510 réponses à ce sujet

[Zjarcal]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

@Zjarcal: So you're saying you've gotten used to getting lied to? How is that fair? If I lied out of my teeth, I would lose my job. Yet it's okay for the marketing department to advertise soemthing they aren't actually selling? I view that as fraud. Which is, IMO, unacceptable.

Comparing lying in your job to marketing hyperbole is a bit extreme in my view. Do I think it's right for companies to exaggerate things in their marketing campaigns? No, I don't, but it's such a common practice by now that I can't be bothered by it, especially when there are PLENTY of ways to figure out if a game will be to your liking or not (previews, reviews, demos, word of mouth), other than what the marketing promises.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 21 mai 2011 - 09:04 .

[Merced652]

Mr.House wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Personally i just find it a tad odd that someone is going to slam a game for having a set protag when their prefered game has a slightly less defined one, and none of the choices the player makes has any impact on the story what-so-ever. 

I mean, i prefer to make my own hero, but why should i ****ing bother when my hero doesn't do **** in the story but spectate? This is fundamentally what has seperated ME2 from DA2 and is probably the very core of why da2 sucks and me2 is so beloved by some. 

How did I slam the Witcher 2? I in fact love the Witcher series, but I don't like Geralt. I also said I will buy it in the future when it's dropped down in the price. So congrats on putting words in my mouth.

It wasn't a reference at any comment you had made. Just an off the cuff scoffing at of a game with a set protag while lauding another game that has a.. set protag. 

Modifié par Merced652, 21 mai 2011 - 09:02 .

[_Aine_]

Advertising and marketing sell to perceived needs, not by facts, unfortunately. No-one wants to hear their eye cream only hydrates the skin and doesn't make the old young again. Nor do people want to hear that babies really don't have a thing to do with the quality of your tires either. Call me jaded though, that is what I went to school for (advertising-creative). I left because as creative as it *could* be, much of the time it was snake oil. Still, I am filled with envy at times because I miss using my creativity. I digress...

DAO was so well liked, ONLY a marked improvement would have seemed passable, imo. It was billed as a sequel, and while it did occur in a time-line right after DAO, stylistically and story wise, they weren't really related all that much. *Perhaps* marketing it differently would have made a difference in the perception of it. I say *perhaps* because there is really no way to truly know if that is correct. I do know that there are areas in the game where there were improvements. I think the cinematics/cut scenes were great, lighting was improved as were some of the character models. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't as horrible as some people say either.  I had my issues with some aspects, but I also liked it well enough to play it through to completion several times

Modifié par shantisands, 21 mai 2011 - 09:05 .

[Marionetten]

Merced652 wrote...

It wasn't a reference at any comment you had made. Just an off the cuff scoffing at of a game with a set protag while lauding another game that has a.. set protag.

This is a keen observation. A lot of Dragon Age II proponents argue that the set and voiced protagonist was a good change going from Dragon Age: Origins to Dragon Age II yet they dislike The Witcher 2 for having a set protagonist.

[agesilaj12]

Yes DA2 is a bad game. And with so many great games out -Witcher 2, or upcoming (Skyrim, Deus Ex....hope ME3 turns out ok for gods sake) no need to waste money on this piece of work. Hell, even Two Worlds 2 at this point was more fun for me than DA2 and looks way way .

[Mr.House]

Marionetten wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

It wasn't a reference at any comment you had made. Just an off the cuff scoffing at of a game with a set protag while lauding another game that has a.. set protag.

This is a keen observation. A lot of Dragon Age II proponents argue that the set and voiced protagonist was a good change going from Dragon Age: Origins to Dragon Age II yet they dislike The Witcher 2 for having a set protagonist.

You still have customization in DA2, and I don't have to play someone I can't stand. I don't like Geralt that's just me.

[Tommy6860]

Macrake wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Macrake wrote...

Get the witcher 2 instead. Completely amazing aside from a couple of technical issues which will get fixed in a patch soon. It really shows just how terrible da2 is.

I don't get it really. I really disliked DA2, but I disliked it based on its own premises, not that of another game. I personally think Origins blows away TWEE for the reasons of being able to customize my character, choose a race or gender to play. These are very important elements for me when playing an RPG. If going by what DA2 offers, I at least can choose a class and gender and do some pretty exciting stuff with abilities. The storyline in DA2 is gorfed IMO, and may not compare to TW2, but I just think comparing the two doesn't fit.

Comparing TW to TW2 as is comparing Origins to DA2 is more apropos.

Blabla. Yes i dislike da2 not because of other games but just because its ****. Point is, witcher 2 shows us what is possible in 2011 for an RPG.  It has raised the standard so much higher and lazy crap like da2 hopefully wont get released again.

