645 réponses à ce sujet

[Merced652]

Personally i think the core of the problem is the cumulative result. The individual parts themselves weren't enough to sink the game. If i were to say that a voiced protag is something i don't generally like; what i'm really saying is that i don't like it in the framework bioware typically allows up to operate within. After all i didn't mind the voiced protag in Dues Ex, TW2, etc. This can also fall in to expectation.

Basically the whole thing comes down to DA2 being an all around ****ty game and no one element of its design is to blame. By themselves they might all be good, but the way they were put together was atrocious. Or perhaps all them together is just not a good formula. Thats not to say there aren't elements that were blatantly bad such as the retarded amount of gore and exploding body parts that themselves don't correspond to the enemy that just exploded.

Modifié par Merced652, 26 mai 2011 - 04:28 .

[philippe willaume]

Blastback wrote...

Maria13 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Another explanation could be liking both systems (voiced / silent, cRPG / Action...etc), and wanting the Dragon Age franchise to maintain its "unique" characteristics, while still being able to enjoy games like ME or TW.

I personally would have preferred DA2 basing itself more on Origins, which I love. I also love ME1&2 and TW1&2. Ideally, I would have wanted a game library consisting of different types of RPGs. Instead, we are seeing a convergence of ideas / systems for the most part and when that happens, implementation and quality becomes even more important.

So I am in the "wanting the DA franchise to remain what it is" camp, but more so in the "implementation and quality" camp.In both criteria, DA2 fails badly imo.

Well put.

Thirded.

Fourthed

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

rak72 wrote...

^^
don't forget, your pretty hot for a demon right after Anders kills Karl. *face palm*

And "what about love"? which always gets the song by "Heart" stuck in my head.

Why would you flirt with Anders if you were weirded out by his murder?

Trying out all the romances?  I tried to get through an Anders romance game and walked away shaking my head, too.

[Chromie]

philippe willaume wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Maria13 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Another explanation could be liking both systems (voiced / silent, cRPG / Action...etc), and wanting the Dragon Age franchise to maintain its "unique" characteristics, while still being able to enjoy games like ME or TW.

I personally would have preferred DA2 basing itself more on Origins, which I love. I also love ME1&2 and TW1&2. Ideally, I would have wanted a game library consisting of different types of RPGs. Instead, we are seeing a convergence of ideas / systems for the most part and when that happens, implementation and quality becomes even more important.

So I am in the "wanting the DA franchise to remain what it is" camp, but more so in the "implementation and quality" camp.In both criteria, DA2 fails badly imo.

Well put.

Thirded.

Fourthed

FifthED

[Foolsfolly]

Mr. OP.

BioWare's ideas for DA2 weren't in fault. It was all in the rush job and presentation.

Also, minority related, I enjoy the personality system.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Trying out all the romances?  I tried to get through an Anders romance game and walked away shaking my head, too.

Abominanders broke my heart, so to speak, because I really liked him in DA:A.

[Sandiel]

The personality system was about the only thing I liked. That said, what I *didn't* like was that only diplomatic-Hawke could be diplomatic, or intimidation Hawke could be intimidating, most of the time.

I want to be able to be all those things *when the situation calls for it*. This is where a skill system is superior for these things. Personality should matter, but I should still have the ability to be intimidating when it counts when I want to.

[tonnactus]

Tripedius wrote...
 What makes DA2 so incredibly painfull is the fact that we all know BW could have made a much, much better game but they didn't (just look at the difference between ME2 and DA2)

So explain: What Mass Effect 2 did better,except the graphics and diverse enviroments? Decisions matter? No.Railroading by the illusive man/cerberus.
The illusive man and mordin are important to the plot,shepardt isnt.
Just a hired gun,nothing more. Absolutly retarded story(ah yes,reapers).

Also,when Dragon Age 2 is dumbed down,what is Mass Effect 2 in comparison??? (squadmates with 2 powers!!!)

In fact,a lot of shooters are far more complex then Mass Effect 2 and offer more customization.


Its strange that something like Mass Effect 2 is praised while Dragon Age 2 is bashed.

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 mai 2011 - 11:43 .

[astrallite]

Ringo12 wrote...

GRX Dragon wrote...
But other than that, maybe I'll take my chance and torrent it.

But why pirate the game?

Probably because it's not made by Bioware. He won't be able to support his favorite developer.

[Chromie]

tonnactus wrote...
Its strange that something like Mass Effect 2 is praised while Dragon Age 2 is bashed.

Not really. Mass Effect 2 was a lot more fun and satisfying the DA2 was to a lot of people.

[Ottemis]

Ringo12 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
Its strange that something like Mass Effect 2 is praised while Dragon Age 2 is bashed.

