191 réponses à ce sujet

[JabbaDaHutt30]

It wasn't. Maybe some of the developers who worked on the project were ambitious when trying to squeeze out a game out of a one year long development time, but the project idea itself thought up by the higher ups wasn't. 

The deadline was very short. BioWare took inspiration from Mass Effect. The scope of the game was very small; the feeling of actually wanting to get out of Kirkwall and experience the real game was a recurring feeling for me, and I don't mean the repeated planet exploration coastal and mountainous environments.

The game was not ambitious. It was not 'an experiment' ( not the non-wallet related anyway ). It was sticking with the lowest means and goals in mind possible to release a sequel for a BioWare game yet.

The game could have been ambitious and still suck, but it wasn't. Alpha Protocol was ambitious, because the developers took their time with the game and wanted to try something new, despite its flaws and the fact that the game was considered a commercial failure

Conclusion: Dragon Age 2 was not ambitious.

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 13 mai 2011 - 05:11 .

[Dubya75]

No it wasn't. You're absolutely right. Or maybe it was but somewhere along the line they missed the mark and instead of taking their time to create a great game they stared themselves blind against the profit they could make resulting in a rushed and incomplete game.

Modifié par Dubya75, 14 mai 2011 - 12:13 .

[88mphSlayer]

i think when people call this game "ambitious" it's about concepts

i've yet to hear somebody say the game was ambitious as it is in its current state

[Brockololly]

Yeah, I'd say in concept DA2 was ambitious.

In terms of actual execution and the final product that shipped, it really wasn't ambitious and wasn't anything that hasn't been done before and done better by others. Which is disappointing as I think the concepts and ideas behind the game are interesting.

[InvaderErl]

88mphSlayer wrote...

i think when people call this game "ambitious" it's about concepts

i've yet to hear somebody say the game was ambitious as it is in its current state

I completely agree with this. There were a lot of things that when I first heard them in a conceptual state I was very interested in.

The idea of relationships developing across years, the action being tightly character driven, a less "save the world" plot in favor of one driven by political intrigue - all of that stuff SOUNDED great.

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

The game could have been ambitious and still suck, but it wasn't. Alpha Protocol was ambitious, because the developers took their time with the game

Just a slight correction, from what some dev posted following the release of Alpha Protocol it appears that a lot of the delays was not so much because they were trying to make the BEST RPG EVER!!! but in reality because some producer from Sega kept showing up and making them redesign the game to his liking.

http://www.vg247.com...been-cancelled/

Modifié par InvaderErl, 13 mai 2011 - 05:48 .

[JabbaDaHutt30]

88mphSlayer wrote...

i think when people call this game "ambitious" it's about concepts

i've yet to hear somebody say the game was ambitious as it is in its current state

Which is why I'm saying the concept wasn't ambitious. It was a very quick release, for starters.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

InvaderErl wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

i think when people call this game "ambitious" it's about concepts

i've yet to hear somebody say the game was ambitious as it is in its current state

I completely agree with this. There were a lot of things that when I first heard them in a conceptual state I was very interested in.

The idea of relationships developing across years, the action being tightly character driven, a less "save the world" plot in favor of one driven by political intrigue - all of that stuff SOUNDED great.

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

The game could have been ambitious and still suck, but it wasn't. Alpha Protocol was ambitious, because the developers took their time with the game

Just a slight correction, from what some dev posted following the release of Alpha Protocol it appears that a lot of the delays was not so much because they were trying to make the BEST RPG EVER!!! but in reality because some producer from Sega kept showing up and making them redesign the game to his liking.

http://www.vg247.com...been-cancelled/

Still, even that guy says there was a ton of work put into the game. Alpha Protocol has some very frustrating moments nonetheless, so I'm not saying this is how a game is supposed to turn out.

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 13 mai 2011 - 06:22 .

[Spooky81]

Brockololly wrote...

Yeah, I'd say in concept DA2 was ambitious.

In terms of actual execution and the final product that shipped, it really wasn't ambitious and wasn't anything that hasn't been done before and done better by others. Which is disappointing as I think the concepts and ideas behind the game are interesting.

I agree.  It has very little to do with the scale of the story compared to it's predecessor.  It's the way the story was presented and delivered that's the problem.

