514 réponses à ce sujet

[Corto81]

erynnar wrote...


So, would a female only character be as much of a problem for male players...say Geralt had been Geraldine?

Nope. I played Tomb Raider back in the day.

I'm fine with Geralt as the main protagonist.
Yes, I prefer my own toons, but I'll much rather play a pre-made toon who's a part of the world and where what he does matters, than "my own" toon (at least on surface, it's still Hawke, not me) who's in a world made for him to quest in, nothing feels real, you can't connect to anything, etc.

[Tommy6860]

oldmansavage wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Hawke's characterisation wasn't set and thus can be role played within the limits of the writing, despite not being able to greatly affect the overall plot. Hawke's role is fixed but Hawke's character isn't.

That's not role playing unless you want it toi mean that to you by simply being able to change faces and armors/clothing, but cannot affect the plot states. I can play Ghost Recon , change my face, weapons and my class, would that be role playing?

As I said in a previous post I'm talking about shaping the character of Hawke. I've said it before but making decisions about the direction of the plot has little to do with actual role playing except insofar as you make the decisions in accordance with how you've shaped the character. Hawke is shaped by the dialogue you choose, by the character interactions, as well as by the more aesthetic things and class choice.

You're just generalizing without even any little specifics. Shaping your character how, other than choosing looks, armors, class, etc. Hawke is absolutely not shaped by the dialogue s/he chooses. That means when Hawke chooses certain dialogues, then it has an effect on the game states, and it doesn't. The character interactions near have little effect on how your companions will be with you, it changes the dialogue slighty, but not their their plots as theya re fixed. I guess you have a very different view on how an RPG works. If it works for you that way, who am I to say otherwise, I am glad you like it that way. But IMO, that is not role playing.

Perhaps he creates his own illusion of how his character is through the dialogue he chooses?  I know some people that do this but I figure its the games job to do the work for 60 bucks.  Some folks can turn a stinker into a masterpiece through power of pure imagination.

And that's fine and I would never tell anyone they are wrong for seeing it that way. But think about it, wouldn't it be better if what one imagined actually worked that way in the game as like it does in most other Bioware RPGs? Not only that, wouldn't it even be better than that, if DA2 played like it is actually described (advertised as) on the DA2 website?

[Tommy6860]

Zjarcal wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
How are you shaping your character? Are you simply talking by choosing your classs, looks and outfits? That's about all there is to the RPG elements in DA2. I asked, before, I can do those things in Ghost Recon, so, am I role playing?

Perhaps this is a case of different expectations or preferences. I found little to no difference in terms of how much I could shape about my character between Origins and DA2. You guys keep mentioning that your choices have no consequence, but to me that doesn't really make a difference in terms of establishing your character.

Let's say for example, I choose to save a group of people instead of murdering them myself, only for some random jerk to show up and kill them anyway. Regardless of choice, the outcome was the same, the people died, yet in choosing to murder them or not, I established whether my character was a murderer or not (at least in said situation anyway).

That the choices in DA2 had little consequences didn't prevent me from imprinting the personality I wanted into my character. If I chose to spare the Magister's son because I wanted to play a character that felt keeping connections in important places was a good thing, the fact that the choice has no consequence later on doesn't mean that my character wasn't thinking and acting differently than say a character that chose to kill the Magister's son because she/he was a vigilante justice type of person.

So in my opinion, regardless of whether there were major consequences for my actions or not, I felt that I was able to imprint the personality I wanted into my character in DA2 to the same extent that I did in Origins.

And that's all that matters Z, that you get that from that. I am just pointing out to those who make it seem that making choices actually has effects in DA2, when it is really not so. IF that's how you shape your chaarcter to play, then I guess that's role playing for you and I respect that.

But let me just take part of your reply here, where you gave an example of whether you choose to murder a group or not. Do I have a choice, yes, only if it isn't a pre-assigned gang falling from the heavens (or would that be hell inverted?). Let's say I am a mage, and I face other mages that confronted me for whatever reason and I kill them, instead of telling them about myself and they depart on their way. Later on in the game, am I recognized by other mages that I may be against them, do I get praise from the Templars for seeing it their way? See what I mean by "shaping the world around me"?

Only two of your companions actually have anything to do with the major plots of the game, and you have so little of a choice on what their actions are in the end. Isabela somewhat, but I was totally frustrated by the fact of what Anders does no matter what I did with him.

[Fredvdp]

I'm now playing The Witcher Enhanced Edition. I'll play the sequel once I upgrade. I noticed that The Witcher and Dragon Age II have many similarities except that The Witcher is an even more casual experience than DA2. There is no character customization. I'm near the end of chapter 2 and so far I only found one piece of armor to buy. Combat requires no strategy at all. Just click every time you see a flaming sword icon and switch to a silver sword when you see a monster. It's a very good game but I'm a casual gamer and even I think it's too simple. Did they make the sequel more hardcore?