Not really. Mass Effect 2 was a lot more fun and satisfying the DA2 was to a lot of people.

Not to me.
ME2 is actually my favorite game of all times. DA2 was recieved by me to be 'like ME2' in a fantasy jacket.
Ofc this is a very rough generalisation, but I believe it worked and the number of playthroughs I personally count on both games is testament to that (for me).
DA2 had more elements I'd have liked to have been more polished, sure. But it grabbed me similarly to how ME2 did.

Modifié par Ottemis, 28 mai 2011 - 03:10 .

[augustburnt]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Avalla'ch wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...
Nope, just that the franchise moved in a different direction altogether. Deal with it.

Deal with that? I am just posting facts, or are those numerous "dissapointment" threads part of some conspiracy?
And please do show where I am openly hating on the game.
But I see you still haven't lost your touch, lol.

Where did I bring up hate or conspiracy in this thread? Also what facts have you posted? You are seriously annoying.

oh look a fanboy that can only respond with deal with it...

[tonnactus]

Ringo12 wrote...


Not really. Mass Effect 2 was a lot more fun and satisfying the DA2 was to a lot of people.

I miss reasons. The shooter combat is mediocre and boring compared to good shooters . In this "character driven game" party banter barely exists.
Decisions didnt matter/story is retarded.(ah yes,reapers)
This game is really dumbed down in the sense of the word.(teammembers with two skills/ammo "powers")
Former romances get awfull "cameos".
And shepardt is even more insignificant to the plot then hawke is. Shepardt is nothing more then a lapdog of the illusive man who pulled the strings and mordin developed the countermeasure.

So tell me: What was satisfying in Mass Effect 2?

Modifié par tonnactus, 28 mai 2011 - 05:47 .

[In Exile]

tonnactus wrote...
I miss reasons. The shooter combat is mediocre and boring compared to good shooters . In this "character driven game" party banter barely exists.
Decisions didnt matter/story is retarded.(ah yes,reapers)
This game is really dumbed down in the sense of the word.(teammembers with two skills/ammo "powers")
Former romances get awfull "cameos".
And shepardt is even more insignificant to the plot then hawke is. Shepardt is nothing more then a lapdog of the illusive man who pulled the strings and mordin developed the countermeasure.

So tell me: What was satisfying in Mass Effect 2?

It improved on the horrid combat of its predecessor. It kept the same style of gameplay and the same protagonist and added some minor features to dialogue. And everything was well polished, functionally. And the uncharted worlds now are unique.

There are lots of design gripes, sure. But it comes down to two things: execution and expectation.

The expectation for DA2 was very, very different than for ME. People were not happy with the direction from the start, and many focused on flaws that they could find rather than excuse them. Unlike usual, BIoware got no excuses.

And then secondly, DA2 had very many obvious flaws. The fixed inventory for companions didn't go over well. The recycled environments - not good. The lack of choice? Terrible.

And all of these features then add up. When people really dissatisfied about the direction start to clamour (as they did in ME2) people like myself, who are OK with the direction and have to evaluate the product, jump right on-board, Why? Because the product was just not that good.

[Atakuma]

To the OP:
Because in The Witcher 2, those design decisions were actually well executed.

Modifié par Atakuma, 28 mai 2011 - 06:00 .

[tonnactus]

In Exile wrote...

It improved on the horrid combat of its predecessor.

Its still crap,compared with most recent shooters.Its even less complex then most recent shooters.Such thing like accuracy,rate of fire,damage...
Such information isnt avaiblabe in the game.

It kept the same style of gameplay

Squadmates with 2 -3 powers at best,with double as long cooldowns at lest,global cooldown,heavy weapons, "protections system" that stop most biotic and tech powers...

What except the third person view and cover really stayed the same?

It would be as claiming that Dragon Age 2 still have the same combat system Origins had,because swords and magic still exists.

And everything was well polished, functionally.

Squad ammo power bug.(zaeed overwrite your own ammo power with his)

Vanguard cant reach the target when its in line of sight.Vanguard charge didnt work on the collector platforms.

Kasumis passive didnt worked.
Import problems.(Conrad Verner)

Well polished,sure.

 And the uncharted worlds now are unique.

Who cares,when there is no exploration at all and shepardt could only moove in linear paths from A to B?

When the missions there have no purpose,no questgiver?

The lack of choice?

Oh wait,could i choose not to work for cerberus? Allright.

Modifié par tonnactus, 28 mai 2011 - 06:15 .

[Tragick Flaw]

This whole debacle of the 'rivalry' between the Witcher 2 and Dragon Age 2 has tainted some of the fun in trying to play TW2. I just want to play games and have everyone get along, but us gamers don't seem to play nice with each other.

