673 réponses à ce sujet

[Siven80]

What to take from TW2 ?

The engine and pretty much everything

Though they can leave the terrible inventory and menu screens along with the horrid QTE's.

[Ariella]

Corto81 wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...


Origins was the successor to Baldur's gate. Can we move on from Baldur's Gate already? Most of today's young gamers would never have played Baldur's gate.

Yes, and Origins was a smash hit.

So why step away from a winning formula? And willingly, at that?

It's not just that DA2 was bad.
It hurt their reputation, it really did.
Yes, there are a huge number of people who liked DA2, but apparently, even more who disliked it or decided simply not to buy it (judging by the sales numbers, for example).

Origins basic design was laid down in a different age. Look at 2003 vs 2008. Games changed in that period, especially RPGs, with Bioware itself leading the way with KotOR and Mass Effect. Fantasy RPG was quickly becoming the realm of MMOs not Single player games. The major problem was the mechanic they came up with to support the world they created would have been find for 2004 or 05 maybe, but by 2008 it wasn't going to support the audience Bioware would need to make it profitable, thus the console ports, which were mostly done out of house and just weren't the same GUI quality at least as the PC (don't get me wrong, I love my Xbox version of Origins, but there are little interface things that make me insane.)

As I've said before, they're still trying to find the mechanic that will work. If the game had come out in 2004 I think there wouldn't have been as much yelling of "Generic" or "rip off". However, that happened after DAO's release and send the Dev team back to the drawingboard trying to figure out how to make their world stand out. Maybe they went to far. I don't know, as I really like Hawke and DA2, but there's got to be a way to balance the two games into something better.

[Savber100]

Definitely the day/night cycles from TW2

The life cycles of the NPCs (Make them move around and do SOMETHING)

If your engine can't allow it, make a new one that can. Come on Bioware... You're of the biggest RPG powerhouses in the industry so don't tell me that you can't make a better engine. We're all willing to wait 3-4 years for it.

[Realmzmaster]

Ariella wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...


Origins was the successor to Baldur's gate. Can we move on from Baldur's Gate already? Most of today's young gamers would never have played Baldur's gate.

Yes, and Origins was a smash hit.

So why step away from a winning formula? And willingly, at that?

It's not just that DA2 was bad.
It hurt their reputation, it really did.
Yes, there are a huge number of people who liked DA2, but apparently, even more who disliked it or decided simply not to buy it (judging by the sales numbers, for example).

Origins basic design was laid down in a different age. Look at 2003 vs 2008. Games changed in that period, especially RPGs, with Bioware itself leading the way with KotOR and Mass Effect. Fantasy RPG was quickly becoming the realm of MMOs not Single player games. The major problem was the mechanic they came up with to support the world they created would have been find for 2004 or 05 maybe, but by 2008 it wasn't going to support the audience Bioware would need to make it profitable, thus the console ports, which were mostly done out of house and just weren't the same GUI quality at least as the PC (don't get me wrong, I love my Xbox version of Origins, but there are little interface things that make me insane.)

As I've said before, they're still trying to find the mechanic that will work. If the game had come out in 2004 I think there wouldn't have been as much yelling of "Generic" or "rip off". However, that happened after DAO's release and send the Dev team back to the drawingboard trying to figure out how to make their world stand out. Maybe they went to far. I don't know, as I really like Hawke and DA2, but there's got to be a way to balance the two games into something better.

Actually if the DA2 had been more like Origins there would not be the same outcry. Also if DA2 had been polished more there would proably not be the same out cry. If DA2 was more like BG2 there would probably not be the same amount of outcry. The BG2/DAO fanbase would be happy.

But I am in the same camp with Witcher 2. CDProjeckt made changes in Witcher 2 from Witcher 1 that I do not like. The game is also less accessible (has less accessibility) than DA2 or Witcher 1. Witcher 2 at the present moment requires the use of the keyboard for movement and combat. DA2 does not. DA2 and Witcher 1 made far better use of the mouse. DA2 and the Witcher 1 are more accessible to the physically challenged than Witcher 2 at the present moment. 

Maybe if I could map TW2  to a gamepad it would be easier. But I cannot map TW2 to a gamepad the capability is not there.  Which I can only assume is an oversight by CDProjeckt.

[Realmzmaster]

1varangian wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Bioware needs to take nothing from the Witcher 2. First of all Witcher is a single character game while DA series is a party based game. The witcher is telling the story of a character from the books. DA is telling its own story, with its own world.

1varangian wrote...

Mature, believable world and characters.

How is the world in the Witcher any more believable than DA's world? This is fantasy.  Are you saying let's have believable fantasy? I play fantasy games to get away from the world and have fun. If I want to see people cursing, selling/taking drugs and   having lots of sex I can walk down my block!