[DragonRageGT]

Fredvdp wrote...

I'm now playing The Witcher Enhanced Edition. I'll play the sequel once I upgrade. I noticed that The Witcher and Dragon Age II have many similarities except that The Witcher is an even more casual experience than DA2. There is no character customization. I'm near the end of chapter 2 and so far I only found one piece of armor to buy. Combat requires no strategy at all. Just click every time you see a flaming sword icon and switch to a silver sword when you see a monster. It's a very good game but I'm a casual gamer and even I think it's too simple. Did they make the sequel more hardcore?

Play it on Expert Mode so there is no  "flaming sword" - You also better read all books you can about mosnters or you won't get the best alchemic ingredients from them. And studying them through your bestiary or you won't know what oils, signs, style of attack works better..

Strong, Fast and Group styles ... it's good to know which works better on what!

[DragonRageGT]

easygame88 wrote...

erynnar wrote...

So, would a female only character be as much of a problem for male players...say Geralt had been Geraldine?

Hell no. A female "Geralt" would be simply awesome.

I'm disappointed we've never run into a female witcher yet.

Well, there are no female witchers in the books too!

[TheStrand221]

Fredvdp wrote...

I'm now playing The Witcher Enhanced Edition. I'll play the sequel once I upgrade. I noticed that The Witcher and Dragon Age II have many similarities except that The Witcher is an even more casual experience than DA2. There is no character customization. I'm near the end of chapter 2 and so far I only found one piece of armor to buy. Combat requires no strategy at all. Just click every time you see a flaming sword icon and switch to a silver sword when you see a monster. It's a very good game but I'm a casual gamer and even I think it's too simple. Did they make the sequel more hardcore?

Personally, I disliked the combat in Witcher 1.  Because witchers don't use heavy armor, etc. there isn't a ton of equipment in terms of armor and weapons.  However, some people consider it "hardcore" because of the large number of items and extensive crafting options, as well as the large number of side quests and general things to mess about with.

Witcher 2 is a very different game.  Skill trees are different, still large and each skill can be upgraded.  There are more armors and more weapons, including the ability to craft some.  Crafting of potions, bombs, etc. is still present.  The combat in Witcher is completely redesigned.  It's much harder, but has an action-RPG feel.  People who don't like this style would probably describe it as "twitch".  You can find some videos on Youtube showing it off.  It isn't a "button masher" though as it requires a lot of attention to positioning, timing, and the use of bombs, traps, and signs.  The learning curve is steep to the point many are frustrated by it at first.

[TheStrand221]

Personally I think it'd be interesting to see a game in The Witcher's setting but with a new character or even a customizable character. If it happens it probably won't be soon since they still have at least another game with Geralt. However if the devs want to keep making games within the IP it will probably become necessary unless they try to go the prequel route. After enough RPGs with the same protagonist you begin to suffer from power-creep among other things.

Ciri at least opens the door for the existence of a woman who was trained by witchers, even if she isn't technically a witcher, so I think a female protagonist works. Or they could just have the protagonist not be a witcher at all but adventure in the same setting with different motivations. There are plenty of powerful non-witchers that could have access to a variety of combat, magic, and alchemy abilities but would just lack specific witcher training and mutations.

[Fredvdp]

RageGT wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

I'm now playing The Witcher Enhanced Edition. I'll play the sequel once I upgrade. I noticed that The Witcher and Dragon Age II have many similarities except that The Witcher is an even more casual experience than DA2. There is no character customization. I'm near the end of chapter 2 and so far I only found one piece of armor to buy. Combat requires no strategy at all. Just click every time you see a flaming sword icon and switch to a silver sword when you see a monster. It's a very good game but I'm a casual gamer and even I think it's too simple. Did they make the sequel more hardcore?

Play it on Expert Mode so there is no  "flaming sword" - You also better read all books you can about mosnters or you won't get the best alchemic ingredients from them. And studying them through your bestiary or you won't know what oils, signs, style of attack works better..

Strong, Fast and Group styles ... it's good to know which works better on what!

This is one of the few games were I actually read all the entries in my codex/glossary because it's actually useful. That's one of the things I think The Witcher did right. I just wish they put the same amount of detail in weapon and armor customization. Even Fable handled that better and Fable is as casual as RPGs get. Having said that, The Witcher is of course a much better game than Fable.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 26 mai 2011 - 10:19 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

I'm confused. Browsing these forums, there's a whole lot of posts where people who don't like voiced protagonists go on about how they never felt Hawke was "their" character, rather a character they just borrowed for a while. Yet even so, the Witcher is praised all over the place. I don't mean to belittle the Witcher - I haven't even played the game so what do I know in reality - but from what I've gathered you have far less control in the Witcher than in DA2.

