Aller au contenu

Photo

"I don't feel Hawke is my character," vs The Witcher?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
514 réponses à ce sujet

#251
Corto81

Corto81
  • Members
  • 726 messages

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

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.


I played through DA2 3 times and another game into Act 3 when the lightbulb hit me... it's a bad game.

I only realized how bad DA2 was after that 3rd playthrough and after the novely finally wore off and my self-imposed Origins-sequel-hype somewhat dissipated.

Then I went and replayed Origins and felt (for the 8th time) that the game was amazing.
And that DA2 is a half-assed, half-finished, rushed product.

DA2 could and SHOULD have been a great game.
Even with a smaller-scale story it could've been epic, had it been done properly.

Instead, we got all this mumbo-jumbo about "less is more", "button awesome", blah blah.
Corners were cut, areas were repeated, gameplay was simplified, RPG elements thrown out the window, stats trivialized, the story made no sense with their Deux Ex Machina solutions, etc etc.

And no, less isn't more, more is more.
Seriously.
(nothing was so overly complicated in DA:O that they needed to use that corny phrase)

So yeah, honestly, at least from my PoV, comparing DA2 to either Origins or Witcher 2 seems like a bad joke rather than a proper comparison.

As for my regret buying DA2...
I've got mostly myself to blame. I love Origins to pieces, and I was so hyped for the sequel.
And, like I said, I played through it 3 times before it finally hit me - it was a severe disappointment, and certainly by the usual BW standards - a sub-par game.

Modifié par Corto81, 26 mai 2011 - 01:17 .


#252
AngryFrozenWater

AngryFrozenWater
  • Members
  • 9 088 messages

Tommy6860 wrote...

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?

Whatever vision the doctors have, they now also have the power to market that vision and dream up other activities to make money. In the beginning BW (within EA) was more or less autonomous, but nobody expected that it would last long. Maybe BW got lucky now that EA has formalized the new policy to all studios.

I have no idea how that actually translates into anything like EA pushing sales or deadlines or not. I am no insider. But what I do see from the linked articles is that BW (as an EA team) has more influence in marketing and secondary products as we think they have.

As an outsider I cannot tell what that actually means for Dragon Age. To me the new situation sounds better than control from a central non-specialized body.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 26 mai 2011 - 02:08 .


#253
MDT1

MDT1
  • Members
  • 646 messages
In TW2 the outcome of my choices doesn't seem forced upon me, because either I have the outcome I would like, or I understand why it didn't work out the way I wanted.
In DA2 on the other hand comes this sister to my mind I just could not kill after she send me with the guy and the game gave me absolutly no reason why I shouldn't be able to kill her, its more or less all Hawk does in the whole game. It was not the only but perhaps one of the most frustrating moments of DA2 for me.
Perhaps its just bad luck as I never experienced a BioWare game where I had this problem before but for now I'm convinced the reason is the lack of time to implement even slightly different paths into the storyline.

Modifié par MDT1, 26 mai 2011 - 02:37 .


#254
Tommy6860

Tommy6860
  • Members
  • 2 488 messages

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

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?

Whatever vision the doctors have, they now also have the power to market that vision and dream up other activities to make money. In the beginning BW (within EA) was more or less autonomous, but nobody expected that it would last long. Maybe BW got lucky now that EA has formalized the new policy to all studios.

I have no idea how that actually translates into anything like EA pushing sales or deadlines or not. I am no insider. But what I do see from the linked articles is that BW (as an EA team) has more influence in marketing and secondary products as we think they have.

As an outsider I cannot tell what that actually means for Dragon Age. To me the new situation sounds better than control from a central non-specialized body.


I am little confused, sorry. Are you suggesting that this is a good thing or a bad thing? If what I am getting from you, is that Bioware is again, being allowed the autonomy you mentioned to do as they see fit.

#255
Siegdrifa

Siegdrifa
  • Members
  • 1 884 messages
I feel Geralt is more implemented in TW2 world than Hawke toward DA2 world.

First : because Geralt can do lot more things than Hawke, Hawke is just a caracter that run / speak / fight. Geralt has lot more interaction that fit his purpose, and they are numerous.

