645 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockworm503]

Autolycus wrote...

No comments for me?

How ironic.....I guess we are all in agreement with my statement then?

Good....Night everyone

I don't waste my time with people who proudly call themselves elitist.

[erynnar]

Zanallen wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

You mean like how both games aren't really what many people would consider a more traditional cRPG? And how both are pretty much action/RPGs?

More like cutting corners and wasted potential vs. attention to detail and as few compromises to your vision as possible.

And I'll counter with development time. The goal of Laidlaw's changes obviously works, see TW2. However, 18 months isn't enough time to see those goals through to fruition.

Except for the part where DA2 doesn't really honor it's predecessor but rather guts it:  from lore, history, characters, choices made in DAO, art design, etc? Instead of say...improving upon what already worked and fixing what didn't?

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

And I'll counter with development time. The goal of Laidlaw's changes obviously works, see TW2. However, 18 months isn't enough time to see those goals through to fruition.

And no, TW2 and DA2 feels completley different on all levels with regard to what was produced.

http://social.biowar...48359/5#7449562

My comment applies to yet another defender of DA2 @ you. Unless you have a time machine you will never know.

The only thing you should be talking about is what was produced not what (might) have been produced as you will never know if even given more time would have had a better result as thats just an assumption.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 01:25 .

[Dasher1010]

Zanallen wrote...

I chalk it all up to dev time. DA2 was made in 18 months. A year and a half. How long was Witcher 2 in development? So, despite having many of the same design decisions, Witcher 2 was afforded a lot more time for polish.

And lol at that comic, I still don't understand why women find Geralt attractive.

You're exactly right. The moral of the story is that RPGs need significant development time and trying to rush one out the door is asking for critical and commercial failure.

[Dragoonlordz]

TW2 was in development for slightly above 2 and a half years. DA2 was in development I think for just under 2 years aka 18months by your calculations so you really think between half a year and year would have made a huge impact? I guess we will never know eh? All of which is irrelevant because they already released it.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 01:30 .

[Khayness]

Zanallen wrote...

And I'll counter with development time. The goal of Laidlaw's changes obviously works, see TW2. However, 18 months isn't enough time to see those goals through to fruition.

That's an excuse, not a counter. "Less content or reused maps" - That's a compromise, a huge one at that.

But wait 'till DA3's marketing gets on.

They will be beating DA2 like an ugly stepchild, just as they did with DA:O during the DA2 marketing.

There is no way they will say anything bad about DA2, since it's still in the selling period.

[Zanallen]

erynnar wrote...

Except for the part where DA2 doesn't really honor it's predecessor but rather guts it:  from lore, history, characters, choices made in DAO, art design, etc? Instead of say...improving upon what already worked and fixing what didn't?

Isn't the basis of this thread how DA 2 and TW2 have a number of similar design features? If Laidlaw wants to make RPGs more accessable, to prevent some form of genre stagnation, then we can argue that the changes he made were to support this goal. TW2 is doing really well right now. So, wouldn't that mean that, if DA2 had received the time and polish it deserved, it would have been a success?

Also, Bioware changing games and experimenting with different design formulas is par for the course. Very few Bioware games are similar to each other. Even within a specific IP, considering the clamor that was raised with ME2.

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

TW2 was in development for slightly above 2 and a half years. DA2 was in development I think for just under 2 years aka 18months by your calculations so you really think little over half a year would have made a huge impact? I guess we will never know eh? All of which is irrelevant because they already released it.

Eighteen months is the figure that gets tossed around most often for DA2 development time. That is a year and a half. If TW2 really had 2 and a half years of dev time, that's a whole year more. There is quite a lot that can be accomplished in a year.

But you are right in that the game has been released and so we'll never know what could have been. Of course, that's the point of speculation.

Modifié par Zanallen, 23 mai 2011 - 01:35 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Except for the part where DA2 doesn't really honor it's predecessor but rather guts it:  from lore, history, characters, choices made in DAO, art design, etc? Instead of say...improving upon what already worked and fixing what didn't?

Isn't the basis of this thread how DA 2 and TW2 have a number of similar design features? If Laidlaw wants to make RPGs more accessable, to prevent some form of genre stagnation, then we can argue that the changes he made were to support this goal. TW2 is doing really well right now. So, wouldn't that mean that, if DA2 had received the time and polish it deserved, it would have been a success?

Also, Bioware changing games and experimenting with different design formulas is par for the course. Very few Bioware games are similar to each other. Even within a specific IP, considering the clamor that was raised with ME2.

