645 réponses à ce sujet

[RUDAL]

DTKT wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

Fundamentally it comes down to DA2 being a game that was rushed out the door. If you do that it doesn't matter how awesome your design decisions are; without enough time, you can't implement them right.

Bing, we have a winner.

W2 is a complete game. It feels like a complete package. DAII was rushed and could have benefited from 6-8 months of more dev time. The rampant recycling is the real killer for me.

And then, there are the simple things, Floatsam, the first "real" village you encounter, has more life than Kirkwall.

 I agree.
I remember seeing or reading somewhere like one of the DA2 Devs said that they decided to remove all the bits and pieces like dirt, books lying on the flor and such to save some job on graphic cards because players dont care about those cause they are more into story and gameplay.
I was like WTF??  Where did they get that from?   So that means that they could make a great story and place it in just square boxes and let te players to kill triangles!

The world have to be rich and alive, the background have to have some meaning.
And I agree with the statement saying that DA2 was rushed. and i really hope that ME3 will be a great game cause if not then I'll probably loose my faith in BW.

[RUDAL]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Witcher 2 needs a storage chest. Seriously, the first game let you store things with innkeepers.

I'll drink to that! Good point.

[Persephone]

fchopin wrote...

To the op.

Choices... choices...choices, and to be more precise role playing choices, without them a game is not an RPG.

The Might and Magic Series (RPG classic) would like to have a word with you.

[Persephone]

Fix1o0 wrote...

TW2 is more mature in every way, and doesn't feel like it's made for 12 year old boys and girls.

12 year olds have no business playing a game that adresses issues such as rape, domestic violence, serial killers, sexual abuse, demonic possession etc.

And how telling that all that you posted is a pic from an effin' sex scene.

[Aargh12]

Persephone wrote..

12 year olds have no business playing a game that adresses issues such as rape, domestic violence, serial killers, sexual abuse, demonic possession etc. 

Yet 12 year olds like to see blood splattering all over their hero. And DA2 delivers that.

Modifié par Aargh12, 23 mai 2011 - 05:55 .

[Aargh12]

Persephone wrote..

12 year olds have no business playing a game that adresses issues such as rape, domestic violence, serial killers, sexual abuse, demonic possession etc. 

Yet 12 year olds like to see blood splattering all over their hero. And DA2 delivers that.

The Might and Magic Series (RPG classic) would like to have a word with you.

The entire M&M series is closer to what orignal RPGs where. It's mor a like a dungeon crawler. IMO they're defined as RPGs not by choices/freedom but by the mechanics. And I believe the latest Bioware's (and fans) definition of genre did not include the mechanics.

And jRPGs are whole, different matter. 

Modifié par Aargh12, 23 mai 2011 - 06:00 .

[AngelicMachinery]

Persephone wrote...

12 year olds have no business playing a game that adresses issues such as rape, domestic violence, serial killers, sexual abuse, demonic possession etc.

For some reason demonic posession in this list made me laugh.

[Persephone]

Aargh12 wrote...

Persephone wrote..

12 year olds have no business playing a game that adresses issues such as rape, domestic violence, serial killers, sexual abuse, demonic possession etc. 

Yet 12 year olds like to see blood splattering all over their hero. And DA2 delivers that.

And so did TW2. And it got boobies and butts. Female only. No view of Geralt's assets for us gals. Now who is delivering more for shallow boys who just want to ogle a gal's assets and be covered in blood?

Modifié par Persephone, 23 mai 2011 - 06:03 .

[Aargh12]

Persephone wrote...
And so did TW2. And it got boobies and butts. Female only. Now who is delivering more for shallow boys who just want to ogle a gal's assets and be covered in blood?

Soo...

Let's say that 12-year old are not interested in RPGs and only in Call of Duty, ok ? 

[Persephone]

Aargh12 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
And so did TW2. And it got boobies and butts. Female only. Now who is delivering more for shallow boys who just want to ogle a gal's assets and be covered in blood?

Soo...

Let's say that 12-year old are not interested in RPGs and only in Call of Duty, ok ? 

LOL. Can't speak for them. When I was twelve, I was playing the Might and Magic Series. I feel....ancient now.

[tonnactus]

Sopa de Gato wrote...
Plus it's a PC exclusive, so it has to be better because it wasn't dumbed down for those poor sods that don't own a PC capable of sucking enough juice to power a small house.