Second : While Hawke can express himself in a lot more way to PNJ than Geralt, Geralt talk only about importante things that matters and not naive / sarcastic / rude comment that get you nearly nowhere to the point.
Also, Geralt, like my fem Shep, have his personnality and i can mix compasionate / rude choice depending on the situation and my mood. Hawke is like a multi personnality that make mixing good / sarcastic / rude akward, and most of the time, every body don't care about your comment, they are just fan service and fake choice.

Third. Geralt have long therme goal, that help me feel it's my caracter, i see things evolve with him from point A to point Z. Hawke on the other hands have no long therme goal while making his quest, this is just A to B, than B to C etc. TW2 offer a real focus for the main quest, every step i do make sense and i'm devoted to it, and the story is not predictable.
I don't know how it will end, i don't know what kind of situation i will meet.
Let's take DAO for exemple, at the begining of the game i knew all the structure and no twist came, i was totaly desapointed (not by the game itself, but by the main story devloppement that was a big empty shell without pation). In TW2, i have my goal, but, i have no idea what will happen to distrube my progression, and lot of things happen.

Last. Because ultimatly, my choice made with Geralt matters and change the story, Hawke is most of the time, an observer that have no real power of influence in kirkwall.


I'm not a die hard supporter of choices must change the whole things, i have nothing agains faking the choice when it's well made, but DA2 fail at faking it, people come to see you for advice, but in the end it's "yeah i here you, still, i'll make my big mistake LOL" why bother then ....

#256
Dragoonlordz

Dragoonlordz
  • Members
  • 9 920 messages
Hmm EA sent me £10 (about $16-17) voucher for my birthday so allows me to pick up a one of two copies of some games from their store (taking into account the DRM), from ME1 to C&C, Spore or more all under £10 I thought was nice of them EXCEPT being EA ofcourse you have to have puchase worth over (x) amount before can use as normal (x) being £30 in this case. They also managed to convince me to buy DA2 even though really don't like it at all.

My point is as a publisher/marketing they do extremely well and are very good at that (lying and tricking people into buying the titles they sell). The problem with EA is they don't just publish and market the titles under their umbrella they also interfere with how they are made and the developers content and schedules this is clearly shown in DA2 as just an example. If they stuck to marketting and publishing and less interfering (other than the DRM) then I would be much happier with the situation. Which doesn't mean I like DA2 btw.

I think Bioware's Ray and such are sucking up to EA to try to and get higher up in the ladder enough to change the way things are done there but at the moment I think they still in the sucking it up phase.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 26 mai 2011 - 04:41 .


#257
marshalleck

marshalleck
  • Members
  • 15 645 messages

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I think Bioware's Ray and such are sucking up to EA to try to and get higher up in the ladder enough to change the way things are done there but at the moment I think they still in the sucking it up phase.

Ray Muzyka is CEO of Bioware, Senior Vice President and Group General Manager of the Bioware RPG/MMO division of EA. There's not much higher he can go than that. The truth of the matter is the doctors are fully on board with Bioware's new direction, and leading the charge. 

#258
AngryFrozenWater

AngryFrozenWater
  • Members
  • 9 088 messages

Tommy6860 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

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?

Whatever vision the doctors have, they now also have the power to market that vision and dream up other activities to make money. In the beginning BW (within EA) was more or less autonomous, but nobody expected that it would last long. Maybe BW got lucky now that EA has formalized the new policy to all studios.

I have no idea how that actually translates into anything like EA pushing sales or deadlines or not. I am no insider. But what I do see from the linked articles is that BW (as an EA team) has more influence in marketing and secondary products as we think they have.

As an outsider I cannot tell what that actually means for Dragon Age. To me the new situation sounds better than control from a central non-specialized body.


I am little confused, sorry. Are you suggesting that this is a good thing or a bad thing? If what I am getting from you, is that Bioware is again, being allowed the autonomy you mentioned to do as they see fit.

When BW became part of EA they were treated as an independent studio with EA as a publisher. But we knew that couldn't last. These articles showed that this period is over. BW is now treated much like any other studio. At the same time policies changed which give those studios more power. It sounds good, but I cannot tell you how much the central management of EA dictates or not. One thing is for sure: BW can do its own marketing. And that's a good thing.

#259
Arppis

Arppis
  • Members
  • 12 750 messages

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

and create $5 weapon DLCs.


Whoa, whoa! Those DLC's are awesome! Atleast has been for Mass Effect 2. Much more useful than some short adventure. They stick with you for the whole game and give something new to the game!

But carry on.