If you really want realism then lets go all the way! Let's worry about having enough food and water, changing clothes for different weather conditions and climates.  Putting our money in the bank. People getting mugged on the street corner.  People catching STDs (which DA2 does have. now that is realistic). The swamp in the Witcher 2 is not realistic. If you have ever been in a real swamp you will know. I been down to Bayou. There very little that is beautiful about a swamp.
I do not need that much realism in my fantasy. Some is good.

Compared to the Witcher's world, DA2 is a cartoon, visually. I don't like that. I get it that some people do.

Oh and mature is not the same as drugs, sex and swearing. It's choice and consequence.

Mature means intended for adults. Choice and consequence does not have an age barrier. Certain content in a game does.

[MonkeyLungs]

Blood splatter and Isabella panty shots!

[godseiryuu]

The two games are completely different so I really don't think they should start thinking about taking ideas from the witcher. Most likely it would lead to another failure. NO GO.

[marshalleck]

Realmzmaster wrote...

1varangian wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Bioware needs to take nothing from the Witcher 2. First of all Witcher is a single character game while DA series is a party based game. The witcher is telling the story of a character from the books. DA is telling its own story, with its own world.

1varangian wrote...

Mature, believable world and characters.

How is the world in the Witcher any more believable than DA's world? This is fantasy.  Are you saying let's have believable fantasy? I play fantasy games to get away from the world and have fun. If I want to see people cursing, selling/taking drugs and   having lots of sex I can walk down my block!

If you really want realism then lets go all the way! Let's worry about having enough food and water, changing clothes for different weather conditions and climates.  Putting our money in the bank. People getting mugged on the street corner.  People catching STDs (which DA2 does have. now that is realistic). The swamp in the Witcher 2 is not realistic. If you have ever been in a real swamp you will know. I been down to Bayou. There very little that is beautiful about a swamp.
I do not need that much realism in my fantasy. Some is good.

Compared to the Witcher's world, DA2 is a cartoon, visually. I don't like that. I get it that some people do.

Oh and mature is not the same as drugs, sex and swearing. It's choice and consequence.

Mature means intended for adults. Choice and consequence does not have an age barrier. Certain content in a game does.

One way Witcher 2 is more "mature" is the overall plot of the game being gritty political intrigue which was mostly pretty realistic/representative of a feudal society. As opposed to this mages vs. templars thing, which also had its own problems in presentation (most of the major themes in DA2 were badly undercooked).

I know that seems like an odd definition of mature, but it just felt like it was written by adults for other adults. As opposed to this weird Disney quality to Dragon Age 2--almost as if the writers thought everyone would get lost if they made the plot too complex, so instead they made every mage an evil demon-summoning blood mage, and every Templar a violent fascist. It was just felt unrealistically polarized, and my Hawke didn't want to side with any of those idiots. He wanted to help the Arishok burn the whole damn place down and start over. In Witcher 2 it's hard to tell the bad guys from the good; there really aren't any good guys. Just a bunch of realistically flawed people (and quite a few utter scumbags) scheming against each other. It's how a story with no cliched Ancient Evil/Big Bad to be overcome should work. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 25 mai 2011 - 07:10 .

[Corto81]

Ariella wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...


Origins was the successor to Baldur's gate. Can we move on from Baldur's Gate already? Most of today's young gamers would never have played Baldur's gate.

Yes, and Origins was a smash hit.

So why step away from a winning formula? And willingly, at that?

It's not just that DA2 was bad.
It hurt their reputation, it really did.
Yes, there are a huge number of people who liked DA2, but apparently, even more who disliked it or decided simply not to buy it (judging by the sales numbers, for example).

Origins basic design was laid down in a different age. Look at 2003 vs 2008. Games changed in that period, especially RPGs, with Bioware itself leading the way with KotOR and Mass Effect.

Your argument doesn't hold, at all.

DA:O could've been made in 1990.
It was RELEASED in 2009.
And it's Bioware's best selling product to date.

[Gravbh]

I don't want to them take elements from TW2. I want them to take(put back in?) elements from DA:O.

[Kroepoek]

Ariella wrote...

Fix1o0 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Games shouldn't punish players. This isn't a competition, and casual says very specifically that combat is adjusted to move the story along. This is supposed to be fun, not frustration. That's one of the reasons the different difficulties.

So because you can't grasp the combat, doesn't mean others can't either. It requires at least some thought and effort. Knowing what you're doing. Plenty of people around who thought it was hard at first but enjoyed it a great deal once they mastered it.

No, I'm saying casual shouldn't take olympic level reaction times to pick up is all. How hard is that concept to grasp?