Aside from your inability to not be snarky, you forget that TW2 is essentially the same kind of game as TW that came out in 2007, as much as I liked TW, I was not into a second run because of being stuck playing one character? On that point, TW2 shows us how an RPG just isn't as RPG as Origins is nor even as DA2 is in some respects. Did DA:O suddenly get forgotten in that mix between the releases of TW and TW2. TW or TW2 for that matter, IMO, simply should not be held in the same breath as Origins, I wouldn't even consider a comparison considering the lack of gender and race choices and customizations.

[Brockololly]

Zjarcal wrote...
I can't really disagree with anything that you say here. It is understandable that some people were angry at the marketing promising something and not really delivering it.

Mind you, I don't really pay attention to those claims. My experience with marketing blurbs has always been that they promise a whole lot more than what will actually be in the game, so I have just learned to ignore that. I only pay attention to actualy hands-on previews or that sort of thing.

The thing is that most of the marketing claims were just gross exagerations to the point of incredulity by the time the game came out. Now a lot of games do that, but I'd say that contributed to the warped expectations some people had with the game, and ultimately added to the generally negative reception the game had once people actually could play it and it didn't match up to the hype.

Or even like in the little developer diary videos they had where Laidlaw said he thought DA2 was perhaps BioWare's most responsive/reactive narrative ever. Obviously thats his opinion, but I think you'd be more likely to see people say how DA2 was likely one of BioWare's most linear and non-responsive narratives ever. Its one thing if its marketing telling somebody like Laidlaw to say something like that, but it would be another if he truly believed that. I think people figured with the talk of likening DA2's framed narrative to having the divergent epilogue slides in the middle of the game, that you'd have meaningful divergence in the middle of the story (like, oh, say the Witcher 2) but instead everything plays out mostly the same every time. So the question is, do the developers like Laidlaw see that or do they truly still believe the marketing speak they let forth pre-release?

[Zjarcal]

Mr.House wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

It wasn't a reference at any comment you had made. Just an off the cuff scoffing at of a game with a set protag while lauding another game that has a.. set protag.

This is a keen observation. A lot of Dragon Age II proponents argue that the set and voiced protagonist was a good change going from Dragon Age: Origins to Dragon Age II yet they dislike The Witcher 2 for having a set protagonist.

You still have customization in DA2, and I don't have to play someone I can't stand. I don't like Geralt that's just me.

Exactly. 

Some may not care for choosing a gender, class, or changing their appearance, but most people do. It's not about the customization making a huge difference in the story (that rarely happens) it's simply about creating a character I like.

[Merced652]

Mr.House wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

It wasn't a reference at any comment you had made. Just an off the cuff scoffing at of a game with a set protag while lauding another game that has a.. set protag.

This is a keen observation. A lot of Dragon Age II proponents argue that the set and voiced protagonist was a good change going from Dragon Age: Origins to Dragon Age II yet they dislike The Witcher 2 for having a set protagonist.

You still have customization in DA2, and I don't have to play someone I can't stand. I don't like Geralt that's just me.

Oh man... that was funny. So essentially you cannot stand geralt because you think hes ugly, he doesn't have ******, or possibly both. Because thats essentially all your vaunted customization netted you. But thats just me. Don't bother bringing up your A, B, or C "RP." While that brand of roleplaying is exclusive to bioware; witcher 2 instead gives you choices that matter and accomplish the same thing but in a much more meaningful way. 

Modifié par Merced652, 21 mai 2011 - 09:16 .

[Mr.House]

Merced652 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

It wasn't a reference at any comment you had made. Just an off the cuff scoffing at of a game with a set protag while lauding another game that has a.. set protag.

This is a keen observation. A lot of Dragon Age II proponents argue that the set and voiced protagonist was a good change going from Dragon Age: Origins to Dragon Age II yet they dislike The Witcher 2 for having a set protagonist.

You still have customization in DA2, and I don't have to play someone I can't stand. I don't like Geralt that's just me.

Oh man... that was funny. So essentially you cannot stand geralt because you think hes ugly, he doesn't have ******, or possibly both. Because thats essentially all your vaunted customization netted you. But thats just me. Don't bother bringing up your A, B, or C "RP" while that brand of roleplaying is exclusive to bioware; witcher 2 instead gives you choices that matter and accomplish the same thing but in a much more meaningful way. 

Point, you missed it, oh well. No point letting my dinner turn cold talking to you.

[Merced652]

Don't forget your ball, bro.

[Marionetten]

Zjarcal wrote...

Exactly. 

Some may not care for choosing a gender, class, or changing their appearance, but most people do. It's not about the customization making a huge difference in the story (that rarely happens) it's simply about creating a character I like.

How exactly is freely choosing between several different disciplines not equal or greater to simply choosing a class with restricted abilities? As far as I'm concerned The Witcher 2 has far more actual character customization than Dragon Age II does.

The rest is just pure fluff from my perspective but I'm sure some appearance mods will remedy it sooner or later. The Witcher had quite a few.