Oh, and I am pretty sure BioWare could remove itself from EA, if things would get ugly. I'm sure they would find someone to publish their games.

Modifié par Arppis, 26 mai 2011 - 03:55 .


#260
neppakyo

neppakyo
  • Members
  • 3 074 messages

Arppis wrote...

Oh, and I am pretty sure BioWare could remove itself from EA, if things would get ugly. I'm sure they would find someone to publish their games.


EA doesn't let go of developers they aquire. Usually drive them into the ground and fire/disperse employee's across other divisions.

imho, if and when TOR fails, BW will be another westwood.

Back to topic.. I could give two sh!ts about hawke, no connection or caring what happens to him. He/she was just there for the player to do something as the Varric/Anders story played out.

Geralt.. some choices you have to make are hard. So much more connected to him.

#261
Addai

Addai
  • Members
  • 25 850 messages

Arppis wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

and create $5 weapon DLCs.


Whoa, whoa! Those DLC's are awesome! Atleast has been for Mass Effect 2. Much more useful than some short adventure. They stick with you for the whole game and give something new to the game!

Normally you get new equipment as quest reward or tied in with some quest.  Weapon and armor packs suck.

#262
Tommy6860

Tommy6860
  • Members
  • 2 488 messages

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

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?

Whatever vision the doctors have, they now also have the power to market that vision and dream up other activities to make money. In the beginning BW (within EA) was more or less autonomous, but nobody expected that it would last long. Maybe BW got lucky now that EA has formalized the new policy to all studios.

I have no idea how that actually translates into anything like EA pushing sales or deadlines or not. I am no insider. But what I do see from the linked articles is that BW (as an EA team) has more influence in marketing and secondary products as we think they have.

As an outsider I cannot tell what that actually means for Dragon Age. To me the new situation sounds better than control from a central non-specialized body.


I am little confused, sorry. Are you suggesting that this is a good thing or a bad thing? If what I am getting from you, is that Bioware is again, being allowed the autonomy you mentioned to do as they see fit.

When BW became part of EA they were treated as an independent studio with EA as a publisher. But we knew that couldn't last. These articles showed that this period is over. BW is now treated much like any other studio. At the same time policies changed which give those studios more power. It sounds good, but I cannot tell you how much the central management of EA dictates or not. One thing is for sure: BW can do its own marketing. And that's a good thing.


OK, now I get it. It would be even a better thing if Bioware wouldn't make DA2 *adventure* style games anymore, unless they "advertise" them as being as such. I am hoping they go back to at least the kinds of games I experienced from them.
:wizard:

Modifié par Tommy6860, 26 mai 2011 - 04:07 .


#263
Darke1

Darke1
  • Members
  • 215 messages

Arppis wrote...

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.


Thanks Image IPB

#264
MDT1

MDT1
  • Members
  • 646 messages

Tommy6860 wrote...

OK, now I get it. It would be even a better thing if Bioware wouldn't make DA2 *adventure* style games anymore, unless they "advertise" them as being as such. I am hoping they go back to at least the kinds of games I experienced from them.
:wizard:


Well its true, DA2 was promoted as evolution and not as spinnoff into another genre. And many, like me, realy believed that it could still be like DAO was.
I guess marketing thought that fans like me would be more forgiving so they decided to promote it also as the game it isn't anymore to sell more copies.

#265
Chromie

Chromie
  • Members
  • 9 881 messages

MDT1 wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

OK, now I get it. It would be even a better thing if Bioware wouldn't make DA2 *adventure* style games anymore, unless they "advertise" them as being as such. I am hoping they go back to at least the kinds of games I experienced from them.
:wizard:


Well its true, DA2 was promoted as evolution and not as spinnoff into another genre. And many, like me, realy believed that it could still be like DAO was.
I guess marketing thought that fans like me would be more forgiving so they decided to promote it also as the game it isn't anymore to sell more copies.


This so doesn't sound like Dragon Age 2.
  • Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make.
  • Determine your rise to power from a destitute refugee to the revered champion of the land.
  • Think like a general and fight like a Spartan with dynamic new
    combat mechanics that put you right in the heart of battle whether you
    are a mage, rogue, or warrior.
  • Go deeper into the world of Dragon Age with an entirely new
    cinematic experience that grabs hold of you from the beginning and never
    lets go.
  • Discover a whole realm rendered in stunning detail with updated graphics and a new visual style.


