279 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Wozearly wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

well the elves in DA:O were broken. They did need fixing. Anyone who thought that they were perfectly elven then must think that shorter, pointy-eared humans should always be the standard. When I played DA:O I was expecting something incredible for the elves. When I found out Iona was an elf, I stared in disbelief because I took her for a human. She was too human in appearance, and that saddened me.

But if you think about it, the Na'vi forehead extends down and becomes the nostrils, whereas the elven nose extends into the forehead. I realize that may sound confusing, but there is a clear difference between the two.

I agree that the Elves weren't especially distinctive in Origins, but they were generally fairly identifiable - although I can understand the wider desire to make them more unique, as with the Qunari.

I didn't personally prefer the new-look elves compared to the old, but I accept this is purely a matter of aesthetics, and people will have different opinions.

The DA2 elves aren't Nav'i clones - and the thicker nose and wide-set eyes common amongst the Nav'i are (generally) not seen. Hell, I think we'd all be a bit miffed if they were exact replicas...but the relatively regular connection people have been drawing suggests that there are enough common factors between the two to justify the occasional not-very-flattering comparison.

Or, people are finding a connection that truly has barely any similarites if any, or is simply nonexistent, for yet another reason to detest DA2.

Honestly, I doubt this is the case for all the people making that distinction, but I wouldn't put it past some people to do that. And then like vultures to carrion, people may earnestly believe the connection to be there and flock to say they see it too and call it so.

[Elhanan]

No vote, but believe:

* Graphics less than DAO.
* Combat greater than DAO.
* Story in same ballpark as DAO.

[Angarma]

The Story : (4) Trying something new was good for Bioware I believe. However in my mind they did not pull it off.
With more build up, back story, deeper sense of atmosphere, one would be able to grasp what Bioware wanted.
Lack of choices both in character customization and towards the end really gave it a pure rollercoaster feeling.
Meaning it was linear, it was quite fun, but you feel like not doing again because you've experienced all of it.

The Graphics : (5) The graphics are really a middle man for me. It feels muddled in places and some not.
You have Sundermount with its trees, the alienage with bits & bobs near the vhendadahl, low textured workers.
While on the better side is like the Wounded Coast with its bushes, hightown all over, the cave creatures.

The Combat : (4) They really went wrong with their campaign of capturing action / tactical crowds to the game.
It left some people confused and others alienated. Improving on DA:O's combat would have been better.
DA2's fanciful moves, ninja waves losed the tactic from the original. Speed is the only thing I see improved.
Oh and whoever thought of exploding corpses / removing the Origins finishing moves needs to be sacked.

[Well]

The Story: 3
The idea may have been good but it was on scale with Diablo 2.As far as choices.There was some that made a difference on minor parts of the story.On whole it was pathetic.I'm looking at it from the role playing view.It really did not cut it.What really bothers me is the potential was there.I play Guild Wars and it had more of a role playing element in any of their games than this.They put out two stand-alone games and a expansion in 2 years that put this to shame.
So the folks that say BW needed more time I disagree.I think BW dropped the ball on this.Too bad.

Graphics: 4 They were ok.If you looking at the place time after time it gets boring.It really got boring.

Combat: 4 There was some changes that I thought were good.Still some of skill changes I thought sucked raw eggs.It just I didn't see the sense.I do think the mage was improved.

Overall I give it a 5.The scores don't add up to that but the dialog was excellent except the frelling wheel.The wheel should of had one more choice.Go ahead and pick it.It doesn't really matter.That would of been a popular selection.The only companions I liked were Verric, Beth and the Dog.Seems like they weren't created using the extreme scale.Anyhow it is my opinion and that be it.

[Lintanis]

The Story - (5) Brilliant just as high standard as Origins 
The Graphics (8) So much better the Origins not just brown lol 

The Combat - (10) - SOOOOOOOOOOO much better, the dreadful shuffle gone thank god made doing another run thru Origins after playing DA2 so annoying just let me shuffle after the enemy that just went straight past me lol :lol:

[0x30A88]

The story was not that good. Little choise allowed little replayabillity and it was not as epic as the game we know and love (DA:O) -- epic as in its dictionary definition. Also, the protagonist had little effect on the story, one can say Anders had a larger impact when he... removed the chance of compromise. The darkness of it is what draws it up from the gutter. Score: 3.5

The graphic style was rather bad and much was reused. Also, if you take one armor and change the appearance to another race it will either disappear or look like another piece of armor. Some of the graphics was awesome though, like enviroments and indoor tiles. It's better than Origins, as is expected of a game released in '11. Score: 6.5

The combat is not improved. from tactical combat to over-the-top slaying of drooling iditios barely able to hold a sword straight. Not improvement. Also, it's sickly unbalanced, and no, tripple their num ber and make 4-5 waves is not a proper way to balance it. DA:O did well here, despite the combat having some too slow animations (2H swings for instance). Score: 2

Don't take me wrong, I loved playing DA2, but there's a reasson it gathers dust now after third playtrough. But it's not an improvement over DA:O. Overall: 3.5

Modifié par Gisle Aune, 11 mai 2011 - 10:49 .