I was one of the many that preordered DA2 and was looking forward to it, but into the 3rd or 4th day I really couldn't find the motive to move forward and see how the rest of the plot unravels.  One of my thoughts back then was BioWare could have done a better job with the storytelling, what happened?  It scares me to think that the standards used to develop DA2 might become the basis for all future releases of the DA franchise.

[Sabriana]

The concept itself was an amibitious idea. It could've been so good. But it simply wasn't, for me, personally.

I do like personal stories for games. I still hate that "heavy rain" was PS3 only. I have to play it on a friend's console, because I'm not about to spend money on a console. I much rather save up for a new PC. But I do like it very much. Same goes for PS:T and MotB. And a few others that I can't think of atm.

I also like the "big bad" story-line. If it's done well. Imo, it was done very well with quite a few games. Including that "other" game. I simply want the story to captivate me. Personal, rags-to-riches, big-bad, little bad (involving only a part of the "world") don't really matter to me. What I look for is a game that I can throw myself into, where the world becomes mine.

I mean, there are quite a few games that start out great, and end with me going "WTF???" DA 2s ending was terrible. It wasn't what I'm used to from Bioware. But it hardly was the worst ending ever. "The Indigo Prophesies" just about bowled me over - that ending is the worst I've ever, ever seen/played.

[Kimberly Shaw]

All very good points.

The concept of a role playing game with 10 year time span and arriving as a penniless vagrant while rising to be the most influential person in the city is very ambitious and (in my opinion) terrific. What could have been an extremely replayable game with very different year 10 Kirkwall/Thedas scenarios depending on decisions and quests done in early years and "branching" became entirely unremarkable (agian, in my opinion) in execution.

So much potential, so much ambition, and in the end...we get a 2nd rate Action - RPG (and 3rd rate Bioware for Bioware standards) with very little replayability. It's a darn shame.

Ambitious concept? Yes.
Ambitious game? Not at all.

[Sabriana]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

All very good points.

The concept of a role playing game with 10 year time span and arriving as a penniless vagrant while rising to be the most influential person in the city is very ambitious and (in my opinion) terrific. What could have been an extremely replayable game with very different year 10 Kirkwall/Thedas scenarios depending on decisions and quests done in early years and "branching" became entirely unremarkable (agian, in my opinion) in execution.

So much potential, so much ambition, and in the end...we get a 2nd rate Action - RPG (and 3rd rate Bioware for Bioware standards) with very little replayability. It's a darn shame.

Ambitious concept? Yes.
Ambitious game? Not at all.

Sadly, I agree with you, Kimberly.

[aduellist]

I'd say the concept was ambitious, but the execution was appalling. John Walker summed it up nicely in his Rock, Paper, Shotgun analysis:

The idea is, and I love this idea in concept so much, that you’re not playing as the last hero in the land, saving the universe. You’re just some refugee, trying to survive in a city that has no fondness for Fereldens, working you way up through the ranks from villainy to nobility, seeing the city change shape through time. I wish I could have played that game.

I can't put it any better than that.

[fightright2]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Sabriana wrote...

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

All very good points.

The concept of a role playing game with 10 year time span and arriving as a penniless vagrant while rising to be the most influential person in the city is very ambitious and (in my opinion) terrific. What could have been an extremely replayable game with very different year 10 Kirkwall/Thedas scenarios depending on decisions and quests done in early years and "branching" became entirely unremarkable (agian, in my opinion) in execution.

So much potential, so much ambition, and in the end...we get a 2nd rate Action - RPG (and 3rd rate Bioware for Bioware standards) with very little replayability. It's a darn shame.

Ambitious concept? Yes.
Ambitious game? Not at all.

Sadly, I agree with you, Kimberly.

Thirded.

*just jumped into that band wagon also*

[Zanallen]

I'd say completely overhauling the graphics engine, changing the character models, overhauling the combat, skills and relationship system all with a paltry 18 month development cycle while also creating a new story with new characters is pretty damn ambitious.

Modifié par Zanallen, 13 mai 2011 - 07:42 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ambitious? I don't believe so. There was an interesting story line, but without Hawke in control and just responding to the story the player feels like an outsider who is merely allowed to watch. Above all it was an experiment in economics: How much could be cut to make it still feel like a BioWare game? Maybe the stockholders were happy with the end result, but a lot of gamers like me weren't. It's not a bad game. But that is exactly what it is: Not a bad game. It excels in nothing.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 13 mai 2011 - 07:48 .