And this does sound like Witcher 2.

  • A truly epic, intense, emotionally charged adventure with non-linear
    game narration. Three independent plot lines with several alternative
    events are dependent on the player’s choices and lead to multiple
    different game endings and several additional plot forks. This time
    gameplay time will be shorter than The Witcher 1, but more intense and
    packed with events.
  • A complex, realistic and mature story touching upon subject
    matter seldom seen in other RPGs, told in a manner that is
    understandable and attractive to contemporary gamers. We investigate the
    assassinations of the rulers of the Northern Kingdoms and follow
    Geralt’s personal theme, in which he’s looking for his own identity.
    Gradually we learn how powerful forces influence our situation and what
    role they order us to play.
  • Rich, mature dialogue as found in Andrzej Sapkowski’s book
    series and The Witcher 1, presented in highly filmic cutscenes and
    dialogues sequences, thanks to a new game engine.
  • New, improved system of flashbacks. Now the reminiscences of
    Geralt, in which we observe the link between our past choices with
    current actions, are realistically and smoothly woven into the gameplay.
  • Unique, deep, consistent and rich game world established in a
    series of best-selling books by A. Sapkowski and recreated in the game
    to provide an incredible, believable story-driven experience.
  • Believable, true-to-life characters with their own motivations
    and goals. During our journey we meet ordinary men, soldiers, rebels,
    powerful mages, rulers and their assassins. Depending on our decisions
    we meet different game characters, and our relationships shape further
    actions in the game.
  • Highly varied, breathtaking locations, which thanks to the new engine create a cohesive, fully accessible world!
  • Rich, living world in which every character has their own way
    of life and unique occupations. Our actions modify the relationship with
    the game-world population and, in the case of the main plot line, open
    or close the possibilities of interaction with the game world.
  • Greater freedom of exploration to provide increased game
    realism and a wider range of new tactical options. Geralt will surmount
    barriers, jump over fences, scale walls and ascend rock formations.

Modifié par Ringo12, 26 mai 2011 - 06:49 .


#266
Arppis

Arppis
  • Members
  • 12 750 messages

Addai67 wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

and create $5 weapon DLCs.


Whoa, whoa! Those DLC's are awesome! Atleast has been for Mass Effect 2. Much more useful than some short adventure. They stick with you for the whole game and give something new to the game!

Normally you get new equipment as quest reward or tied in with some quest.  Weapon and armor packs suck.


They don't when they add new freshness to the gameplay. Every gun they have released after has been of some use for me and added new things to the gameplay. DLC costumes and armor are cool too, when they aren't butt-ugly. Mass Effect 2 actualy did the equipment part really well. Every gun has it's uses and playstyle it can be used with, and armor parts were useful.

As I said, rather get something that is with me for the whole game, than something that's a brief side-adventure.

Modifié par Arppis, 26 mai 2011 - 07:58 .


#267
EugeneBi

EugeneBi
  • Members
  • 179 messages
Freedom of movement in TW2 ad is a bit overrated. Geralt cannot fall off the cliff no matter how hard I push him. I expected something like Gothic/TES world with real freedom. The rest of the ad is on spot, though.

#268
Elhanan

Elhanan
  • Members
  • 18 495 messages

Ringo12 wrote...

This so doesn't sound like Dragon Age 2....

And this does sound like Witcher 2....


Amazing how they are able to validate both of the held opinions so accurately, Uncanny; really! And I luv the way that they are posted as evidence of the truth; bulletpoints and everything!

Image IPB

#269
EVILFLUFFMONSTER

EVILFLUFFMONSTER
  • Members
  • 1 046 messages
 For me, I think the fact that you can customise Hawke so much makes the things you can't customise stick out so much - and if you didn't like those things ie. Their voice doesn't sound like something you would ever give yourself, then you tend to dislike it more. A game like the witcher actually casts you in a set role, which is far easier to settle in to as straight away you accept that you are roleplaying a different person, like when reading a book, or watching a film. Their voice is then simply their voice, rather than with DA2, you feel like you are stuck with something you would quite like to change.

