645 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Ringo12 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

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

Exactly.

Well, as long as it is an unbiased opinion....

[In Exile]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

That has nothing to do with the original point: shooter combat in ME1 was even worse.

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.

On which difficultly? Using an adept on whatever the name of the pre-insanity difficultly was, I could roll through anything with barrier + pistol (and later, + stasis). On insanity in ME2, biotics/tech come into play to whittle down the terrible rock/paper/scissors of the armour system, or the stealth screen to pump up sniper damage. Or ammo powers to whittle down the armours.

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

In that respect? Yes. There is a difference between: combat is the same, and combat feels the same.

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...

ME2 gave you max accuracy with all your weapons. You're right about the special fire mode, though. I never used them, so I forgot.

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

There is a difference between purpose and wandering. I'm not a fan of exploration for the sake of exploration. The role of the environments, obviously, is to have a get set somewhere. It's the physical space where the game happens. What sort of question is that?

You can want different environments without supporting free roam.

Nassana Dantius was part of the alliance then...

You can kill her sister without ever getting the quest. You then get a journal note that says to go to her.

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.

Move the goalposts much? TIM didn't give orders for 80% of the game. You had 1 forced objective: the mission on Horizon. After that, you could pick your quests however you wanted. Whatever order you wanted. That includes companion and story. It's no different from Udina & Anderson telling you about Feros, Noveria and then having Virmire dumped on you later.

Otherwise, you had endgame quests with choices, just like in ME1.

[bEVEsthda]

Merced652 wrote...

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.

Yes. Something like this is also my opinion.
DA2 breaks a lower treshold with all things that annoy you. Once below that, hatred and disgust come into full bloom. With every little insignificant detail, even. It's worsened by the fact that this game is it - There is no other Dragon Age Next.

DA:O is not at all like what I would want it to be. I momentarily see flaws, but then ignore them and stash them away in a different closet. I accept them and they become an integrated part of the game I enjoy.

It's hard to directly say that I'd be able to accept each thing in DA2, if the game overall was good enough. It's hard to imagine accepting that sullying retardness, exploding bodies, japanese anime style elements,.. - but haven't had that experience, so it's impossible to say. I really don't like auto-health, regen-mana and auto revival either. I actually despise it. But I was still able to completely overlook it in DA:O and hold that game very highly, at the very top together with my two other favorites. So as a rule, I'd say faults are mostly possible to skid over.

Problem is that DA2 rely very much on such tolerance of rough edges. And the developer team seem also to have the view that only the plot, dialogue and, primarily, combat, are relevant. And that combat gameplay seem to be aimed towards 14y olds.

[marshalleck]

Elhanan wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

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

Exactly.

Well, as long as it is an unbiased opinion....

Why does bias matter? As you say repeatedly, all opinions are equally valid. 

[Chromie]

Elhanan wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

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

Exactly.

Well, as long as it is an unbiased opinion....

Yea yea apparently only your opinion is unbiased and everyone else is or just throw a quotation at me.

Witcher 2's plot is tied to the political situation. It's done very good.
Dragon Age 2 is tied to Kirkwall's mages and templars and isn't very well executed though I do like the change from saving the world.

Witcher 2 has enemies that are hard and not just jumping out the air or have crap loads of health and has a great combat system imo.

Dragon Age 2's enemies are ridiculous that they respawn in your eyes but I felt the combat system was much better then in DA:O.

More stuff. But I can't enjoy both games?

[Elhanan]

Ringo12 wrote...

Yea yea apparently only your opinion is unbiased and everyone else is or just throw a quotation at me.

Witcher 2's plot is tied to the political situation. It's done very good.
Dragon Age 2 is tied to Kirkwall's mages and templars and isn't very well executed though I do like the change from saving the world.

Witcher 2 has enemies that are hard and not just jumping out the air or have crap loads of health and has a great combat system imo.

Dragon Age 2's enemies are ridiculous that they respawn in your eyes but I felt the combat system was much better then in DA:O.

More stuff. But I can't enjoy both games?

Have your opinions; place them to song if you will, but do not contend they are factual, or are solidified in Truth.

DA2 has a well developed and exectuted plot involving the Mages and Templars which entraps the PC, and is a nice change from saving the world.