[GodWood]

Story:
Well Act I story-wise was pretty dull.
Act II with the Qunari conflict was brilliant, its only flaw being I couldn't side with the qunari and ditch Hawke.
And Act III everything was rushed, the characters weren't developed and the ending was awful.

So that averages out to about a 5.5/10

Graphics:
Not bad, not great either. So a 5 or a 6 I guess.

Combat:
The combat did add some significant improvements to the console version such as the ability to issue individual commands to companions and the mage animations looked pretty badarse, however these positives were countered with things like no friendly fire (unless on Nightmare), bodies exploding, companions jumping around like ninjas, waves of enemies etc

So overall probably a 7/10


Quickly compared to Origins...

Story:
On paper it honestly sounds pretty dull, "join secret organization, gather allies, beat BIG evil", however the execution was brilliant.
10/10

Graphics:
Nothing special, but not bad either.
5-6/10

Combat:
For me all Origins needed on the console version was overhead camera and the ability to issue individual commands.
Everything else was fine.

So probably a 7/10

[Wozearly]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Or, people are finding a connection that truly has barely any similarites if any, or is simply nonexistent, for yet another reason to detest DA2.

Honestly, I doubt this is the case for all the people making that distinction, but I wouldn't put it past some people to do that. And then like vultures to carrion, people may earnestly believe the connection to be there and flock to say they see it too and call it so.

If people are so willing to find reasons to knock DA2, irrespective of their basis in reality, that to me is indicative of a wider underlying problem with the game and/or its direction that goes beyond whether you agree the Nav'i and Dalish Elves bear a resemblance.

I think there's more than a grain of truth in there.

[TEWR]

Wozearly wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Or, people are finding a connection that truly has barely any similarites if any, or is simply nonexistent, for yet another reason to detest DA2.

Honestly, I doubt this is the case for all the people making that distinction, but I wouldn't put it past some people to do that. And then like vultures to carrion, people may earnestly believe the connection to be there and flock to say they see it too and call it so.

If people are so willing to find reasons to knock DA2, irrespective of their basis in reality, that to me is indicative of a wider underlying problem with the game and/or its direction that goes beyond whether you agree the Nav'i and Dalish Elves bear a resemblance.

I think there's more than a grain of truth in there.

I don't know if it would be so much a problem with the game. Moreso I think it's a problem with the person playing the game.

[Gotholhorakh]

Wozearly wrote...

If people are so willing to find reasons to knock DA2, irrespective of their basis in reality, that to me is indicative of a wider underlying problem with the game and/or its direction that goes beyond whether you agree the Nav'i and Dalish Elves bear a resemblance.

I think there's more than a grain of truth in there.

I think that if a lot of people don't like something, don't want to buy it or are unhappy they bought it, then:

1. It's not a measure of quality in any sense because:
     i)  most people like vapid or crap stuff (50 Cent>Black Sabbath, MacDonalds/Subway>Any other restaurant)
     ii) the average human being has an IQ of around 100 - now I'm not a doctor, but I'm not even sure if people with an IQ of 100 can open a door on their own or successfully step in a puddle.

2. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for them not liking it, unless you're only in it for the art. If people don't like it, that's a problem for your bottom line.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 11 mai 2011 - 03:35 .

[SirShreK]

Gotholhorakh wrote...


I think that if a lot of people don't like something, don't want to buy it or are unhappy they bought it, then:

1. It's not a measure of quality in any sense because:
     i)  most people like vapid or crap stuff (50 Cent>Black Sabbath, MacDonalds/Subway>Any other restaurant)
     ii) the average human being has an IQ of around 100 - now I'm not a doctor, but I'm not even sure if people with an IQ of 100 can open a door on their own or successfully step in a puddle.

2. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for them not liking it, unless you're only in it for the art. If people don't like it, that's a problem for your bottom line.

I can turn this argument around for you, if I were not lazy enough. 