Saying this, I felt whilst playing Mass Effect which has a similar approach to DA2, that I was roleplaying Shepard, and his character was easily accepted too - so perhaps the problem I have with Hawke "not feeling like myself" stem from the way the game introduces him as a character(as in trying to make him more personal to you). It is either that, or that Hawke himself is simply not that great a character. For me, he doesn't have a past before the silly prologue, he doesn't really show much drive and ambition compared to his very well written, well fleshed out companion characters. His emotions seem pretty hollow unless I make him angry all the time, and even then I feel he isn't angry enough. My sibling has just been beaten to death by a huge Ogre right in front of me, my face shows a slight furrowing of the brows whilst I calmly stand and inform my distraught mother that "at least father won't be alone anymore" in an unenthusiastic voice.. Thats the joky option, whilst the angry option lacked emotion and the nice option did too..where is the bursting in to tears, or embracing your mother in order to console her, where is the rage and fist clenching anger that fate has been so cruel? wait..of course, we do not even know the person who had died yet because we have only been playing for three minutes - so we don't really care either..

It is emotions that cause us to relate to our on-screen persona, if their emotions do not seem natural or not genuine then you feel alienated and it has the exact opposite effect. Hawke never really expresses what he thinks, or feels, or wants, he doesn't speak to other charcters at length about himself - and this is to allow the player the freedom to choose for him and to roleplay as they wish.. but his character can only half do that, as he is also set as Hawke. My interpretation is that  in DA2 you play as half Hawke, half own character hybrid - but instead of enriching the experience it means that Hawke isn't as well developed as he would be without all the customisation and the own-made character isn't capable of being fully what you want, or a proper extension of yourself.

Despite this, I still like DA2 a lot - and I cannot really comment on the Witcher 2 yet as I haven't played it enough.

#270
Chromie

Chromie
  • Members
  • 9 881 messages

Elhanan wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

This so doesn't sound like Dragon Age 2....

And this does sound like Witcher 2....


Amazing how they are able to validate both of the held opinions so accurately, Uncanny; really! And I luv the way that they are posted as evidence of the truth; bulletpoints and everything!

Image IPB


That's not my opinion that's what it says on their steam page before buying the game. Witcher 2 managed to do what it said Dragon Age 2 did not.

I'm not presenting them as truth I'm just do a simple copy and paste.

Modifié par Ringo12, 26 mai 2011 - 09:17 .


#271
Maverick827

Maverick827
  • Members
  • 3 193 messages

neppakyo wrote...

imho, if and when TOR fails, BW will be another westwood

If and when, eh?

#272
Chromie

Chromie
  • Members
  • 9 881 messages

Maverick827 wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

imho, if and when TOR fails, BW will be another westwood

If and when, eh?


I'm looking forward to TOR :?

#273
88mphSlayer

88mphSlayer
  • Members
  • 2 124 messages

K1LL STREAK wrote...

 For me, I think the fact that you can customise Hawke so much makes the things you can't customise stick out so much - and if you didn't like those things ie. Their voice doesn't sound like something you would ever give yourself, then you tend to dislike it more. A game like the witcher actually casts you in a set role, which is far easier to settle in to as straight away you accept that you are roleplaying a different person, like when reading a book, or watching a film. Their voice is then simply their voice, rather than with DA2, you feel like you are stuck with something you would quite like to change.

Saying this, I felt whilst playing Mass Effect which has a similar approach to DA2, that I was roleplaying Shepard, and his character was easily accepted too - so perhaps the problem I have with Hawke "not feeling like myself" stem from the way the game introduces him as a character(as in trying to make him more personal to you). It is either that, or that Hawke himself is simply not that great a character. For me, he doesn't have a past before the silly prologue, he doesn't really show much drive and ambition compared to his very well written, well fleshed out companion characters. His emotions seem pretty hollow unless I make him angry all the time, and even then I feel he isn't angry enough. My sibling has just been beaten to death by a huge Ogre right in front of me, my face shows a slight furrowing of the brows whilst I calmly stand and inform my distraught mother that "at least father won't be alone anymore" in an unenthusiastic voice.. Thats the joky option, whilst the angry option lacked emotion and the nice option did too..where is the bursting in to tears, or embracing your mother in order to console her, where is the rage and fist clenching anger that fate has been so cruel? wait..of course, we do not even know the person who had died yet because we have only been playing for three minutes - so we don't really care either..