No because the game engines and mechanics are different. Might have both used acts but the acts were done and applied in different ways, might have used realtime combat but the combat was done in a different way, and so on and on etc like dialogue system again different... So no imho one doesn't make the other right.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 01:36 .

[Dasher1010]

Khayness wrote...

Dasher1010 wrote...

1. A three-act structure.

It doesn't matter how many Acts you have if they are properly linked together and doesn't feel like episodes of a miniseries. You have a clear goal which motivates you through the whole game > Each Act presents you a new one and they get resolved in the end of the same act it was presented.

Dasher1010 wrote...

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

The Witcher 2 is an action-RPG, Dragon Age 2 still retains its round based feeling. To me, Action-RPGs rely more on my skills as player, rather then the PC's skills and abilitites. You can auto attack your way to victory if you are a beefed up demigod, but in Action-RPGs you still get killed if you don't know how to fight properly.

Edit: For better clarity, see the Gothic saga (there is not Gothic 4 btw).

Dasher1010 wrote...

3. Too few abilities and too many upgrades

I was perfectly content with that in both games, TW2 made a huge improvement, since the skilltrees make drastic changes to your playstyle, be that counter ripost, the adrenaline effects, more potions to drink, better signs, etc.

DA2 managed to make every character build more unique than in DA:O/DA:A thanks to the more variety of skills.

Dasher1010 wrote...

4. A cliffhanging ending that sets up an expansion pack to nickle and dime players

Only time will tell.

I didn't find TW2's ending bitter because of the sequel hook, you have managed to resolve a lot of things, you answered a lot of questions what remained since TW1 and you had a great impact on the world, in DA2, not so much. Cool, the mages and templars are fighting, no thanks to you.

Dasher1010 wrote...

5. Bugs at launch

DA2's (and Awakening's) bugs are robbing me of game content (import bugs, glitched quests), TW2's bugs do not.

Dasher1010 wrote...

6. A Mass Effect-style dialog system

The paraphrasing is better in DA2 than in ME, but it's still suprising (especially with the sarcastic options), TW2 had a few examples of this aswell, but it wasn't that bad.

Congrates on reading the titles for each section and not realizing that I said exactyly what you did. TW2 made the same design decisions but they did them RIGHT.

[Dragoonlordz]

The way I see it CDPR did right what Bioware did wrong.

P.s. just because I am praising CDPR with regard to they made a far, far better game with TW2 than DA2 doesn't mean I hate Bioware as ME series and DAO and Kotor and BG etc Bioware did very well on. DA2 is where they kicked the ball into the neighbours yard (CDPR's yard) and they will have a hard time trying to get that ball back as far as a quality RPG project goes only time will tell if ME3 is enough to get that done.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 01:40 .

[Khayness]

Dasher1010 wrote...

Congrates on reading the titles for each section and not realizing that I said exactyly what you did. TW2 made the same design decisions but they did them RIGHT.

Can I have a cookie?

It was more like my opinion on the features you have listed, if it let's your soul ease, I'll remove the quotations.

[tariq071]

Zanallen wrote...

Eighteen months is the figure that gets tossed around most often for DA2 development time. That is a year and a half. If TW2 really had 2 and a half years of dev time, that's a whole year more. There is quite a lot that can be accomplished in a year.

But you are right in that the game has been released and so we'll never know what could have been. Of course, that's the point of speculation.

Except they made whole new game engine from the scratch, and that takes lot of time.That takes more then a year , if you want something really good, and RED is good, disregarding of game being good or not.

18 months is plenty enough of time ,if you are not changing almost everything under the sun.Game needed some improvements and polish but not 180 degree turn(for worse).

Modifié par tariq071, 23 mai 2011 - 01:39 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Most of the intial sales comes from those "old school players" if I was to agree with your way, way off assumption that it was old school players that liked DAO, but even that is a fallacy because not everyone who loves origins was from this pure fantasy "old school" you keep pointing fingers at.

The new players that you claim Bioware wants to attract come from two possible sources one of which is alternative genres (which they will not attract because if they were going to be drawn in the they would already be here with ME series). Maybe to assume they want the FPS crowd instead in which case they will fail on epic proportions as FPS players want FPS games, everyone else who owns multiple genres already would have been in the franchise and fanbase if RPGs interested them or if action/RPGs was liked by them aka in the DA or ME franchise fanbase. Could it be that this new playerbase instead means the younger gamer, you now the ones too underage to buy or play the game in the first place? Maybe thats the audience they targetted eh?