DA2 has some challenging enemies, including demons from beyond the Veil, the reappearances of Ogres,  but especially the various Dragons that are encountered. The combat system was more varied than in DAO; seen in the numerous Talent trees, and offering more choice in class design. Not all Warriors need be alike anymore.

DA2 did include frequent use of mob enemies which could become unsurprising over time, but also made challenging encounters with commoners, esp those enthralled by Blood Magic or bigotry.

IMO, of course.


The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane - Mark Twain

Modifié par Elhanan, 28 mai 2011 - 10:58 .

[DarthSliver]

Elhanan wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Yea yea apparently only your opinion is unbiased and everyone else is or just throw a quotation at me.

Witcher 2's plot is tied to the political situation. It's done very good.
Dragon Age 2 is tied to Kirkwall's mages and templars and isn't very well executed though I do like the change from saving the world.

Witcher 2 has enemies that are hard and not just jumping out the air or have crap loads of health and has a great combat system imo.

Dragon Age 2's enemies are ridiculous that they respawn in your eyes but I felt the combat system was much better then in DA:O.

More stuff. But I can't enjoy both games?

Have your opinions; place them to song if you will, but do not contend they are factual, or are solidified in Truth.

DA2 has a well developed and exectuted plot involving the Mages and Templars which entraps the PC, and is a nice change from saving the world.

DA2 has some challenging enemies, including demons from beyond the Veil, the reappearances of Ogres,  but especially the various Dragons that are encountered. The combat system was more varied than in DAO; seen in the numerous Talent trees, and offering more choice in class design. Not all Warriors need be alike anymore.

DA2 did include frequent use of mob enemies which could become unsurprising over time, but also made challenging encounters with commoners, esp those enthralled by Blood Magic or bigotry.

IMO, of course.


The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane - Mark Twain

The most interesting and best fight was the High Dragon, its the only fight that felt well done. 

Throwing units at you is just that, throwing units at you. They are just there to slow you done/ give you xp and thats what most of the fights felt like, they were just there for the XP. In DA:O the fights were actually connected to the story and they felt that way, in DA2 they just felt like XP being thrown at you and just a bump in the road.

The Witcher 2 is a better game and it has gotten better ratings than DA2, like by X-Play. If I had a gaming computer Id give first hand experience and there rumors The Witcher 2 might go console. It has 360 control setup in the game for the people who wish to plug there 360 controller in to play it instead of a keyboard.

[philippe willaume]

@ Elhanan.
Some would argue that there no such thing as truth, in the absolute sense, but rather Something closer to the best explanation that can be formulated , given the state of knowledge and the boundaries of philosophical and societal limits of a given society.

On that very topic, I tend to be of the same trend of thought as ringo12.
I can’t talk for him but probably, like me, he does not disagree with you.

You are arguing the different side of the same fence.
Other that being very good in modern management method (abrasive creativeness), it is bit difficult to see what the other side is saying.

You argument is that we complain about thing that in fact are in DA2, and in fact most of the reasonable DA2 is not as good as TWII or DA:0 will agree with you.

If you want this is the implementation that felt like a sandwich short of a picnic.
In fact in an almost perverse way DA2 offers more than DA:0/A or TW2

For example the side quest for the companion are more developed, but as it truns out in DA2, that it doesn’t make you closer to any companion the way it did in DA:0 or Roche, Saskia or Iorveth in TW2 (and I would not call them companion)


Talking about the plot, yes it is mage against templar, but regardless who you side with you will have to go medieval on them both regardless and indifferently of you choice
May be they though Marcelus Wallace was a ****, or may be they both lived in What.

In TW2 if you side with Roche or Iorveth, it does make a difference to the extend that it gives you different quests.
In DA:0 when you miffed a companion he turned on you on the spot.

For the combat, yes I agree with you the design in DA2 is better, but it turn out that the end result is either lightning fast or as tedious as watching paint dry.

A few long winded fight are fun, the dropping ninja or the reinforcement arriving from one side of the map were very good ideas. They spice up things however there is a difference between having a Phaal hot Jalfrhasi once and a while and one every diner.
In the first case it is an interesting way of changing what you usually do the other become a planning exercise about the frequency at which you restock the fridge with toilet paper.

As you said we have more choice with class design and the classes are much less imbalanced than in DA:2 but when you play a rogue or warrior you end up being able to do less than what we were able to do in DA:0.