[...]

So please, enlighten me =) Depending on how in depth some of these answers can get, it might really help BioWare to craft games with voiced protagonists in the future, and we all want more and better games, no? =)

Having just finished The Witcher 2 I'll take a stab at answering this.

Firstly: I ended up enjoying The Witcher 2 more than Dragon Age 2. There were many reasons, and I'm sure dashed expectations for DA2 was a contributing factor. I'm not as invested in the Witcher franchise as I am in DA (vastly preferred DA:O to TW1).

Secondly: I'm a first person RPGer at heart. I enjoy third person games as well, but first person is my first love. The Action aspect I can take or leave...I usually find combat, unless it's plot relevant, just gets in the way of the story or is used as artificial padding. I don't care for random encounter after random encounter, I want to see how the story continues!

Ok.

On the subject of voiced protagonists.

In 3rd person games, such as The Witcher where you are in the boots of Geralt, Guybrush Threepwood if you're playing Monkey Island, Colonel Blair if you're playing Wing Commander, I don't mind it at all. A 3rd person character is not MY character, I've just been given leave to play around with him for a while. If he is voiced, I expect him to sound like he's been envisioned by the devs to sound. If he is not voiced, I have no problem at all with concepts like paraphrases or unprompted dialogue. I expect that kind of limited control in 3rd person games, and that extends to character appearance, sexuality, the whole deal.

In 1st person games, such as Dragon Age, Ultima (pre U8) or Baldur's Gate where you create your own character and are supposed to believe that character is yours, I have different expectations and it all comes down to control and immersion. For instance, I expect to be able to have a degree of control over who my character is, gender at the VERY least. Current gaming technology has advanced beyond selecting portraits or uploading our own to allowing us to customise our character's face, but the same cannot YET be said for voices. If our characters are fully voiced, we are currently limited to one option of Male or Female and I would rather imagine the voice than have one forced on MY character. Forcing a voice in what's meant to be a first person RPG is almost as bad as locking your character's appearance to one pre-determined selection. It's a 3rd person game quality, the lack of customisation, and it's one of the things I didn't like about DA2. Paraphrases, not letting me fully decide what MY character would say, was another cardinal sin. Unprompted dialogue was the icing on the cake.

Despite character creation, DA2 was like a 1st person RPG flirting at being a 3rd person RPG. I still enjoyed it, but like I said...my first love is 1st person RPGs. And after investing so heavily in DA:O, fanwise, I felt jilted. I knew the changes were coming and didn't like them when I heard about them, but still bought the game expecting, from Bioware, that I'd still enjoy it, and I have no regrets about the purchase. I simply didn't enjoy it as much as TW2.

Hawke DID feel more my character than Geralt did, but not as completely my character as I would expect and hope from the 1st person RPG it was touted to be. This combined with other things led to me not liking DA2 as much as I wanted to, and by contrast TW2 played its purer 3rd person aspect REALLY damn well.

Hope that all made sense.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 26 mai 2011 - 10:54 .

[Arppis]

I actualy liked Dragon Age 2's main character. But then again I do like Geralt too! I am reading the "Last Wish" atm. Good stuff!

DA2 had it's flaws, haven't played Witcher 2... so can't say much else.

[Darke1]

I played the Witcher and really enjoyed it. It was a long story that seemed well thought out and the gritty world felt more real than many fantasy settings. You felt more like a merc than a hero, but your choices did make a difference to the story.
It did lack in the choice of gear and character appearance changes, but somehow it didnt seem to matter all that much, probably due to the crafting element of the game.
I played the game twice before moving onto other games, but that was mostly because there is not much of a difference in the playthroughs until the later parts and it is a long game.

I played Dragon Age Origins and thought it was great; i loved it. I had a long, seemingly well thought out story arc where you felt you made a difference and felt like a real hero in the game.
It was odd that you, as the new recruit seemed to take charge, but that aside it was mostly on the money. Good character interactions, interesting characters and lots of gear and many choices on your character type, race and appearance.
Additionally, your choices made a strong impression on the game. I played through the full game about four or five times.