DA2 is epically bad due to it's own flaws on top of the fact its a sequel not just because of that.

I still find it hilarious your so diluded though that you believe the DAO fanbase was made up of "old school" players, sorry to break the news to you the same age groups liked that are same ones who like and hate DA2. The fact you use the DA2 button awesome to describe what is a more deep and less button awesome series like TW shows how incredably neive and stuck in a glass bubble world you really are.

Look over your logic again.  You just proved my point.

[Dragoonlordz]

tariq071 wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Eighteen months is the figure that gets tossed around most often for DA2 development time. That is a year and a half. If TW2 really had 2 and a half years of dev time, that's a whole year more. There is quite a lot that can be accomplished in a year.

But you are right in that the game has been released and so we'll never know what could have been. Of course, that's the point of speculation.

Except they made whole new game engine from the scratch, and that takes lot of time.That takes more then a year , if you want something really good, and RED is good, disregarding of game being good or not.

18 months is plenty enough of time ,if you are not changing almost everything under the sun.Game needed some improvements and polish but not 180 degree turn(for worse).

Agreed as TW1 used Biowares Aurora engine and still did a better job with some apsects such as realtime night and day, weather and NPC reations to both those things. TW2 they created a new engine rather than rely on Aurora again that takes alot of time, DA2 did not create a whole new engine they just heavily modified the original one (I think), while it takes time it takes less time.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 01:44 .

[Dragoonlordz]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Look over your logic again.  You just proved my point.

Only in your mind.

Put it this way unless your calling every single person who liked DAO "old school" then you have no ground to stand on.

In slang, old school can refer to anything that is from an earlier era. Depending on context and intent, the term can imply high regard or respect, or be a pejorative. The term often describes music, clothing, games or language and generally implies a vintage of at least 15–20 years.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 01:47 .

[Khayness]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Look over your logic again.  You just proved my point.

Only in your mind.

RinpocheSchnozberry rejects your reality and substitutes his/her own.

Modifié par Khayness, 23 mai 2011 - 01:51 .

[Zanallen]

tariq071 wrote...

Except they made whole new game engine from the scratch, and that takes lot of time.That takes more then a year , if you want something really good, and RED is good, disregarding of game being good or not.

18 months is plenty enough of time ,if you are not changing almost everything under the sun.Game needed some improvements and polish but not 180 degree turn(for worse).

I'd say that making a new engine takes about as much time as altering the base game "180 degrees". So TW2 still had more development time. Now, I admit that Bioware probably went too far in terms of changes. Of course, I liked DA2 so I don't have much of a problem with it. The majority of my friends liked the game more than Origins. They are tied in my mind. And yes, without the changes, 18 months would have been enough time. With the changes, it was no where near enough. Now, Laidlaw has said that they aren't doing another 180 dregree turn, so DA3 will hopefully receive a lot more TLC.

[erynnar]

Zanallen wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Except for the part where DA2 doesn't really honor it's predecessor but rather guts it:  from lore, history, characters, choices made in DAO, art design, etc? Instead of say...improving upon what already worked and fixing what didn't?

Isn't the basis of this thread how DA 2 and TW2 have a number of similar design features? If Laidlaw wants to make RPGs more accessable, to prevent some form of genre stagnation, then we can argue that the changes he made were to support this goal. TW2 is doing really well right now. So, wouldn't that mean that, if DA2 had received the time and polish it deserved, it would have been a success?

Also, Bioware changing games and experimenting with different design formulas is par for the course. Very few Bioware games are similar to each other. Even within a specific IP, considering the clamor that was raised with ME2.

Ah, sorry internet is buggy tonight, so I am posting fast so as not to lose my posts. I was curious Zan, thanks for answering.

Yeah, but ME2 didn't throw out it's own backstories on characters making them completely different people. Not even when they get dead and resurrected. ME's choices carried over to ME2, at least they did for the husband. It's one thing to experiment, it's another to change history and lore so much, even on things they needn't have done it on.

I know many want to take it as a separate game in its own right, and not as a sequel a story in the DA universe. But it's not a separate game in the DA universe. It was marketed as a sequel (and yes I was expecting change), and even if it was a separate story, it should still follow the history and lore of the world it's set in. It doesn't. Too many things just got changed for no apparent reason.

Now I think Witcher 2 and DA2 are two different games in the action RPG genre. I like them both for different reasons (and mostly because I've had to watch Witcher 2 after my PC laughed at me, pfft).