The witcher 2 is going to be ported to consoles this time.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dasher1010 wrote...
1. A three-act structure.
DA2 got a lot of criticism for taking a world that was once open and then making it both confined and linear. TW2 did the same thing but the difference was that each act took place in a different location. DA2 could have been improved if either Kirkwall changed with each act or if the game took place in a different city in each act. Moreover, TW2 whet players' appetites for more while DA2 just made people happy that the game was over due to the reused dungeons and A button mashing. Also, TW2 built up to act 3, DA2 simply dumped the final act onto you abruptly and then randomly hit you with the fianl quest just as quickly. There was no real indication of what players where going to fight or what they were doing in DA2 while TW2 gives us Letho as an antagonist right off the bat. TW2 simply told a better story because of it due to it being more focused since a linear story needs an objective set for the protagonists right off the bat.

You just explained why TW2's three act structure worked, while DA2's did not.

Furthermore, I'd add the time intervals of 3 years between each act in DA2 made each act feel disconnected and worsened what I believe to be Hawke's passivity in the story. There was no overarching plot really that connects those 3 acts. 

2. The took a turned based system and made it hack and slash
The real issue with DA2 was that it went halfway there and as a result felt clunky while TW2 feels fluid as an action RPG. DA2 is just uneven and I find my self mashing the A button as fast as possible to make sure that I increase my DPS instead of focusing on mobility like a true action RPG should be doing. DA3 should be either a pure action RPG with the ability to dodge and more interesting boss fights and less of a turn-based/real time hybrid or go back to DAO's combat system. The current combat system tries to appeal to everyone and instead appeals to nobody. Giving consoles auto-attack back made the game feel like DAO again which fixed this problem but did so far too late and DA3 should have this available as the default option.

Exactly.

And I'd add that you can't really play it as a hack and slash game on harder difficulties as even the weakest enemies can three shot you if you're not careful. Furthermore, I felt that the leveling up system in TW2 was complex and sophisticated enough to make the game not feel too streamlined. 

TW2 knows what it wants to be. DA2 does not.

3. Too few abilities and too many upgrades
This is actually a criticism with TW2 that I have but no game is truly perfect. It needs to be improved with both games and is really my biggest complaint with TW2. Hopefully both series will offer players more options for abilities in combat intead of wasting level-ups on upgrading abilities that the player already has and DA3 will actually go back to allowing players to select lockpicking upon level up instead of taking four levels to learn how to lockpick at the cost of other stats.

I'd agree, except upgrades offer significant changes (from +10 vitality to +50) and that we already start with a lot of abilities off the bat (and it makes sense considering TW1).

And on hard, I felt the need to actually use a lot of abilities and be varied in my playstyle. In TW1, I only used two signs (igni and aard) and did nto use bombs and traps. So TW2 might offer less quantitively, but I think the quality makes up for it.

Of course it's not perfect and the mutagen upgrade system could use a lot of work.

4. A cliffhanging ending that sets up an expansion pack to nickle and dime players
The issue here is that TW2 whet players appetites for more while DA2 made gamers happy that it was finally over since they no longer had to deal with the tedium. Less pointless delivery quests and reused environments would have gone a long way towards making gamers feel like they wanted to buy the post-endgame DLC. Also, months after release, DA2 didn't solve the conflict that the endgame created, we only got an item pack that nobody wanted.

Yep and the fact that our choices mattered and will affect the world, TW2 left me on a happy note and thirsty for more.

All in all, I agree with your post. I did not mind most changes  for DA2  as concepts and ideas that much (though I would have preferred it sticking with Origins' formula). What I do mind is the very flawed execution.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 mai 2011 - 06:33 .

[Luvinn]

Icinix wrote...

But I think mostly the difference between DA2 and TW2 is the depth of what is on hand.
About a quarter of the way through DA2 - you realise that nothing you do really matters nor affects the world.
While a quarter of the way through TW2 you could be playing a whole new story in a whole new location.

The Witcher 2 had everything that DA2 looked at and said "Nah, thats too hard." - OR - Dare I say it - it wasn't what the audience they were aiming at would want.