[Bmeszaros]

Story- 1. If I wanted a game full of sidequests as the "main path" I'd play an MMO. Count me among those that really didn't find much drawback from the standard Bioware-Plot lines of 4 hubs as part of the overarking storyline.

Graphics- 4. Really, not much difference from Dragon Age 1 in terms of graphics and art style of landscapes, despite Bioware telling us otherwise in the dev diaries. Improved fight graphics cancelled out by limited locations/claustrophic feeling by being confined to Kirkwall and the surrounding area. Disappointing changes to Darkspawn not such a dealbreaker since they played a significantly smaller role in this game than the last.

Combat- 7. Before I traded in the game, I went back and played DA:O (I didn't have a save import from the first game and wanted to make one since I STILL couldn't unlock the Epic acheivement in DA2 despite finishing it 3 times, but alas, I never finished before I decided that I was trading in DA2 before it lost too much value) and I was actually pining for a faster combat style, a la DA2.

Modifié par Bmeszaros, 11 mai 2011 - 03:46 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Story - Well, I felt it just transitioned from one thing to the next without any real development of how we got there - I mean that in reference to the quests, the overall story arc of the game and the development of the main character's reputation. I didn''t feel it was terrible per se, though, and I'm going to adjust upwards because of the markedly different scale and scope of DA2's story which was much smaller than the original, so... 7

Graphics - I'm not really convinced this is a massive clincher anyway, it wouldn't have come close to gameplay for me as a priority. However, it looked uglier than DA:O, so 6

Combat - Horrid, fixed what wasn't broke, made every minute a trial to stay playing and not just ragequit, ew ew ew ew. 1

SirShreK wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...


I think that if a lot of people don't like something, don't want to buy it or are unhappy they bought it, then:

1. It's not a measure of quality in any sense because:
     i)  most people like vapid or crap stuff (50 Cent>Black Sabbath, MacDonalds/Subway>Any other restaurant)
     ii) the average human being has an IQ of around 100 - now I'm not a doctor, but I'm not even sure if people with an IQ of 100 can open a door on their own or successfully step in a puddle.

2. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for them not liking it, unless you're only in it for the art. If people don't like it, that's a problem for your bottom line.

I can turn this argument around for you, if I were not lazy enough. 

Haha. Just to be clear, point 1 was made more in a spirit of consolation than actual conviction, you know, to sugar coat just how good the game really is in my opinion.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 11 mai 2011 - 03:54 .

[TEWR]

Hey in fairness, Subway has great food. McDonalds makes me wanna hurl every time I eat their food. same with Burger King.

That said about Subway, I do enjoy eating at real restaurants when I can.

Oh **** better make this post related to DA2! DA2 needs a Subway! Whoo... dodged a bullet there.

[SirShreK]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Haha. Just to be clear, point 1 was made more in a spirit of consolation than actual conviction, you know, to sugar coat just how good the game really is in my opinion.

I would also question your RIGHT to assign the term ART to anything. To the best of my knowledge it comes from collective opinion. Prove otherwise please. 

[Gotholhorakh]

SirShreK wrote...

I would also question your RIGHT to assign the term ART to anything.

ROFL. Good luck with questioning anyone's right to assign the term art to anything they damned well please.

[SirShreK]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

I would also question your RIGHT to assign the term ART to anything.

ROFL. Good luck with questioning anyone's right to assign the term art to anything they damned well please.

My question: Something meaningful.
Your answer: ROFL.

Lets not continue. 

[MingWolf]

Story - 3: A framed narrative that introduced loosely joined plots that have little to do with the protagonist and have little that links the context from start to finish.
Graphics - 2: I loaded up NWN2 shortly after my playthrough of DA2.  The former looked better in my eyes... and I rather disliked the former in the graphics department.  
Combat - 6: Much more easier to grasp than DA:O and a lot more fluid.  Plagued by waves and absurdly designed enemies.  Also too much pseudo-ninjitsu.

Modifié par MingWolf, 11 mai 2011 - 04:06 .

[Gotholhorakh]

SirShreK wrote...
My question: Something meaningful.
Your answer: ROFL.

Lets not continue.

No.

Your post: "You don't have the right to use the word art, here is a definition of art: please disprove it"

My post:   "ROFL @ obvious troll/derailment post. Not biting."

We had a thread where pulled that crap last night. Not interested, so get someone else to "disprove" your definition of art, or post something less addled

PS: This isn't me biting. Try someone else.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 11 mai 2011 - 04:09 .

