191 réponses à ce sujet

[Agamo45]

It's not ambitious in any sense of the word. It's a rushjob, a clear attempt by EA to capitalize on DA:O's success quickly. That's the only reason this game sold, and from what I hear those sales are dropping fast.

[erynnar]

Agamo45 wrote...

It's not ambitious in any sense of the word. It's a rushjob, a clear attempt by EA to capitalize on DA:O's success quickly. That's the only reason this game sold, and from what I hear those sales are dropping fast.

Yep, there's a thread for that. It is um... ouch, yes, ouch would be the word.

[Roxlimn]

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.

I think that this and the RPS quotes display so very, very, very clearly that it's neither lack of ambition nor fundamental game flaws that make so many gamers stay here and bash DA2.

It's that these gamers were expecting a different game.  They wanted a different game and DA2 went another way instead.  That doesn't make nonambitious, or bad.  It's simply a different game; but apparently it can't be simply different without automatically being bad.

[Corto81]

Roxlimn wrote...

I think that this and the RPS quotes display so very, very, very clearly that it's neither lack of ambition nor fundamental game flaws that make so many gamers stay here and bash DA2.

It's that these gamers were expecting a different game.  They wanted a different game and DA2 went another way instead.  That doesn't make nonambitious, or bad.  It's simply a different game; but apparently it can't be simply different without automatically being bad.

That's your PoV.

Personally, I think DAII is both unambitious and bad.
In comparison to DA:O, in comparison to other quality RPGs, and just overall, by itself...

Unlike most other BW games, which feel they were being made with passion and love, and then make money in the process, DAII feels like it was made to make money.... And everything else, gameplay, story, level design, etc... Was done as an afterthought.

[Roxlimn]

Corto81:

Not at all. It's not JUST my PoV, though it is also that. The commentary is very clearly of the type that says, "It wasn't THIS sort of game, so that makes it bad." In fact, the very quote from RPS that "nailed it," words it thus:

"I would have liked to play that game."

Exactly. Most naysayers imagined they were getting a different game (a game like DAO, even when the free demo was obviously not DAO) so when they got DA2 instead, they feel nothing but disappointment, and it colors nearly everything they say about the game. Never is the game good in any fashion, even when we can point out actual instances in which the game is better than DAO.

I don't think they're the same game, either, but apparently, I can appreciate a lot of game types, and from a perspective of an appreciation of many game genres, DA2 is just a better made game, even though it has less content than DAO.

[Gotholhorakh]

Ambitious isn't really the word I'd use.

Audacious maybe, or inexplicable.

Roxlimn wrote...
Not at all. It's not JUST my PoV, though it is also that. The commentary is very clearly of the type that says, "It wasn't THIS sort of game, so that makes it bad." In fact, the very quote from RPS that "nailed it," words it thus:

"I would have liked to play that game."

Exactly. Most naysayers imagined they were getting a different game (a game like DAO, even when the free demo was obviously not DAO) so when they got DA2 instead, they feel nothing but disappointment, and it colors nearly everything they say about the game. Never is the game good in any fashion, even when we can point out actual instances in which the game is better than DAO.

I don't think they're the same game, either, but apparently, I can appreciate a lot of game types, and from a perspective of an appreciation of many game genres, DA2 is just a better made game, even though it has less content than DAO.

You see, when you find that you can not only generalise, but also know what lots of other people are thinking better than they do themselves, you know you're wrong. It's like you're being double wrong, just to be sure. It's a novel approach, and fair play to you for that.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 17 mai 2011 - 05:07 .

[erynnar]

Roxlimn wrote...

Corto81:

Not at all. It's not JUST my PoV, though it is also that. The commentary is very clearly of the type that says, "It wasn't THIS sort of game, so that makes it bad." In fact, the very quote from RPS that "nailed it," words it thus:

"I would have liked to play that game."

Exactly. Most naysayers imagined they were getting a different game (a game like DAO, even when the free demo was obviously not DAO) so when they got DA2 instead, they feel nothing but disappointment, and it colors nearly everything they say about the game. Never is the game good in any fashion, even when we can point out actual instances in which the game is better than DAO.

I don't think they're the same game, either, but apparently, I can appreciate a lot of game types, and from a perspective of an appreciation of many game genres, DA2 is just a better made game, even though it has less content than DAO.

Um, did the demo have enemies falling from the sky? No. Did the demo have exploding bodies that fell into pieces and covered my screen with gore so much so I couldn't see to target the next enemy? No. Did the demo have finishing moves where I cut the darkspawn in half? Yes. Did I get that in the game? No (see aforementioned granade filled blood baloons). Did I get over the top kinetic speeds for battle? Yes ( I didn't like the super speed, but it wasn't game breaking). Did I get cool new rogue animaitions and mage animatgions? Check. Did I get a blasted landscape? Yes (but I the the demo was about game play and battle not the art graphics. I honestly thought the blasted Maritan landscape was an easy made area to show off battle, not that it would be in game, same with the awful darkspawn Skeletor marshmallow men). The demo was misleading to say the least. So, no it wasn't my fault about with expectations set by BioWare vs. the demo.