I played Dragon Age 2 and i thought it was okay, but it didnt really feel like a sequel to Origins, but more like a completely different game. It played okay and the story was interesting, seemingly offering up many choices, though ultimately these seemed to make little real difference in the end with the exception of mages or templers.
There was a lot of gear to find and you still had control of character appearance and profession, but no longer over their race.
It also felt that your save from Orgins wasnt really all that important, as apart from a couple of extra small quests, it didnt make much difference. While you got to meet characters from the first game, it felt as if they were bundled into it just for the sake of having them there.
Unlike Origins, the main character felt less of a hero to me, but more of a skilled professional who just happened to be there. I did like the NPCs, much as i did in Origins, though connecting with them was harder as you could only talk with them at set opportunities.
Compared to Origins it was disappointing and felt like a console import, but as a game in its own right it was playable enough. I managed two and a half playthroughs before i moved onto other games...and to be perfectly honest, it was only the interesting creations of the modding community that kept me at it that long and still keeps me mildly interested. If they released a DA2 toolkit, it could end up being one to come back to.

I am now playing the Witcher 2 and have got to the final Act. The game world is beautiful and so detailed...it feels alive. This game is wonderful.
It moves on seemlessly from where the first game ended, though Geralt now seems to feel more like a hero than a merc.
The story is great, has many branches and your choices make a very real impact on the game, and can easily come back to bite you later. In fact, if you had a save from the first game, the choices in that can come back to bite you too.
Combat is interesting and smooth once you get the hang of actually having to dodge and block and its nice to be able to combines swordplay and spells.
There is far more choice in gear than the first game and some of it changes your overall look quite a bit (though Geralt is always Geralt). The crafting system is still there and makes it even more fun.
If had a picky point, it is that crafting materials take up too much space/weight in your limited total inventory space (as well as a few technical issues at first, but even DA2 had plenty of those).
The world is dark, gritty and feels real and characters are interesting and well thought out. This is also definately an adult orientated game...not one for the kids.
I am loving this game and already thinking about how i'd do things differently on my next playthrough. The Witcher 2 seems like a properly finished game that wasnt just rushed out the door and the time spent on it shows.
While you do have to play Geralt as he is, the Witcher 2 does have some short sections when you actually play the role of other characters in the game, as you play through their "what happened to you" moments. While it may not give you choice in character appearance and sex, it gives you plenty of choice in the game.

If i had to name an RPG of the year among all four of these games, the Witcher 2 would be it, with DA Origins close behind.

Modifié par Darke1, 26 mai 2011 - 11:04 .

[Arppis]

Darke1 wrote...

I played the Witcher and really enjoyed it. It was a long story that seemed well thought out and the gritty world felt more real than many fantasy settings. You felt more like a merc than a hero, but your choices did make a difference to the story.
It did lack in the choice of gear and character appearance changes, but somehow it didnt seem to matter all that much, probably due to the crafting element of the game.
I played the game twice before moving onto other games, but that was mostly because there is not much of a difference in the playthroughs until the later parts and it is a long game.

I played Dragon Age Origins and thought it was great; i loved it. I had a long, seemingly well thought out story arc where you felt you made a difference and felt like a real hero in the game.
It was odd that you, as the new recruit seemed to take charge, but that aside it was mostly on the money. Good character interactions, interesting characters and lots of gear and many choices on your character type, race and appearance.
Additionally, your choices made a strong impression on the game. I played through the full game about four or five times.

I played Dragon Age 2 and i thought it was okay, but it didnt really feel like a sequel to Origins, but more like a completely different game. It played okay and the story was interesting, seemingly offering up many choices, though ultimately these seemed to make little real difference in the end with the exception of mages or templers.
There was a lot of gear to find and you still had control of character appearance and profession, but no longer over their race.
It also felt that your save from Orgins wasnt really all that important, as apart from a couple of extra small quests, it didnt make much difference. While you got to meet characters from the first game, it felt as if they were bundled into it just for the sake of having them there.
Unlike Origins, the main character felt less of a hero to me, but more of a skilled professional who just happened to be there. I did like the NPCs, much as i did in Origins, though connecting with them was harder as you could only talk with them at set opportunities.
Compared to Origins it was disappointing and felt like a console import, but as a game in its own right it was playable enough. I managed two and a half playthroughs before i moved onto other games...and to be perfectly honest, it was only the interesting creations of the modding community that kept me at it that long and still keeps me mildly interested. If they released a DA2 toolkit, it could end up being one to come back to.