How hard is it to understand that casual in The Witcher 2 doesn't take olympic level? You're basically blaming the game for your own shortcomings.

Modifié par Fix1o0, 25 mai 2011 - 07:47 .

[Realmzmaster]

marshalleck wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

1varangian wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Bioware needs to take nothing from the Witcher 2. First of all Witcher is a single character game while DA series is a party based game. The witcher is telling the story of a character from the books. DA is telling its own story, with its own world.

1varangian wrote...

Mature, believable world and characters.

How is the world in the Witcher any more believable than DA's world? This is fantasy.  Are you saying let's have believable fantasy? I play fantasy games to get away from the world and have fun. If I want to see people cursing, selling/taking drugs and   having lots of sex I can walk down my block!

If you really want realism then lets go all the way! Let's worry about having enough food and water, changing clothes for different weather conditions and climates.  Putting our money in the bank. People getting mugged on the street corner.  People catching STDs (which DA2 does have. now that is realistic). The swamp in the Witcher 2 is not realistic. If you have ever been in a real swamp you will know. I been down to Bayou. There very little that is beautiful about a swamp.
I do not need that much realism in my fantasy. Some is good.

Compared to the Witcher's world, DA2 is a cartoon, visually. I don't like that. I get it that some people do.

Oh and mature is not the same as drugs, sex and swearing. It's choice and consequence.

Mature means intended for adults. Choice and consequence does not have an age barrier. Certain content in a game does.

One way Witcher 2 is more "mature" is the overall plot of the game being gritty political intrigue which was mostly pretty realistic/representative of a feudal society. As opposed to this mages vs. templars thing, which also had its own problems in presentation (most of the major themes in DA2 were badly undercooked).

I know that seems like an odd definition of mature, but it just felt like it was written by adults for other adults. As opposed to this weird Disney quality to Dragon Age 2--almost as if the writers thought everyone would get lost if they made the plot too complex, so instead they made every mage an evil demon-summoning blood mage, and every Templar a violent fascist. It was just felt unrealistically polarized, and my Hawke didn't want to side with any of those idiots. He wanted to help the Arishok burn the whole damn place down and start over. In Witcher 2 it's hard to tell the bad guys from the good; there really aren't any good guys. Just a bunch of realistically flawed people (and quite a few utter scumbags) scheming against each other. It's how a story with no cliched Ancient Evil/Big Bad to be overcome should work. 

What you are saying is that the Mage-Templar conflict was to black and white?  Many issues thoughtout history have been black and white and not shades of grey. The whole civil war was fought not because of slavery which was a contributing factor, but on state vs federal rights. The issue was black and white as far as the South and North were concerned. Same as the Mage-Templar fight. You pick a side there is no middle ground.
Many issues thoughout history have fallen into very polarized camps which do not make them unrealistic.

Edited for spelling

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 25 mai 2011 - 07:54 .

[Luvinn]

Fix1o0 wrote...

How hard is it to understand that casual in The Witcher 2 doesn't take olympic level?

At a certain point in TW2 you become so overpowered compare to the enemies too. At the beginning it can be hard, but if you make use of alchemy, bombs and traps its fairly simple on easy difficulty. I go the swordsman path, and once you get the aoe effect strikes (name of talent escapes me at the time), the major complaint is that the combat gets too easy.

[Realmzmaster]

Luvinn wrote...

Fix1o0 wrote...

How hard is it to understand that casual in The Witcher 2 doesn't take olympic level?

At a certain point in TW2 you become so overpowered compare to the enemies too. At the beginning it can be hard, but if you make use of alchemy, bombs and traps its fairly simple on easy difficulty. I go the swordsman path, and once you get the aoe effect strikes (name of talent escapes me at the time), the major complaint is that the combat gets too easy.

But you have to get to that point. If you are so frustrated with the game you may never reach that point. The game ends up on the shelf and off the hard drive. Which is why many games include tutorials and/or have an easy difficulty level that is truly easy. Then once you get the hang of it you can increase the level if so desired.

[Luvinn]

Realmzmaster wrote...


But you have to get to that point. If you are so frustrated with the game you may never reach that point. The game ends up on the shelf and off the hard drive. Which is why many games include tutorials and/or have an easy difficulty level that is truly easy. Then once you get the hang of it you can increase the level if so desired.

The problem is, people that find it impossible probably never use the tools that they are given. Easy is easy if you use alchemy, bombs and traps. Some fights i never even have to swing a sword. Using throwing knives, i beat the first letho fight in about 15 seconds. The in game tutorials tell you how to use each of these elements, and its makes the game incredibly easier if you do. Of course you could just go into every fight with outdated gear, weak weapons, and just left and right click, but it would be the equivalent of just spamming the awesome button in DA2

[Icinix]

Choice and consequence. Above all else this. TW2 showed just how incredible it can be and changed the game massively based on choices.