The frustration with DA2 is not really at the conceptal level or that it is a “bad” it is that I has the potential of being better than DA:0 and the TWII and just fall short.

Akin to getting on a Night out with your partner have a fantastic evening, every thing is going swimmingly, you have promising talk on the way back home, only to find out that him or her has passed out on the coach when you were preparing the coffee before the night festivities.

Philippe

[Chromie]

philippe willaume wrote...


@ Elhanan.
On that very topic, I tend to be of the same trend of thought as ringo12.
I can’t talk for him but probably, like me, he does not disagree with you.

The frustration with DA2 is not really at the conceptal level or that it is a “bad” it is that I has the potential of being better than DA:0 and the TWII and just fall short.

That is what bothers me. We know Bioware can do better if it's a matter of EA pushing them around maybe the doctors need to get up and have a fight with EA for DA3. I don't agree with people saying DAII is a 0/10 I do agree with people saying it's a 6-8/10.

And yes Philippe very good points.

[JPR1964]

Elhanan wrote...

DA2 has a well developed and exectuted plot involving the Mages and Templars which entraps the PC, and is a nice change from saving the world.

I nearly die here!!!!

It's the worst plot I ever seen from Bioware since 20 years...

Hint : play a mage siding with the templars, it is hilarious!

[Chromie]

JPR1964 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

DA2 has a well developed and exectuted plot involving the Mages and Templars which entraps the PC, and is a nice change from saving the world.

I nearly die here!!!!

It's the worst plot I ever seen from Bioware since 20 years...

Hint : play a mage siding with the templars, it is hilarious!

Very funny:wizard:

I didn't feel the plot was very good. Like I said it was nice not having
to save the world. Hawke doesn't seem at all affected by whats going
on. It has a bad ending just like Mass Effect 2's Terminator boss.

DA2
wasn't very challenging to me then again I'm used to playing games like
Baldur's Gate and Fallout 1, FO2 on the highest difficulty or modern
games such as DA:O and Kotor on max difficulty. DA2 was harder on
Nightmare then DA:O but still not challenging. I didn't have a problem with enemy types I had
a problem that they didn't do anything varied enough to challenge me.
Rogues were hard but after taking them out your left with a pack of mobs
that Merrill could easily kill. Demons just need to be made brittle and
a have a warrior use something like Scythe and instadead. While nice took away the challenge for me.

Putting aside the unbalanced commoners with resistance to cold or any resistance really fights just seemed to drag out for me.

[Elhanan]

Of course my opinion is not the Truth, but is as worthy as those that contend DA2 was poorly done.

I will agree that DA2 could have been better; just do not believe it is the driftwood many seem to portray. I enjoyed many aspects of it, and when readdressed with DAO, it can be a much better game result than either.

While I did not play a mage that sided with the Templars, I could easily see motivation for it to occur. While trying to justify your freedom, and the life that your father chose for the family, Blood magic and demon possesion were rampant in Kirkwall, and cost you additional lives.

[xCirdanx]

Elhanan wrote...
DA2 has a well developed and exectuted plot involving the Mages and Templars which entraps the PC, and is a nice change from saving the world.

DA2 has some challenging enemies, including demons from beyond the Veil, the reappearances of Ogres,  but especially the various Dragons that are encountered. The combat system was more varied than in DAO; seen in the numerous Talent trees, and offering more choice in class design. Not all Warriors need be alike anymore.

DA2 did include frequent use of mob enemies which could become unsurprising over time, but also made challenging encounters with commoners, esp those enthralled by Blood Magic or bigotry.

IMO, of course.

DA2 wasn´t the first game that went away from the typical saving the world theme, TW2 and also 1 didn´t let you save the world either. Just saying. And about the plot, i think the idea was nice, but it wasn´t done well, it got horribly boring and uninteresting for me after a few hours.

Demons, Ogres, Dragons, i don´t see whats special there, typical fantasy so to speak, at last Origins had that "gritty feeling to it" and nothing there is challenging, it only gives you the feeling because you have to fight a lot at the same time and the rogue type enemies are unbalanced compared to the rest. You can also beat the high dragon as easy solo as in Origins, just get some decent fire res and always stay at max range when the small ones spawn, the AI in the game is dumb.

Yes more talent trees are nice, but i don´t see it as such an big improvement, firstly because the comabt system boils down to smashing a few buttons at best, secondly because i could also play with different combinations in Origins/Awa. Just a few more don´t make the game that much better for me.