I am now playing the Witcher 2 and have got to the final Act. The game world is beautiful and so detailed...it feels alive. This game is wonderful.
It moves on seemlessly from where the first game ended, though Geralt now seems to feel more like a hero than a merc.
The story is great, has many branches and your choices make a very real impact on the game, and can easily come back to bite you later. In fact, if you had a save from the first game, the choices in that can come back to bite you too.
Combat is interesting and smooth once you get the hang of actually having to dodge and block and its nice to be able to combines swordplay and spells.
There is far more choice in gear than the first game and some of it changes your overall look quite a bit (though Geralt is always Geralt). The crafting system is still there and makes it even more fun.
If had a picky point, it is that crafting materials take up too much space/weight in your limited total inventory space (as well as a few technical issues at first, but even DA2 had plenty of those).
The world is dark, gritty and feels real and characters are interesting and well thought out. This is also definately an adult orientated game...not one for the kids.
I am loving this game and already thinking about how i'd do things differently on my next playthrough. The Witcher 2 seems like a properly finished game that wasnt just rushed out the door and the time spent on it shows.
While you do have to play Geralt as he is, the Witcher 2 does have some short sections when you actually play the role of other characters in the game, as you play through their "what happened to you" moments. While it may not give you choice in character appearance and sex, it gives you plenty of choice in the game.

If i had to name an RPG of the year among all four of these games, the Witcher 2 would be it, with DA Origins close behind.

Good text mate.

[Essalor]

The point is that TW1 and 2 are simply more polished games as well. There's of course the setting, the protagonist issue. But I'm playing the Wintcher: Enchanced Edition now and the first thing that struck me most was all the little stuff, like birds flying away when you approach, weather effects, day and night cycle and a general coherence of the world: people move around, work, go home.
I was shocked when it started raining and people ran under the roof to hide from it at first, because as it's all eternal sunshine in DA, there's no place for such a living immersing world.

And that's the game that was out in 2007 by a small Polish developper, not a huge company. Yeah, there is a reason why we expect a big developer to create better games, because they have experience and money and they've done it before! How unfortunate when that fame hits, the developer seems to lose this relationship with their games. For all its glory, DA2 feels like a cash-in, it's fun but devoid of life. The Witcher games are made with love (and if you don't believe me look what an amazing patch and overall support the first game received after the release FOR FREE).

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Essalor wrote...

And that's the game that was out in 2007 by a small Polish developper, not a huge company. Yeah, there is a reason why we expect a big developer to create better games, because they have experience and money and they've done it before! How unfortunate when that fame hits, the developer seems to lose this relationship with their games. For all its glory, DA2 feels like a cash-in, it's fun but devoid of life. The Witcher games are made with love (and if you don't believe me look what an amazing patch and overall support the first game received after the release FOR FREE).

I'm sorry, but some of that is unfair. You can say DA2 was a quick cash-in on the part of EA, but you can't say it wasn't made with love.

CD Projekt, I think, has a lot of freedom in what it can do with its game and its DLC, a LOT more freedom than Bioware has due to EA being its publisher. CD Projekt (as I understand it) IS the publisher and parent of CD Projekt RED STUDIO which produced The Witcher games. They can do what they like, and they can choose to give free DLC or whatever. Bioware has to clear everything with EA, work to EA's deadlines, change the game if EA wants something changed, and create $5 weapon DLCs.

I have no idea how much weight EA throws around where Bioware is concerned, but I think a lot of people take it for granted that Bioware has the ultimate say with their game, marketting, or anything else. Bioware loves their games, but their situation is not the same as CD Projekt's.

[Dreadstruck]

easygame88 wrote...

erynnar wrote...So, would a female only character be as much of a problem for male players...say Geralt had been Geraldine?

Hell no. A female "Geralt" would be simply awesome.

I'm disappointed we've never run into a female witcher yet.

Cause they don't exist in the lore.
There aren't any female witch kings queens in LOTR(games, popular culture etc.)either for the same reason.

[Corto81]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...


I'm sorry, but some of that is unfair. You can say DA2 was a quick cash-in on the part of EA, but you can't say it wasn't made with love.

Why not?

I may be wrong, of course, but in games like Origins or TW2, the attention to detail, the depth of the world, the descriptions on every item, no matter how meaningless, screams at you how much passion and love was put into
the game.

DA2, on the other hand?
Junk items, repeated environments, extremely tiny world, no exploration, etc etc.
It's all been said.

And THEN, I have to hear about how apparently I'm not progressive enough in the gaming world because I didn't like it and the problem is with me and not the sub-standard product, all that "less is more", "button awesome" dribble.

Again, I may be wrong...
But I don't think the BW devs were half as passionate about DA2 as they were about DA:O.
And it shows, greatly.

One may or may not like Origins or TW2.
But one has to respect the amount of love, passion and effort put into those games.
It oozes from every pore out of those games.
The attention to detail, making the world believable, well-worked out plots and stories, believable "grey" characters, etc.

DA2? Hell no.

Modifié par Corto81, 26 mai 2011 - 12:18 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Corto81 wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...


I'm sorry, but some of that is unfair. You can say DA2 was a quick cash-in on the part of EA, but you can't say it wasn't made with love.

Why not?

I may be wrong, of course, but in games like Origins or TW2, the attention to detail, the depth of the world, the descriptions on every item, no matter how meaningless, screams at you how much passion and love was put into
the game.