I thought I could ignore naysayers and all the likes but throughout the beginning of TW2 I found I was actually getting pretty annoyed with little things that I shouldn't be getting so worked up over and directing this annoyance into the fact that Dragon Age 2 got beaten up through its announcement while TW2 got a free pass.

Worst of all, I started dividing the two. I liked DAII, hell I thought it was great. TW2 is shaping up to be a good game as well, I'll only really just started playing so pardon me on not saying it is great as well. Somewhere in the beginning as I realised that not only was I mad at the free pass thing, but I had been subconsciously comparing the two.

It's stuff like this that make me cynical about the 'video game community'.

[Pcrews]

It's not about the design decisions themselves. Thousands of games use similar decisions in game designs. Some succeed and some fail. It's how all the designs are implemented into the final product. I feel like this post is a polite way of calling people hypocrites for loving one game and not the other.

I could make this same post about movies. Why are some action movies great and some action movies horrible even though they use the same formula?

I love the Witcher 2 because it's a very polished game. Fantastic, cohesive story that changes drastically depending on decisions Geralt makes. The combat is strategic and satisfying. The graphics are beautiful. The game world is designed very well, lots of great architecture and awesome scenery.

Dragon Age 2 felt rushed, repetitive, bland, and had a disjointed story. I don't care if DA2 isn't like Origins. All I want is a good game. To me, Dragon Age 2 had the potential to be an amazing game and it just couldn't follow through. Dragon Age 2 just felt uninspired. It's not a Bioware quality game.

[In Exile]

tonnactus wrote...
Its still crap,compared with most recent shooters.Its even less complex then most recent shooters.Such thing like accuracy,rate of fire,damage...
Such information isnt avaiblabe in the game.

Compared to sticking tape to your right mouse button to win every encounter and having to level up accuracy so you could hit the broad side of a barn with your elite commando PC? Absolutely.

Squadmates with 2 -3 powers at best,with double as long cooldowns at lest,global cooldown,heavy weapons, "protections system" that stop most biotic and tech powers...

What except the third person view and cover really stayed the same?

It would be as claiming that Dragon Age 2 still have the same combat system Origins had,because swords and magic still exists.

Gameplay != combat. The dialogue wheel and voiced PC were in, interruptions were added. You still control Shepard and issue orders to your party.

And ME2 and ME1 powers were not actually different - if you subtract armour/weapon skills from ME1, you have the same number of powers.

Now, you're going to come back and say that this is making a significant change... but honestly skills to use weapons you should already have been trained in and putting on clothes shouldn't be skills you learn in-game.

Squad ammo power bug.(zaeed overwrite your own ammo power with his)

Vanguard cant reach the target when its in line of sight.Vanguard charge didnt work on the collector platforms.

Kasumis passive didnt worked.
Import problems.(Conrad Verner)

Well polished,sure.

Compared to DA2? Absolutely.

Who cares,when there is no exploration at all and shepardt could only moove in linear paths from A to B?

Who cares if there's exploration?

When the missions there have no purpose,no questgiver?

Cerberus. Each time. Like ME1 with Hackett spamming you, or you hearing it on the news.

Oh wait,could i choose not to work for cerberus? Allright.

Like that time I could choose not to be  a Warden, right?

ME2, like DA:O and ME1, let you choose how quests ended. You never saw the effect in-game, but you could reason that there would be dramatic changes to the universe for making the choice.

[YohkoOhno]

I love the Witcher 2 because it's a very polished game. Fantastic, cohesive story that changes drastically depending on decisions Geralt makes. The combat is strategic and satisfying. The graphics are beautiful. The game world is designed very well, lots of great architecture and awesome scenery.

I agree it's polished. The one thing I don't agree on is that the story "changes drastically". If you do two playthroughs, you'll notice that there are a few key choices but the plot is still linear. After Floatsam, no matter what you do or who you support, several things happen as expected. Saskia is still kidnapped, Triss is missing no matter what you do, and you solve the big evil curse the same way. It's an illusion, but a very good one. I think the key thing is making sure people think the choices matter.

One thing Bioware should note is that TW2 didn't try to overemphasize its own world. By that I mean, compare the locations of TW2. A siege. A small village/town. Either a Dwarven Fortress or a Temporary War fort. A ruined citadel. They didn't try to make a big city. I suspect CDPR won't do Geralt in a big city unless they can pull off an Assassin's Creed style experience. So, it helped that they made the settings a little more "realistic". Bioware should probably consider instead of putting the action in a huge city-state, put it in smaller locations. If you need a noble, go to a keep instead of a palace, for instance.