@Goth...I go with inexplicable. Why do a 180 from a hugely successful (awards out the whazoo, still selling) game loved by millions? That is what floors me. 

Modifié par erynnar, 17 mai 2011 - 06:57 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

DA2 was ambitious. It's a modern RPG that's fun to play. All the poop got shoveled out of DAO.

[Kimberly Shaw]

Roxlimn 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.

I think that this and the RPS quotes display so very, very, very clearly that it's neither lack of ambition nor fundamental game flaws that make so many gamers stay here and bash DA2.

It's that these gamers were expecting a different game.  They wanted a different game and DA2 went another way instead.  That doesn't make nonambitious, or bad.  It's simply a different game; but apparently it can't be simply different without automatically being bad.

I'll reply since you quoted me.

A game can be different than marketed and also well received.  This just happens to not be one of those cases. And the game is not bad, it is not great either.  I was expecting great.  Bioware made me expect that by calling it Dragon Age "2" after making Dragon Age 1 a game that I loved.

DA2 was ambitious. It's a modern RPG that's fun to play. All the poop got shoveled out of DAO.

Yep. It shovelled all the poop out of DAO and made DA2 out of the poop, while leaving the good parts behind.

Modifié par Kimberly Shaw, 17 mai 2011 - 07:09 .

[erynnar]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

Roxlimn 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.

I think that this and the RPS quotes display so very, very, very clearly that it's neither lack of ambition nor fundamental game flaws that make so many gamers stay here and bash DA2.

It's that these gamers were expecting a different game.  They wanted a different game and DA2 went another way instead.  That doesn't make nonambitious, or bad.  It's simply a different game; but apparently it can't be simply different without automatically being bad.

I'll reply since you quoted me.

A game can be different than marketed and also well received.  This just happens to not be one of those cases. And the game is not bad, it is not great either.  I was expecting great.  Bioware made me expect that by calling it Dragon Age "2" after making Dragon Age 1 a game that I loved.

DA2 was ambitious. It's a modern RPG that's fun to play. All the poop got shoveled out of DAO.

Yep. It shovelled all the poop out of DAO and made DA2 out of the poop, while leaving the good parts behind.

I was just about to say the same thing Kim...yep they shoveled it and used it.

[Rockpopple]

And we've officially hit the apex of intelligent discourse that this forum is ever gonna achieve. I'm glad I was here to witness it.

[Rockpopple]

Don't be so hard on yourself. Once the conversation literally turned to poop, that was always gonna be its logical conclusion.

[erynnar]

And I was just doing a silly response to Rip's comments. With the usual simple DAO is suxxor to DA2 with no real discourse on why he feels that way. Sorry, I should be less Three Stooges and more Marx Brothers.

[Roxlimn]

Gotholhorakh:

You see, when you find that you can not only generalise, but also know what lots of other people are thinking better than they do themselves, you know you're wrong. It's like you're being double wrong, just to be sure. It's a novel approach, and fair play to you for that.

It's not that unusual for gamers to have poor insight. In fact, it seems to be more a rule than an exception, especially for cases of gamer ranting.

erynnar:

Um, did the demo have enemies falling from the sky? No. Did the demo have exploding bodies that fell into pieces and covered my screen with gore so much so I couldn't see to target the next enemy? No.

Actually, the level of gore and spawn mechanics were quite clearly demoed in the demo. Pretty sure the guys materialized out of nowhere in the Isabella fights.

Kimberly Shaw:

A game can be different than marketed and also well received. This just happens to not be one of those cases. And the game is not bad, it is not great either. I was expecting great. Bioware made me expect that by calling it Dragon Age "2" after making Dragon Age 1 a game that I loved.

See, that's the problem. You absolutely loved DAO, so it stands to reason that most design decisions that moved away from it would make you NOT like DA2, regardless of its actual nature.

I did not LOVE DAO. I liked it. I like DA2. I LOVE neither game. But I can tell that DA2 is the better made one on the strength of several factors that can clearly be pointed out.

[Walker White]

Mezinger wrote...

Well there's A+ games and then there's mediocracy... Bioware used to be known for the A+'s... oh wait what?

http://www.metacriti.../critic-reviews

91% what? A+ So I guess the development time pays off? What? Who would have thought! 

Nobody said it was going to be easy. 

A game that for all its hype may or may not make money.  You are already hearing talk about how expensive this game was to produce.  Take Two already pissed off its shareholders with the Red Dead fiasco. Red Dead may have had a lot of sales, but it was very expensive and the profits were not that great.  People are saying that 3-4 million games is the break even point (no money for you shareholders) for L.A. Noire.

The DA franchise simply won't support these numbers.  Given the complaining on these forums, I am not sure that DA3 is a wise business decision for EA.  They may just end the IP.