DA2, on the other hand?
Junk items, repeated environments, extremely tiny world, no exploration, etc etc.
It's all been said.

Yes, it's all been said, practically ad nauseum.

Here's my reply:

Deadlines.

Ever tried to do something creative, like draw/paint a piece of art, compose music, write a story, within the frame of a time limit? Ever tried to create a game to a tight deadline? You don't get to do everything you want to do. It might not be as polished as you want, but presuming this creative endeavour is the product of a hobby you enjoy, you do it as well as you can. You might not be completely happy with the result (artists seldom DO consider their works perfect), you might be getting paid for it, but that does NOT mean you didn't pour your heart into your work and try to make it beautiful.

No matter how inferior anyone might think the game is, I refuse to believe no one who worked on the game loved it and wanted to make it beautiful.

(The above statement does not mean I don't believe the tight deadlines on the game was driven by the desire to cash in.)

As for measuring the amount of love the devs had for their respective games? Not being a dev, I'm not in a position to say. If a dev is reading, I invite them to answer. All *I* can say is that Bioware was able to spend a lot more time on DA:O and THAT is what shows. Measuring 'love' is a bit harder than time.

[Tommy6860]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...


I'm sorry, but some of that is unfair. You can say DA2 was a quick cash-in on the part of EA, but you can't say it wasn't made with love.

Why not?

I may be wrong, of course, but in games like Origins or TW2, the attention to detail, the depth of the world, the descriptions on every item, no matter how meaningless, screams at you how much passion and love was put into
the game.

DA2, on the other hand?
Junk items, repeated environments, extremely tiny world, no exploration, etc etc.
It's all been said.

Yes, it's all been said, practically ad nauseum.

Here's my reply:

Deadlines.

Ever tried to do something creative, like draw/paint a piece of art, compose music, write a story, within the frame of a time limit? Ever tried to create a game to a tight deadline? You don't get to do everything you want to do. It might not be as polished as you want, but presuming this creative endeavour is the product of a hobby you enjoy, you do it as well as you can. You might not be completely happy with the result (artists seldom DO consider their works perfect), you might be getting paid for it, but that does NOT mean you didn't pour your heart into your work and try to make it beautiful.

No matter how inferior anyone might think the game is, I refuse to believe no one who worked on the game loved it and wanted to make it beautiful.

(The above statement does not mean I don't believe the tight deadlines on the game was driven by the desire to cash in.)

As for measuring the amount of love the devs had for their respective games? Not being a dev, I'm not in a position to say. If a dev is reading, I invite them to answer. All *I* can say is that Bioware was able to spend a lot more time on DA:O and THAT is what shows. Measuring 'love' is a bit harder than time.

Yep, love of one's work and time constraints are not all inclusive. I may love the work I produce while creating it, I sometimes do not like how it turns out though.

[Corto81]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

As for measuring the amount of love the devs had for their respective games? Not being a dev, I'm not in a position to say. If a dev is reading, I invite them to answer. All *I* can say is that Bioware was able to spend a lot more time on DA:O and THAT is what shows. Measuring 'love' is a bit harder than time.

Fair enough.

I'll rephrase it then.

I can see the passion and love put into DA:O and Witcher 2.
It's kicking you in the face, it's so obvious.

I can't see it in DA2. Not even in traces.
It might be there, but I can't see it.
For whatever reason (deadlines, lack of funds, etc.).

It's been said before, bottom line:
Origins, Witcher 2, etc... Feel like the devs set out to make great games and make money as a bonus.
DA2 feels like the devs were assigned to a project to make money from, and gameplay and story only came in as an afterthought.

(these aren't cold facts, of course, but things certainly feel that way)

In the end, as a customer, I don't care about their internal process.
I'll never regret a cent I spent on TW2 CE or Origins and all the DLCs.
I regret every cent I spent on DA2 based on my Origins experience.

Modifié par Corto81, 26 mai 2011 - 12:53 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Essalor wrote...

And that's the game that was out in 2007 by a small Polish developper, not a huge company. Yeah, there is a reason why we expect a big developer to create better games, because they have experience and money and they've done it before! How unfortunate when that fame hits, the developer seems to lose this relationship with their games. For all its glory, DA2 feels like a cash-in, it's fun but devoid of life. The Witcher games are made with love (and if you don't believe me look what an amazing patch and overall support the first game received after the release FOR FREE).

I'm sorry, but some of that is unfair. You can say DA2 was a quick cash-in on the part of EA, but you can't say it wasn't made with love.