[Merced652]

Marionetten wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

Exactly. 

Some may not care for choosing a gender, class, or changing their appearance, but most people do. It's not about the customization making a huge difference in the story (that rarely happens) it's simply about creating a character I like.

How exactly is freely choosing between several different disciplines not equal or greater to simply choosing a class with restricted abilities? As far as I'm concerned The Witcher 2 has far more actual character customization than Dragon Age II does.

The rest is just pure fluff from my perspective but I'm sure some appearance mods will remedy it sooner or later. The Witcher had quite a few.

You know what it is? Its the same sex relationships. How did i overlook that?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Mr.House wrote...
You still have customization in DA2, and I don't have to play someone I can't stand. I don't like Geralt that's just me.

While DA2 obviously had more character customization than games like the Witcher (though I argue that customizing Geralt's perceptions are much better integrated in the game and story), the game still forces a lot on me that I very much dislike. 

I can't imagine an ambitious and cunning Hawke, mostly because the plot demands that he's very reactive / passive (and I am being kind here) and essentally stumbling on his rise to fame. Whereas in Origins, the Warden could end up in very different places (mostly an illusion, but it was integrated in the game). You could play an ambitious warden, or an adventurous one. In DA2, you are forced to play what I consider to be one of the most passive and straight out lazy protagonists I've ever played.

While Geralt is certainly not an ambitious character that I'd identify with the most, I feel he was well-done as a character, and in a very  interesting context, that I can enjoy his story. In DA2, I felt that at the end of the day, Hawke was not interesting and didn't do much, and the context was either uninteresting or poorly executed. Of course most of this is subjective, but when I compare DA2 and TW 1 and 2, I do not regret the absence of customization that much, because the restrictions TW had were well integrated the story and were of interest to me.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 mai 2011 - 09:24 .

[agesilaj12]

Hahahaha, some trolls never cease to amaze me. You couldnt put ******, long hair, tattoos and what not on Nameless One in Planescape Torment either. And still its still , 12 years later, probably the best RPG made so far. Geralt is what he is, literary character, and they have stayed faithfull to his representation from the books. And that is actually commendable.Otherwise you can look at having Sly Stalone as Judge Dredd........

[Brockololly]

Zjarcal wrote...
Exactly. 

Some may not care for choosing a gender, class, or changing their appearance, but most people do. It's not about the customization making a huge difference in the story (that rarely happens) it's simply about creating a character I like.

I guess I'm of the thinking that once you add a set voice, changing appearance isn't that big of a deal  to me- its not like people will respond to how your character looks. Whereas people frequently call out how much of an ugly freak Geralt looks like.

Gender I can see possibly being a sticking point, if it comes up at all in the story. Fair enough.

But really, in TW2, you have just as much character customization, if not more than DA2 in terms of skills/abilities/gear. Since basically you're not set in any one class like DA2, you can have Geralt be more of a swordsman, alchemist, magic user or some mix of all of those. Add in having more meaningful use of skills/magic/persuade/intimidate in dialogue, along with dialogues that can have meaningful divergent outcomes (actually being able to talk people down without having to fight every single person) and I think there is a good deal of character customization in TW2, so long as you can accept Geralt as the PC, which obviously is a sticking point for some people.

[Mr. Man]

ExaltedReign wrote...


Why do people seem to think its suppose to be a sequal to Origins? The stories (I think) have nothing to do with eachother. It should be counted as its own game, not a sequal to origins. Just like WoW and Warcraft 3 should be counted as their own games.

Perhaps because it's called Dragon Age II....just a guess.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Brockololly wrote...
But really, in TW2, you have just as much character customization, if not more than DA2 in terms of skills/abilities/gear. Since basically you're not set in any one class like DA2, you can have Geralt be more of a swordsman, alchemist, magic user or some mix of all of those. Add in having more meaningful use of skills/magic/persuade/intimidate in dialogue, along with dialogues that can have meaningful divergent outcomes (actually being able to talk people down without having to fight every single person) and I think there is a good deal of character customization in TW2, so long as you can accept Geralt as the PC, which obviously is a sticking point for some people.

Still in Act 2 in TW2, but I remember  something in TW1 that I greatly liked.

You could customise Geralt's views and how he percieves himself and the world, because characters actually ask him. Heck, it's a quest on its own "Identity". Things like Order vs Scoa'tel reflected on Geralt's perception on himself and his "humanity" when Triss asks him. Even sidequests like that of the vampire in the brothel reflected Geralt's newly forged personality. 

I felt that they were actually part of the story and narrative, as Geralt is recovering from amnesia. At first, I was skepitcal about the whole amnesia thing, but the game integrated it in the story better than any other game I've played imo, and really addressed the question of identity, especially in the context of amnesia, seriously.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 mai 2011 - 09:34 .

[Merced652]

And lets be real here, Iroveth is a bad ass.