Not necessarily the art direction, but a push in graphics level would be nice.

Living world. Get people off of those walls they've been leaning on for ten years, get them involved if there is a fight, make them do STUFF. Its really, REALLY, starting to bother me playing BioWare games with the number of NPCs around that are no more than furniture.

[Auru]

I don't think they need to lift anything directly out of the witcher 2.

What they could do is put as much effort/love/mojo into there next game as these guys at cd project red put into theres

[In Exile]

Icinix wrote...
Living world. Get people off of those walls they've been leaning on for ten years, get them involved if there is a fight, make them do STUFF. Its really, REALLY, starting to bother me playing BioWare games with the number of NPCs around that are no more than furniture.

Bioware's never designe anything like this. It would mean that the entire studio has to change. You'd need programmers, designers... everything about Bioware production wise would have to be very different for it to work.

[Ariella]

Corto81 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...


Origins was the successor to Baldur's gate. Can we move on from Baldur's Gate already? Most of today's young gamers would never have played Baldur's gate.

Yes, and Origins was a smash hit.

So why step away from a winning formula? And willingly, at that?

It's not just that DA2 was bad.
It hurt their reputation, it really did.
Yes, there are a huge number of people who liked DA2, but apparently, even more who disliked it or decided simply not to buy it (judging by the sales numbers, for example).

Origins basic design was laid down in a different age. Look at 2003 vs 2008. Games changed in that period, especially RPGs, with Bioware itself leading the way with KotOR and Mass Effect.

Your argument doesn't hold, at all.

DA:O could've been made in 1990.
It was RELEASED in 2009.
And it's Bioware's best selling product to date.

Actually it does hold. DAO was a last gasp, the only reason it managed to be published in 2009 was because EA's takeover, prior to that Bioware couldn't find a publisher. Had it come out in 2004-2005 it probably would have done a great deal better than it did in even in 2009 (in probably would have been PC only), and we would have see less change in the sequels because you didn't have something like ME on the market, or the major changes in the market. Things changes drastically in the time between conception and publication.

[Morroian]

In Exile wrote...

Icinix wrote...
Living world. Get people off of those walls they've been leaning on for ten years, get them involved if there is a fight, make them do STUFF. Its really, REALLY, starting to bother me playing BioWare games with the number of NPCs around that are no more than furniture.

Bioware's never designe anything like this. It would mean that the entire studio has to change. You'd need programmers, designers... everything about Bioware production wise would have to be very different for it to work.

I don't think it matters as much in their normal hub based design with multiple locaitons but setting a game in 1 location like Kirkwall really demands that it be brought alive. It didn't bother me overly much but I can see how the game would have been improved with more work being put into Kirkwall and its inhabitants.

[Morroian]

Corto81 wrote...

DA:O could've been made in 1990.
It was RELEASED in 2009.
And it's Bioware's best selling product to date.

No it isn't, ME2 outsold DAO by a fairly large margin.

Modifié par Morroian, 25 mai 2011 - 10:37 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Morroian wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

DA:O could've been made in 1990.
It was RELEASED in 2009.
And it's Bioware's best selling product to date.

No it isn't, ME2 outsold DAO by a fairly large margin.

Link please.  All data I've ever seen indicates the exact opposite.

That is to say, DAO is Bioware's best selling game ever, and outsold ME2 by quite a large amount.

[Gotholhorakh]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

DA:O could've been made in 1990.
It was RELEASED in 2009.
And it's Bioware's best selling product to date.

No it isn't, ME2 outsold DAO by a fairly large margin.

Link please.  All data I've ever seen indicates the exact opposite.

That is to say, DAO is Bioware's best selling game ever, and outsold ME2 by quite a large amount.

Erm, do you have a source for that by any chance? I don't think you're right there.

[Morroian]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Morroian wrote...

No it isn't, ME2 outsold DAO by a fairly large margin.

Link please.  All data I've ever seen indicates the exact opposite.

That is to say, DAO is Bioware's best selling game ever, and outsold ME2 by quite a large amount.

http://www.vg247.com...eynote-develop/

[Tardyjay]

I decided to just say the same thing I've said to everyone else trying to make futile comparisons. The Witcher 2 is The Witcher 2. Dragon Age 2 is Dragon Age 2. If I wanted to play The Witcher 2 I would go buy The Witcher 2. I want to play Dragon Age 2. So I bought Dragon Age 2. Stop with these petty comparisons and just play what you like already. Constructive criticism or just leave the forums alone.