It is emotions that cause us to relate to our on-screen persona, if their emotions do not seem natural or not genuine then you feel alienated and it has the exact opposite effect. Hawke never really expresses what he thinks, or feels, or wants, he doesn't speak to other charcters at length about himself - and this is to allow the player the freedom to choose for him and to roleplay as they wish.. but his character can only half do that, as he is also set as Hawke. My interpretation is that  in DA2 you play as half Hawke, half own character hybrid - but instead of enriching the experience it means that Hawke isn't as well developed as he would be without all the customisation and the own-made character isn't capable of being fully what you want, or a proper extension of yourself.

Despite this, I still like DA2 a lot - and I cannot really comment on the Witcher 2 yet as I haven't played it enough.




there are several problems with Hawke... for one, there's nothing inherently unique about him/her

-a Warden is somebody who has nightmares and will either die in the deep roads or die killing an archdemon, that is their fate

-a Spectre is somebody who is above the law and given power to decide the fate of billions of people doing things people will never know about, in addition Shepard is given visions from the prothean beacon

-a Witcher is a genetically engineered mutant warrior who can't procreate and is generally considered an outsider/freak to all normal society but their job anyways is to defend humans from monsters

Hawke is... some dude/gal, who in the pursuit of money is granted power which is later taken away

if there's anything remotely unique about Hawke, other than good luck and bad timing, is a hint at the end which will likely only be explored in a sequel

another problem with Hawke is how they're introduced, we never truly get to see what Hawke has lost, again using examples from other games...

-the Warden's origin story is a story of loss, betrayal or deadly mistakes no matter which direction you go with, you as the player get many chances during this time point to connect with the Warden

-Shepard experiences a great deal of bad luck on Eden Prime, at the beginning you really have nothing to connect with Shepard but by the end of Eden Prime you're really anxious to clear your name and learn more about what the visions mean to Shepard

-Geralt of Rivia is a little more cliche with amnesia, but it works well enough that you always feel like you're the one steering this second take on life and interested in learning more about his past

Hawke well... does anybody really care what Hawke did in Lothering? as far as i'm concerned Kirkwall is the best thing to ever happen to Hawke himself, the family in this case serves as the "interest" point for "loss" in Hawke's origin story but that loss never felt connected to Hawke because we never get to role play that scenario

finally... as you said, getting a taste of influence over a story really makes it less immersive when you don't get real influence over a story... such things as the 2-3 year time skips are really detrimental, especially skipping the first year in Kirkwall and later on when current events are so chaotic it makes no sense that Hawke should sit doing nothing... the inability to shape the story hurts as well, sure we can shape our relationships but the story happens the same way no matter what, and as interesting as it is to change the look of Hawke no matter what we play the first battle as someone else, the fact that playing as a mage doesn't do anything to the story is dumb as well

i don't think any of these things taken by themselves is what detriments the role playing aspect of DA2, but i think taken all together they do

PS: i don't think Dragon Age 2 as a role playing experience is BAD at all, but i think compared to better examples it demands improvement

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 26 mai 2011 - 11:31 .


#274
Maverick827

Maverick827
  • Members
  • 3 193 messages

Ringo12 wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

neppakyo wrote...
imho, if and when TOR fails, BW will be another westwood

If and when, eh?

I'm looking forward to TOR 

Well, so am I, but it's not only that.  The phrase "if and when" makes no sense.  It's like "I could care less."  
"If" denotes a condition with either a true or false outcome, but "when" indicates inevitable truth.  "If" alone expresses the correct idea that this event may or may not happen.  The phrase "if or when" makes a bit more sense, but not much (colloquially, the phrase asserts that "if" leans more towards doubt, and "when" towards certainty, and expresses both as options).

88mphSlayer wrote...

for one, there's nothing inherently unique about him/her

You say this like it's a bad thing.

#275
88mphSlayer

88mphSlayer
  • Members
  • 2 124 messages

Maverick827 wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

neppakyo wrote...
imho, if and when TOR fails, BW will be another westwood

If and when, eh?

I'm looking forward to TOR 

Well, so am I, but it's not only that.  The phrase "if and when" makes no sense.  It's like "I could care less."  
"If" denotes a condition with either a true or false outcome, but "when" indicates inevitable truth.  "If" alone expresses the correct idea that this event may or may not happen.  The phrase "if or when" makes a bit more sense, but not much (colloquially, the phrase asserts that "if" leans more towards doubt, and "when" towards certainty, and expresses both as options).

88mphSlayer wrote...

for one, there's nothing inherently unique about him/her

You say this like it's a bad thing.


it can be when combined with everything else i stated