This x10. I mean just look at the random elves in the city, with the generic model. It was like, "well we could give them individual faces, or just reuse some alien looking one." Not a huge, gamebreaking issue, but it just shows you the shortcuts that were taken.

And the fact that choices don't matter at all is pretty lame in DA2. Siding with the templars or mages, and you still fight the same bosses and still have the same story (minus a quote or 2). The whole second act in TW2 is different depending on what you chose.

Plus, the side quests in DA2 were kind of lame for the most part. They were mostly one part turn ins, while TW2 had less side quests per chapter, but they were involved, multi-part quests that even had decisions in them that could mean life and death for the person you help. Wont go into spoilers, but theres one you can lie to protect someone, or rat them out and send them to be hanged.

One more issue was the years in between the acts. First I'm just a ferelden refugee, then im an important player in the city, but i have no idea how or why. Then i just spent the rest of my time playing Grand Theft Kirkwall; getting cash, making deals, and killing people that only come out at night.

Modifié par Luvinn, 23 mai 2011 - 06:52 .

[Marionetten]

The problem here is that Dragon Age II is a confused game whereas The Witcher 2 isn't. Would it have been less confused with more development time? I'm not sure. I think a lot of the problems stem from BioWare's misguided desire to cater to everyone.

Geralt is indeed a set protagonist but he's also fleshed out and has a central part in the plot. Hawke does not. He's just as anonymous as the Grey Warden. Sure, he has a voice but when it comes to the plot he's nothing but a bystander with occasional commentary. If you're going to have a set protagonist it's important to make him integral to the plot. In this regard BioWare failed tremendously. I've yet to see any game do this as well as Planescape: Torment but The Witcher 2 comes pretty damn close. Geralt is a key player and a lot of the plot elements are driven by him.

The Witcher 2 also shines an action RPG. Dragon Age II on the other hand comes off as a party based CRPG wanting to be an action game. It's kind of tactical and kind of actiony but it doesn't really excel in either area. It's just mediocre all around. Things like the isometric camera were needlessly removed in some insane bid for change and the overall impression is confused to put it mildly. What does BioWare want to do with the Dragon Age franchise? I think they need to figure that out before going ahead with Dragon Age III. They need a clearer vision and this is by no means limited to the gameplay.

[tonnactus]

erynnar wrote...


Yeah, but ME2 didn't throw out it's own backstories on characters making them completely different people.

Yes,especially with liara...
Absoluty nothing is changed.

Modifié par tonnactus, 23 mai 2011 - 07:12 .

[In Exile]

Luvinn wrote...
This x10. I mean just look at the random elves in the city, with the generic model. It was like, "well we could give them individual faces, or just reuse some alien looking one." Not a huge, gamebreaking issue, but it just shows you the shortcuts that were taken.

Hold on a second. The Witcher 2 was a great game, but one thing it did do was recycle faces and chararacter models - especially elves and dwarves. All the city guards were effectively clones, and the same applied to some of the brothel women. In fact, even more significant minor characters like the madam in Act I and Act II were the same character model.

They also smartly recycled assests for their branching choice, in that even though Act 2 is very different on who you side with (brilliant, brilliant execution) they still reused Vergen and the outlying area. You just see the story from a different perspective (with different outcomes).

What it comes down to (resource wise) is that Bioware invested very heavily in unique and detailed cinematics whereas the Witcher, well, didn't. Except most players, as it turns out, don't really care and don't seem to mind characters just standing around and talking if it leads to more varied gameplay. Which Bioware assumed the opposite of.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
Geralt is indeed a set protagonist but he's also fleshed out and has a central part in the plot. Hawke does not. He's just as anonymous as the Grey Warden. Sure, he has a voice but when it comes to the plot he's nothing but a bystander with occasional commentary. If you're going to have a set protagonist it's important to make him integral to the plot. In this regard BioWare failed tremendously. I've yet to see any game do this as well as Planescape: Torment but The Witcher 2 comes pretty damn close. Geralt is a key player and a lot of the plot elements are driven by him.

The problem for Bioware, in a nutshell, is that they're not actually writing a fixed protagonist - they're writing the exact same style of protagonist as they would in their silent VO games and then adding a voice. Hawke is, essentially, the Warden but with a more fixed personality. That's how Bioware defines their characters.