The Witcher 2 does all of this better and more, it beats DA2 in every possible aspect. Thats how i see it.

Modifié par xCirdanx, 29 mai 2011 - 07:02 .

[Elhanan]

xCirdanx wrote...

DA2 wasn´t the first game that went away from the typical saving the world theme, TW2 and also 1 didn´t let you save the world either. Just saying. And about the plot, i think the idea was nice, but it wasn´t done well, it got horribly boring and uninteresting for me after a few hours.

Demons, Ogres, Dragons, i don´t see whats special there, typical fantasy so to speak, at last Origins had that "gritty feeling to it" and nothing there is challenging, it only gives you the feeling because you have to fight a lot at the same time and the rogue type enemies are unbalanced compared to the rest. You can also beat the high dragon as easy solo as in Origins, just get some decent fire res and always stay at max range when the small ones spawn, the AI in the game is dumb.

Yes more talent trees are nice, but i don´t see it as such an big improvement, firstly because the comabt system boils down to smashing a few buttons at best, secondly because i could also play with different combinations in Origins/Awa. Just a few more don´t make the game that much better for me.

The Witcher 2 does all of this better and more, it beats DA2 in every possible aspect. Thats how i see it.

Guess we have different vision as well as opinions.

I enjoy Save the World themes, but I also enjoyed DA2. I found being dropped into the mire of two confrontational groups rather refreshing as a story, as opposed to the same thing seen here on the Forums.

I do not require special fantasy challenges full of apoostophes and glossary attachments; Dragon works for me. And DA2 had several. If you beat the High Dragon solo; congrats! I skipped all runes in my second playthrough until the final battles. Different approaches for differing opinions.

And lastly, I do not need to compare DA2 to TW2; enjoyed my game just fine, and have no desire to experience the TW line. Plus mine has Forums which allow others from other games to participate. TW has Metacritic, it seems.

[Arrtis]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Because people are stupid. You honestly had some people get angry when DA2 was announced to just have Hawke, no origins, and say they were going to skip DA2 for TW2. Because Geralt has so many origins...

I enjoyed the origins....I havent played TW2....

[Chromie]

Arrtis wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Because people are stupid. You honestly had some people get angry when DA2 was announced to just have Hawke, no origins, and say they were going to skip DA2 for TW2. Because Geralt has so many origins...

I enjoyed the origins....I havent played TW2....

Well The Witcher never claimed to have Origins.

[Arrtis]

Ringo12 wrote...

Arrtis wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Because people are stupid. You honestly had some people get angry when DA2 was announced to just have Hawke, no origins, and say they were going to skip DA2 for TW2. Because Geralt has so many origins...

I enjoyed the origins....I havent played TW2....

Well The Witcher never claimed to have Origins.

Just saying I like the origin stories....
Thinking of TW2 mostly because DA2 lacked in many ways.

[Chromie]

Arrtis wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Arrtis wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Because people are stupid. You honestly had some people get angry when DA2 was announced to just have Hawke, no origins, and say they were going to skip DA2 for TW2. Because Geralt has so many origins...

I enjoyed the origins....I havent played TW2....

Well The Witcher never claimed to have Origins.

Just saying I like the origin stories....
Thinking of TW2 mostly because DA2 lacked in many ways.

Wasn't trying to sound hostile.

[Espada_Andy_2]

Witcher 2 is abetter game overall!
If you are too stupid to notice the difference between these 2 then dont ****ing make a thread abou it!

[Elhanan]

^ And yet another of the elegant TW players comes to visit....

[Waage25]

Elhanan wrote...

xCirdanx wrote...

DA2 wasn´t the first game that went away from the typical saving the world theme, TW2 and also 1 didn´t let you save the world either. Just saying. And about the plot, i think the idea was nice, but it wasn´t done well, it got horribly boring and uninteresting for me after a few hours.

Demons, Ogres, Dragons, i don´t see whats special there, typical fantasy so to speak, at last Origins had that "gritty feeling to it" and nothing there is challenging, it only gives you the feeling because you have to fight a lot at the same time and the rogue type enemies are unbalanced compared to the rest. You can also beat the high dragon as easy solo as in Origins, just get some decent fire res and always stay at max range when the small ones spawn, the AI in the game is dumb.