[Wozearly]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't know if it would be so much a problem with the game. Moreso I think it's a problem with the person playing the game.

We may have to agree to disagree on this.

I suppose it depends whether you think a sequel should, as a general rule, look and feel a lot like the previous game in the series except for genuine improvements. In many cases, DA2 felt like a grand (and divisive) experiment with the DA franchise. I think that fuelled a lot of the vocal discontentment, particularly where people pre-ordered on faith, and has more to do with the direction taken by Bioware than it does to do with the players themselves.

Whether its a problem or not may well depend on whether you view the divisive changes as positive or negative. There seem to be relatively few people holding on the middle ground on this one.

Gotholhorakh - same points apply to part 1 of your post, and the impact on part 2 (and on subsequent titles in the series and/or by Bioware generally) is a direct consequence of this.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

It's not that elves weren't distinctive in Origins, it's that they are excessively distinctive (often hidiously so) in DA 2 and people are not comparing them as such. The whole "they are more unique" arguement seems lukewarm to me when I could tell them apart from humans quite easily the first go around. Shall we make their skin tone highlighter pink in DA 3? Afterall, that would also make them more "unique."

[Guitarjoe91]

Story - 7
Graphics - 6
Combat - 8

I would have given combat a 9 if there were more enemies and areas and less waves.

[tmp7704]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Shall we make their skin tone highlighter pink in DA 3? Afterall, that would also make them more "unique."

Only the females. The male elves should obviously be blue.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr.House wrote...

You don't really wander off. You explored a rocky square place with bases the same as the other bases you just visited. It was not really that noteworthy or well done.

That you went to the planet at all is what I'm talking about.  If Shepard flies to some uncharted world, why did he do that?  That ME lets you decide that, and lets you act on that decision by actually going to those planets, is a huge plus for the game.  Again, BioWare games haven't really let us do that since BG1, and it's a terrific feature.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The MAKO wasn't bad.  The persistent extreme geometry of the Uncharted World was.

Climbing each hill was a new puzzle to solve.  I liked it.

The geometry of the BDtS moon - now that was boring was pointless.  If you wanted to drive anywhere, you just drove straight there.  There were effectively no obstacles at all.  There was no need to navigate.  A simple grid search allowed you to find every item of note in very little time with very little effort.  But searching those uncharted worlds was an intellectual challenge, so I liked them.

I agree to an extent, and I think DA2 was better at this than DAO, if only because there were many more compelling questions for compelling "whys."

Unfortunately, the voice and paraphrase system breaks the game there.  DA2 might give you a richer setting in which to work, but if you can't place limits on your character's behaviour then you can't ensure that he'll act in a way that is consistent with the personality (the "whys") you've designed.

Hm.  I felt like DA2 did react to my character's personality in tangible ways.

How?  You couldn't even express your personality because the wheel wouldn't let you.  It was rare, in DA2, to have the wheel offer me an option that suited my character's personality in that moment, let alone how often the resulting line would differ substantially from what I had expected.

Because the DA2 wheel only offers 3 options most of the time (while DAO offered 3*n options in relevantly similar situations), it was extremely unlikely that any of the wheel options satisfied me.

The easiest to describe would be the companion Friend/Rivalry setup.

I'm not really sure what that was for, other than perhaps to encourage metagaming.

I viewed DA2 as a history, being told by Varric, in which quests are offered because Hawke already did them.

Yes, but it was still Hawke who did them.  If you're playing Hawke, then you need to be able to decide these things.

Otherwise you're not really playing Hawke.

That said, I managed to get through ME and ME2 without having any real control over Shepard because the rest of the game went smoothly.  I even replayed ME - I played it three times, because the combat was interesting and the Mako was fun to drive (ME2 I finished only once because the combat was not interesting, and there was just less to do in the game).  But in DA2, just letting the game progress without my roleplaying input doesn't work because that progress is constantly interrupted by the very worst party-based RPG combat I have ever seen.  It's not just the encounter designs, which are bad, and it's not just the combat mechanics, which are abysmal, and it's not just the linear level designs, which are horribly contrived, but that all of those things persist in every combat encounter makes each one incredibly irritating.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 mai 2011 - 06:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't understand why people hate greatswords so much. They existed in real life (though not as wide--

There.  There's the problem.  Hayder's Razor OUTWEIGHS Fenris, and yet he can jump around while swinging it at people.

The axes and mauls in DAO were just as bad.  I calculated the head of the DAO mauls at over 40kg (assuming they're the same density as steel).