[erynnar]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Look over your logic again.  You just proved my point.

Only in your mind.

Put it this way unless your calling every single person who liked DAO "old school" then you have no ground to stand on.

In slang, old school can refer to anything that is from an
earlier era. Depending on context and intent, the term can imply high
regard or respect, or be a pejorative. The term often describes music,
clothing, games or language and generally implies a vintage of at least
15–20 years.

Case in point, me. I didn't start playing BG and BG2 until after I played DAO.

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Agreed as TW1 used Biowares Aurora engine and still did a better job with some apsects such as realtime night and day, weather and NPC reations to both those things. TW2 they created a new engine rather than rely on Aurora again that takes alot of time, DA2 did not create a whole new engine they just heavily modified the original one (I think), while it takes time it takes less time.

Meh, Bioware prefers modular campaigns. This dates back to even BG. A realistic day/night cycle would be kind of pointless. More NPC variety would be nice, but it is something they have never really done, so I don't expect it.

[Ottemis]

erynnar wrote...
Except for the part where DA2 doesn't really honor it's predecessor but rather guts it:  from lore, history, characters, choices made in DAO, art design, etc? Instead of say...improving upon what already worked and fixing what didn't?

See I don't grasp the concept of a game "gutting" another. They both exist in their own right.
Also, we couldn't have expected something as big as DAO for the time DA2 got, even IF they did go the same way or ended up improving upon the existing formula. 

That's crying over spilled milk.

Not so much me; I'm actually quite pleased with the route they took with DA2, altho I agree it could use alot more polish. It is what it is. I wouldn't mind if they improve upon Origins for a future game or combine aspects from both DAO and DA2, we'll have to wait and see.

[Morroian]

erynnar wrote...

Yeah, but ME2 didn't throw out it's own backstories on characters making them completely different people. Not even when they get dead and resurrected. 

You mean Anders? Its not like they didn't give a good reason for the change.  

[Zanallen]

erynnar wrote...

Ah, sorry internet is buggy tonight, so I am posting fast so as not to lose my posts. I was curious Zan, thanks for answering.

Yeah, but ME2 didn't throw out it's own backstories on characters making them completely different people. Not even when they get dead and resurrected. ME's choices carried over to ME2, at least they did for the husband. It's one thing to experiment, it's another to change history and lore so much, even on things they needn't have done it on.

I know many want to take it as a separate game in its own right, and not as a sequel a story in the DA universe. But it's not a separate game in the DA universe. It was marketed as a sequel (and yes I was expecting change), and even if it was a separate story, it should still follow the history and lore of the world it's set in. It doesn't. Too many things just got changed for no apparent reason.

Now I think Witcher 2 and DA2 are two different games in the action RPG genre. I like them both for different reasons (and mostly because I've had to watch Witcher 2 after my PC laughed at me, pfft).

Bold: Hah, you must not have read the Liara hate threads when ME2 first came out.

As for the rest, as I have said several times, I see the DA franchise in the same way I see the Final Fantasy franchise. They are technically sequels, but they have little to do with each other. Remember, DA is about Thedas during the Dragon Age, not any particular person or event. Just like each FF game alters various mechanics (Combat, magic, leveling, etc.), I have no issue with Bioware doing the same with DA. Of course, Bioware has gone a step forward in allowing you to make Thedas your version with the save import nonsense. But Dragon Age 2, despite the 2, isn't really a sequel to Origins, but is a sequel to the franchise as a whole as opposed to a sidegame.

Hmm...Maybe the Suikoden franchise would be a better example that the FF franchise.

[GRX Dragon]

Malanek999 wrote...

GRX Dragon wrote...
I also probably would get annoyed if the nudity was handled the same way in the first one too (with all the tarrot cards). But other than that, maybe I'll take my chance and torrent it.

So you'll take a chance that the quality is high enough to be worth stealing?

More like the quality isn't likely to be high enough to be worth supporting that I choose to openly pirate it as I've been subpeoned before (by Sony too) and the only thing that can come out of any court case would be good for me.  

Ringo12 wrote...

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

I assume you made no effort to google it? There are actual sex scenes now and no cards. But why pirate the game? Buying it on Steam or Gog has no DRM. 

Steam version doesn't have any drm except Steam drm. Just files are there but it doesn't actually install.

Since I wasn't interested in TW2, why should I've googled it? Furthermore, I'm not interested in supporting Steam.