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

All very good points.

The concept of a role playing game with 10 year time span and arriving as a penniless vagrant while rising to be the most influential person in the city is very ambitious and (in my opinion) terrific. What could have been an extremely replayable game with very different year 10 Kirkwall/Thedas scenarios depending on decisions and quests done in early years and "branching" became entirely unremarkable (agian, in my opinion) in execution.

So much potential, so much ambition, and in the end...we get a 2nd rate Action - RPG (and 3rd rate Bioware for Bioware standards) with very little replayability. It's a darn shame.

Ambitious concept? Yes.
Ambitious game? Not at all.

Well, if that were the case, I'd agree. But was it something they actually planned on doing, or was it just inflated advertising?

The framed narrative, for example, is nothing but a tool in my eyes to skip between chapters. I'd say it was advertised as more.

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 13 mai 2011 - 08:07 .

[erynnar]

Sabriana wrote...

The concept itself was an amibitious idea. It could've been so good. But it simply wasn't, for me, personally.

I do like personal stories for games. I still hate that "heavy rain" was PS3 only. I have to play it on a friend's console, because I'm not about to spend money on a console. I much rather save up for a new PC. But I do like it very much. Same goes for PS:T and MotB. And a few others that I can't think of atm.

I also like the "big bad" story-line. If it's done well. Imo, it was done very well with quite a few games. Including that "other" game. I simply want the story to captivate me. Personal, rags-to-riches, big-bad, little bad (involving only a part of the "world") don't really matter to me. What I look for is a game that I can throw myself into, where the world becomes mine.

I mean, there are quite a few games that start out great, and end with me going "WTF???" DA 2s ending was terrible. It wasn't what I'm used to from Bioware. But it hardly was the worst ending ever. "The Indigo Prophesies" just about bowled me over - that ending is the worst I've ever, ever seen/played.

Again, Sabi and I are from another planet sharing one brain... This^

[erynnar]

fightright2 wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Sabriana wrote...

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

All very good points.

The concept of a role playing game with 10 year time span and arriving as a penniless vagrant while rising to be the most influential person in the city is very ambitious and (in my opinion) terrific. What could have been an extremely replayable game with very different year 10 Kirkwall/Thedas scenarios depending on decisions and quests done in early years and "branching" became entirely unremarkable (agian, in my opinion) in execution.

So much potential, so much ambition, and in the end...we get a 2nd rate Action - RPG (and 3rd rate Bioware for Bioware standards) with very little replayability. It's a darn shame.

Ambitious concept? Yes.
Ambitious game? Not at all.

Sadly, I agree with you, Kimberly.

Thirded.

*just jumped into that band wagon also*

*bandwagson goes by and I join in*...anyone for a roll in the hay? 

@Angry...too true. It isn't awful...it is just, meh.

Modifié par erynnar, 13 mai 2011 - 08:14 .

[erynnar]

Zanallen wrote...

I'd say completely overhauling the graphics engine, changing the character models, overhauling the combat, skills and relationship system all with a paltry 18 month development cycle while also creating a new story with new characters is pretty damn ambitious.

Or foolish.  They didnt' have to overhaul or do a 180.

[CaptainBlackGold]

erynnar wrote...

[*bandwagson goes by and I join in*...anyone for a roll in the hay? 

@Angry...too true. It isn't awful...it is just, meh.

"Roll, Roll, Roll in Ze hay...."

"Zank you Doctor..."

[Dave of Canada]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

And look where that got them.

It made people cry on the forums like they always do?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 mai 2011 - 08:24 .

[Kimberly Shaw]

I thought they mostly kept the engine and just tweaked it? A complete overhaul? I never heard that before. They redid some models for elves and darkspawn (mostly to criticism from DAO fans). Well whatever the reason for it, the short development cycle kept the game from reaching its ambitions. In my opinion. Your mileage may vary. Speaking of that, where are all the biodrone DA2 defenders? I would have thought they'd be all over me and Sab and anyone daring to say the game wasn't the most amibitous thing since the moon landing?

@Jabba - you make a good point.