Another thing I've noticed is--Geralt is pretty much a fixed protagonist--he's based on a series of novels very popular in Europe, and there's less choice to make. One thing they do well is make the choices believable based on his personality--at least what I got from it from reading the books. It seems people don't mind having such a character if they get to customize the general plot elements as well as the tactics (Geralts experience path). Because of this, major characters can't die, for instance. (The big flaw with TW2 is its hard to get into the character's personality just by playing the game).

Perhaps Bioware should consider that. Rather than giving a lot of choices in terms of setting up a personality, make us care more about that particular personality and give us enough control over critical choices in plot and give us total control over the characters tactics. Hawke should have had an origin story that showed Lothering, for instance.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 28 mai 2011 - 06:50 .

[tonnactus]

In Exile wrote...

Compared to sticking tape to your right mouse button to win every encounter and having to level up accuracy so you could hit the broad side of a barn with your elite commando PC?

Only the sniper rifle was problematic,while the other weapons were not. Even the the early assault rifles work good enough with crouch and burst fire.Pistols and shotguns have good accuracy right from the start.
Then,against krogans on insanity,this "strategy" for sure didnt work.Not even against the bouncer in choras den.

While i need biotics in the first game to defeat enemies like krogans and geth destroyers,the party composition now doesnt play any role at all.
Not even early game
Having someone with warp on collector missions is just a bonus,nothing more.

 You still control Shepard and issue orders to your party.

And you can still pause in Dragon Age 2 and control other party members. So,its the same combat like in Origins?

And ME2 and ME1 powers were not actually different - if you subtract armour/weapon skills from ME1, you have the same number of powers.

Why should i do that? Weapon skills in the first game not only offer more accuracy,but also special weapon firing modes.Like carnage,that enemy krogans still use. Investment in armor also give shield boost.If this isnt a skill,then geth shield boost and fortication isnt either...

Who cares if there's exploration?

Why different enviroments are needed at all then? For providing nice views while shooting mercs?

Cerberus. Each time. Like ME1 with Hackett spamming you, or you hearing it on the news.

??
Nassana Dantius was part of the alliance then...

ME2, like DA:O and ME1, let you choose how quests ended.

Neither admiral hackett,nor duncan gave me orders for nearly 80 percent of the game.After became a warden and survive Ostalgar--> Do the quest you want in the order you want.The same after shepardt became a specter in the first game.

Shepardt in Mass Effect 2---puppet of tim for nearly 90 percent of the game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 28 mai 2011 - 07:21 .

[EugeneBi]

tonnactus wrote...

In Exile wrote...

It improved on the horrid combat of its predecessor.

Its still crap,compared with most recent shooters.Its even less complex then most recent shooters.Such thing like accuracy,rate of fire,damage...
Such information isnt avaiblabe in the game.

It kept the same style of gameplay

Squadmates with 2 -3 powers at best,with double as long cooldowns at lest,global cooldown,heavy weapons, "protections system" that stop most biotic and tech powers...

What except the third person view and cover really stayed the same?

It would be as claiming that Dragon Age 2 still have the same combat system Origins had,because swords and magic still exists.

And everything was well polished, functionally.

Squad ammo power bug.(zaeed overwrite your own ammo power with his)

Vanguard cant reach the target when its in line of sight.Vanguard charge didnt work on the collector platforms.

Kasumis passive didnt worked.
Import problems.(Conrad Verner)

Well polished,sure.

 And the uncharted worlds now are unique.

Who cares,when there is no exploration at all and shepardt could only moove in linear paths from A to B?

When the missions there have no purpose,no questgiver?

The lack of choice?

Oh wait,could i choose not to work for cerberus? Allright.

You are right on every single point. Still, ME2 is enjoyable game while DA2 is not. Which means none of these points matter that much. If something is good (game, book, movie, etc.) one fogives inevitable flaws. If it is not good, one tries to seek explanation and pulls out flaws s/he would excuse otherwise. The only explanation is that te mixture of decisions in DA2 did not work, nobody knows why. After all, games are art.

[tonnactus]

EugeneBi wrote...
 Still, ME2 is enjoyable game while DA2 is not.

For you of course.For me,its quite the opposite.

[EugeneBi]

tonnactus wrote...

EugeneBi wrote...
 Still, ME2 is enjoyable game while DA2 is not.

For you of course.For me,its quite the opposite.

Of course. Still, my point holds even in your case: it is not ingridients that make or kill the game. There some magic not reduceable to mere sum of elements. It is art.

[Chromie]

Atakuma wrote...

To the OP:
Because in The Witcher 2, those design decisions were actually well executed.

Exactly.