Yes more talent trees are nice, but i don´t see it as such an big improvement, firstly because the comabt system boils down to smashing a few buttons at best, secondly because i could also play with different combinations in Origins/Awa. Just a few more don´t make the game that much better for me.

The Witcher 2 does all of this better and more, it beats DA2 in every possible aspect. Thats how i see it.

Guess we have different vision as well as opinions.

I enjoy Save the World themes, but I also enjoyed DA2. I found being dropped into the mire of two confrontational groups rather refreshing as a story, as opposed to the same thing seen here on the Forums.

I do not require special fantasy challenges full of apoostophes and glossary attachments; Dragon works for me. And DA2 had several. If you beat the High Dragon solo; congrats! I skipped all runes in my second playthrough until the final battles. Different approaches for differing opinions.

And lastly, I do not need to compare DA2 to TW2; enjoyed my game just fine, and have no desire to experience the TW line. Plus mine has Forums which allow others from other games to participate. TW has Metacritic, it seems.

First of all you have not played the Witcher 2 becaus you don't like boobs. SO you making judgement of what game is better is more or less irrelevant.

Now for the matter at hand the 2 confrontational groups. 
IN DA2 it is the mages and the Knights in TW2 it starts out as Squirrels vs Roche's guys. OF course that spins into a kings vs kings, Mages vs Kings, vergen vs Henselt, Mages vs the Witcher, the witcher vs the king slayer and of course Nilfgard vs EVERY ONE!!!.

Yes it might have 2 groups, but TW2 has a entire political spectrum and unlike TW2 the storyline is not 100% out of your control.

OH and the people you meet along the way your semi-companions are more interesting and not a bunch of cardboard cut-outs with a bunch of check list personalty traits.

[Unichrone]

The things that you do in TW2 actually have an impact on the story. It's a much bigger, robust game with more nuances and gameplay mechanisms.

And it is graphically light years ahead of DA2 and yet somehow manages to run better on my rig.

You can wrap feces in foil and call it jewelery, but when you look at an actual gem you're going to notice the difference.

[Elhanan]

Waage25 wrote...

First of all you have not played the Witcher 2 becaus you don't like boobs. SO you making judgement of what game is better is more or less irrelevant.

Now for the matter at hand the 2 confrontational groups. 
IN DA2 it is the mages and the Knights in TW2 it starts out as Squirrels vs Roche's guys. OF course that spins into a kings vs kings, Mages vs Kings, vergen vs Henselt, Mages vs the Witcher, the witcher vs the king slayer and of course Nilfgard vs EVERY ONE!!!.

Yes it might have 2 groups, but TW2 has a entire political spectrum and unlike TW2 the storyline is not 100% out of your control.

OH and the people you meet along the way your semi-companions are more interesting and not a bunch of cardboard cut-outs with a bunch of check list personalty traits.

I see; multiple Exclamation point worthiness overwhelms Mages vs Templars (ie; magic vs the Chantry). And TW2 has Squirrels. And said land of the nut-loving rodent has an excellent political spectrum allowing you some control of it, while DA2 marches forward with the simple notions of Religous belief overruling indv freedoms despite your willingness and efforts to prevent it. I thought this was at least partially due to the idea that DA2 NPC's and idealism may be a bit more than a single man can handle, at least in a single game that ended with a terrorist attack destroying the best chance at a possible peace. But I am simple like that.

And the people you meet in TW2 are more interesting;not made from cardboard, and without check lists. Gotcha! Of course, this is your sterling opinion; not mine.

AFWIW, My personal opinion of you has nothing at all to do with not playing TW and TW2....

[Arrtis]

Was really hoping to do something to the chantry in general....instead someone else does it and all your decisions barely affect the small fanatic parts.

[Luvinn]

The premise of DA2 could of been awesome, but it was poorly executed. In the middle of tedious side quests that had no depth for the most part was basically 3 chapters of "kill the blood mage!" and "we are so oppressed". Then it culminates with an a-bomb on the chantry. I never felt any depth for any of the characters. Like Thrask's daughter. I saw her for 5 seconds before she became an abomination. Or the mages in the end of the first act. I go into a cave to talk to them, but they try to kill me. Then im supposed to feel bad for them? I really felt nothing for them. I only did both options just to see how it played out. All the tedious side quests and waves of enemies just felt like timesinks so the main quest wouldn't just be blown through in <10 hours.