CD Projekt, I think, has a lot of freedom in what it can do with its game and its DLC, a LOT more freedom than Bioware has due to EA being its publisher. CD Projekt (as I understand it) IS the publisher and parent of CD Projekt RED STUDIO which produced The Witcher games. They can do what they like, and they can choose to give free DLC or whatever. Bioware has to clear everything with EA, work to EA's deadlines, change the game if EA wants something changed, and create $5 weapon DLCs.

I have no idea how much weight EA throws around where Bioware is concerned, but I think a lot of people take it for granted that Bioware has the ultimate say with their game, marketting, or anything else. Bioware loves their games, but their situation is not the same as CD Projekt's.

The situation has changed recently: Due to new EA policy "marketing and monetization" is now integrated into
all dev teams. That means that BW has a lot influence in these matters.

Source: Riccitiello's EA Shifts From 'Defense' To 'Offense'.

And let's no forget that for all intents and purposes BW is EA. People should stop attributing the good to BioWare and the bad to EA. They are one and the same. BioWare seems to like that new position:

Ray Muzyka: "In fact, that's one of the reasons we joined EA, like the inspirational leadership from guys like John Riccitiello. He's still inspirational to us. He's a mentor to us. The opportunity to become a publisher, as well as a developer. So, we're doing all aspects of that now. We're working with the sales and marketing teams directly, the development teams. That's pretty exciting. You know, it's a way to get closer to our consumers and the ability to pursue new things. Like when we joined EA, we had two studios, right?"

Ray Muzyka: "Edmonton and Austin. And now we've got an outpost in Montreal, a great team there. And BioWare Mythic has joined our group. They're part of the BioWare family. And Ireland is starting up now, as well. So, we have BioWare Edmonton, BioWare Austin, BioWare Montreal, BioWare Mythic, and BioWare Ireland. Those are all things that we drove. This is an opportunity space. There are fans there. We think we can take our capabilities and make a great game for them. We were able to drive that. So, it's very satisfying to be part of a larger company and have those opportunities."
 
Source: BioWare 2011: The Doctors Speak.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 26 mai 2011 - 01:01 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Corto81 wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

As for measuring the amount of love the devs had for their respective games? Not being a dev, I'm not in a position to say. If a dev is reading, I invite them to answer. All *I* can say is that Bioware was able to spend a lot more time on DA:O and THAT is what shows. Measuring 'love' is a bit harder than time.

Fair enough.

I'll rephrase it then.

I can see the passion and love put into DA:O and Witcher 2.
It's kicking you in the face, it's so obvious.

I can't see it in DA2. Not even in traces.
It might be there, but I can't see it.
For whatever reason (deadlines, lack of funds, etc.).

It's been said before, bottom line:
Origins, Witcher 2, etc... Feel like the devs set out to make great games and make money as a bonus.
DA2 feels like the devs were assigned to a project to make money from, and gameplay and story only came in as an afterthought.

(these aren't cold facts, of course, but things certainly feel that way)

And I can understand perfectly how people would feel that way. To some extent I even agree.

But whether or not you can 'see the passion and love' in DA2, I can't believe it's not there. The characters of Varric and Aveline *alone* compel me to believe parts of the game were crafted lovingly, as much as possible within the deadlines.

In the end, as a customer, I don't care about their internal process.
I'll never regret a cent I spent on TW2 CE or Origins and all the DLCs.
I regret every cent I spent on DA2 based on my Origins experience.

I am sorry that you dislike DA2 so much, I really am. Like you I loved Origins and The Witcher 2. I didn't like DA2 as much, there are plenty of things in there I didn't enjoy based on my own Origins experience, but I don't regret buying it. There were parts of DA2 I sincerely loved.

If you didn't like it at all, then I can see why you would believe the devs weren't passionate about it. I can only disagree with that belief, I'm afraid, but you're entitled to it.

Edit:

@AngryFrozenWater, thanks for that I'll have to read those links properly tomorrow, getting late here and should sleep so I'm not a zombie at work tomorrow. ~.~

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 26 mai 2011 - 01:04 .

[Essalor]

I join with the post above, I don't mean that Bioware doesn't love Dragon Age franchise. DA:O was awesome, but DA2 feels really barren, not only because of the time/budget/EA pressure etc etc but I just don't feel any specific effort being put in it.
Enemies appearing in mid-air, junk items, linear plot..
And as to EA pressure, well if there's any truth to that it seems weird that they decided to knowingly ruin the new and quite successful if I remember correctly franchise. They did leave more time for ME3 and SWTOR though. And I thought DA:O actually sold more copies than ME:2..

[Chromie]

Fredvdp wrote...

