get a lot less flak in this department.

I love the art style in DA2, although I do think the lack of visual variety with the Qunari and the Darkspawn was a shame. If Genlocks were in the game for instance and didn't have as contraversial a re-design I'm sure it would have lessened the impact of the Hurlocks.

So: 7

Combat: Pretty much agree with those who liked it but found certain gameplay elements impacted on it negatively (particularly at higher difficulty levels). 7