I'd also bet really good money that DA2 was supposed to be a bridge game initially in development (i.e. let`s flashback to why the world changed for DA:O2) that eventualy morphed into a full version game and "sequel'' (resource wise) later on.

The Witcher 2 also shines an action RPG. Dragon Age II on the other hand comes off as a party based CRPG wanting to be an action game. It's kind of tactical and kind of actiony but it doesn't really excel in either area. It's just mediocre all around. Things like the isometric camera were needlessly removed in some insane bid for change and the overall impression is confused to put it mildly. What does BioWare want to do with the Dragon Age franchise? I think they need to figure that out before going ahead with Dragon Age III. They need a clearer vision and this is by no means limited to the gameplay.

I don't think the Witcher shines as an action RPG so much as it shines as a challenging game and word of mouth becomes very positive for it as a result.

There are actually lots of changes from TW1 I think are steps back in combat (e.g. how stuns and 1-hit KOs work, the changed inventory system, inability to use potions everywhere) and mechanical faults with it (e.g. it isn't clear what range enemies have to damage, certain signs are exploits on lower difficulties, you can't actually use potions before certain bosses because of cooldowns during cutscenes and forced meditation in safe areas, meaning a spike in difficulty and need to exploit rolling). 

But it's challenging, and tactics are rewarded very strongly.

Take the monster hunting contract from Act I. You're supposed to hunt these insects and destory their nests to make the queens come out. Reading about it, losts of players dodge and hit-and-run.

I layed 26 traps (the bear-trap looking things you find around for free). I just run away from the queen and it died without me lifting a finger.

It makes you feel like a true Witcher. It makes preparation feel worthwhile.

More generally, CD Projekt didn't alienate fans in the way Bioware did (e.g. by designing a new enging versus just changing the visual style of the game wholesale).

I thought the WItcher was an solid game... but I personally prefer the Witcher 2 to DA:O.

[Rockpopple]

Good question, OP.

The answer, of course, is simple. The clinical diagnosis is called: "Dragon Age 2 Derangement Syndrome".

It's when you've got such a hate on for DA 2 for not reaching your own personal goals, that any other game that uses pretty much the same mechanics is superior, and what Dragon Age 2 should have tried to attain.

There is no known cure.

IOKIYATW2.


Oh, and funbags. Breasts make any game better. 

Now if CDPR had the guts to show Geralts penis in full glory ala "The Lost and the Damned", I'd have a little more respect for them. But knowing how immature gamers are, penises would offend them and bring about accusations that CDPR were trying to turn them gay, so BOOBS it is!

Nothing new under the sun.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 23 mai 2011 - 07:48 .

[Luvinn]

In Exile wrote...

Hold on a second. The Witcher 2 was a great game, but one thing it did do was recycle faces and chararacter models - especially elves and dwarves. All the city guards were effectively clones, and the same applied to some of the brothel women. In fact, even more significant minor characters like the madam in Act I and Act II were the same character model.

Yea, some of the models were recycled, but they at least looked like they were humanoid. Its hard to tell what the random elves in the city are. At least i think they are elves....might be some type of elf/alien hybrid. Its just a low res face that was just chucked in there to add some inhabitants to kirkwall. Reminds me of the old school blood elf face from vanilla world of warcraft. Seems like a placeholder character model that Bioware never bothered to come back and update. A shortcut on top of shortcuts.

Modifié par Luvinn, 23 mai 2011 - 07:47 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Dasher1010 wrote...
2. The took a turned based system and made it hack and slash

Neither TW1 or DA:O were turn based. And DA2 was not a button masher, whereas TW2 was.

[Perles75]

I think the Cinderella syndrome (DA2 made by the Big Evil Corporation that is EA, TW2 by a cute small independent developer) also plays some role in this

[KnightofPhoenix]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
 And DA2 was not a button masher, whereas TW2 was.

Try button mashing on hard and see what happens to you.

[Maverick827]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Try button mashing on hard and see what happens to you.

What, will you argue him to death for saying something "bad" about TW2?

[erynnar]

tonnactus wrote...

erynnar wrote...


Yeah, but ME2 didn't throw out it's own backstories on characters making them completely different people.

Yes,especially with liara...
Absoluty nothing is changed.

Oops! Yep, ya got me there! I bow to you! I had completely forgotten her, and I shouldn't!  *smacks self for forgetting the cute little blue button*