I'm now playing The Witcher Enhanced Edition. I'll play the sequel once I upgrade. I noticed that The Witcher and Dragon Age II have many similarities except that The Witcher is an even more casual experience than DA2. There is no character customization. I'm near the end of chapter 2 and so far I only found one piece of armor to buy. Combat requires no strategy at all. Just click every time you see a flaming sword icon and switch to a silver sword when you see a monster. It's a very good game but I'm a casual gamer and even I think it's too simple. Did they make the sequel more hardcore?

Yes the combat wasn't greator customization in terms of gear. This has been changed in Witcher 2. We're your constantly getting new weapons and armor. When you kill bosses you can choose to make either armor or armor enhancements. As for the combat I'd suggest downloading a "Full Combat Rebalance" mod though it makes the game incredibily hard for people who don't care to read about enemy types and their weaknesses.

Witcher 2 is definitely a lot more harder in the combat. You can't button mash and you can't drink potions in combat so your forced to be prepared for every fight. On hard each simple group of enemies can be challenging and can leave your satisfied since your tested unlike DA2 where I felt "is it done" because of the waves.

[Tommy6860]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Essalor wrote...

And that's the game that was out in 2007 by a small Polish developper, not a huge company. Yeah, there is a reason why we expect a big developer to create better games, because they have experience and money and they've done it before! How unfortunate when that fame hits, the developer seems to lose this relationship with their games. For all its glory, DA2 feels like a cash-in, it's fun but devoid of life. The Witcher games are made with love (and if you don't believe me look what an amazing patch and overall support the first game received after the release FOR FREE).

I'm sorry, but some of that is unfair. You can say DA2 was a quick cash-in on the part of EA, but you can't say it wasn't made with love.

CD Projekt, I think, has a lot of freedom in what it can do with its game and its DLC, a LOT more freedom than Bioware has due to EA being its publisher. CD Projekt (as I understand it) IS the publisher and parent of CD Projekt RED STUDIO which produced The Witcher games. They can do what they like, and they can choose to give free DLC or whatever. Bioware has to clear everything with EA, work to EA's deadlines, change the game if EA wants something changed, and create $5 weapon DLCs.

I have no idea how much weight EA throws around where Bioware is concerned, but I think a lot of people take it for granted that Bioware has the ultimate say with their game, marketting, or anything else. Bioware loves their games, but their situation is not the same as CD Projekt's.

The situation has changed recently: Due to new EA policy "marketing and monetization" is now integrated into
all dev teams. That means that BW has a lot influence in these matters.

Source: Riccitiello's EA Shifts From 'Defense' To 'Offense'.

And let's no forget that for all intents and purposes BW is EA. People should stop attributing the good to BioWare and the bad to EA. They are one and the same. BioWare seems to like that new position:

Ray Muzyka: "In fact, that's one of the reasons we joined EA, like the inspirational leadership from guys like John Riccitiello. He's still inspirational to us. He's a mentor to us. The opportunity to become a publisher, as well as a developer. So, we're doing all aspects of that now. We're working with the sales and marketing teams directly, the development teams. That's pretty exciting. You know, it's a way to get closer to our consumers and the ability to pursue new things. Like when we joined EA, we had two studios, right?"

Ray Muzyka: "Edmonton and Austin. And now we've got an outpost in Montreal, a great team there. And BioWare Mythic has joined our group. They're part of the BioWare family. And Ireland is starting up now, as well. So, we have BioWare Edmonton, BioWare Austin, BioWare Montreal, BioWare Mythic, and BioWare Ireland. Those are all things that we drove. This is an opportunity space. There are fans there. We think we can take our capabilities and make a great game for them. We were able to drive that. So, it's very satisfying to be part of a larger company and have those opportunities."
 
Source: BioWare 2011: The Doctors Speak.

I don't know if I can read much into that, really. I was reading a blog at GameBanshee and found this though, which relates a bit to what you're conveying here. It's the replies to a thread created and I found it similar to your thinking (unless I got this thinking wrong, please tell me):

GameBanshee:

<first post>

"The reality is that when your company (EA, my emphasis) has to show a return on a billion dollar investment as quickly as possible, shooters are more viable than traditional role-playing games."

<first reply>

True. This is how big business works. However, why bother buying Bioware, an expert in the field of rpg's, when you're planning to produce shooters to make quick bucks? The name 'Bioware' alone, on a game, is guaranteed to make some sales, but that will only get you so far. Furthermore, if now and in the future Bioware is going to produce shooters (or, the horror!, 'hybrids') instead of rpg's then the name of Bioware as an expert in rpg's is going to diminish, decreasing the original value of the purchase. In the short term, sure, I can understand the business plan. In the long run, it's beyond foolish.

I wonder if DA2's sales reflect this attitude?

{EDIT: formatting and spelling issues]

Modifié par Tommy6860, 26 mai 2011 - 01:26 .