252 réponses à ce sujet

[neppakyo]

mrcrusty wrote...

I find that stupid when talking about technical or design limitations. If anything, it should be much better in Dragon Age 2 because it's newer. Older games can do less than newer ones because of the tech.

But fine. Other contemporary examples of NPC reactivity?

Any Elder Scrolls game.

Any Fallout game.

Any Assassin's Creed game.

Any GTA game.

Any Witcher game.

And so on.

Not an impossible technical limitation. Either Bioware didn't have the time to put it in, or they didn't care to put it in. End of story.

Another prime example is playing as Nosferatu in Vampire: The Masquerde - Bloodlines.

Yeah I agree its not due to technical limitations. And perhaps a mixture of didn't care/didn't want to.

I still need to get a copy of Vampire The Masquerde..

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I'm really on the "they didn't have time" side of the fence, a lot of the game felt rushed before it was ready but what really annoyed me was how they defended it as conscious design decision.

To me, it felt like they were going "yeah! we know that having gameplay that contradicts a central element to the main plot isn't the best idea, and that other games including our own -which had this exact same problem- have been able to keep them consistent for decades, but the fact is we don't want to make it consistent. Deal with it."

That was just annoying.

[Eski.Moe]

- Combat was pretty fun, with the exception of exploding bodies.
- The Companions and drawn out quests for them. If only they had a default set of questions you could ask them at any time in addition to whatever quest they need doing. Asking about adventures, past decisions and whatnot.
- Antagonists like the Arishok. The way the whole Qunari invasion was handled, though I would've liked more detail. Things were just touched on here.

[RaenImrahl]

mrcrusty wrote...

To me it borders on a plot hole, especially since games have the interactive element. What you do/see in gameplay is still part of the story.

But I can accept the argument it's not. It's just immersion breaking for me either way.

I think that's fair.  There was one conversation with the Templar Cullen when Anders chimed in (a little snottily) and I too was distracted by it.  I think, had the game had more time to be polished, there could have been things to mitigate the immersion break-- for example, if more had been made about how the Templars, and others, didn't want to mess with Hawke or those under his protection.  That was the rationale I came up with in my head.  Polishing some of the dialogue would have kept me from working so hard to reach that conclusion, and thus kept my head "in the game."

neppakyo wrote...

Even in the witcher, you draw your sword, and the guards will come and warn you to put it away, and if you don't..

Every game is going to have its little elements which detract or re-enforce the story.  I did notice this in the Witcher, when I wasn't grinding my teeth at the abysmally monotone voice acting.  Different elements will impact peoples' immersion in the game differently.

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 30 mai 2011 - 04:42 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

RaenImrahl wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

To me it borders on a plot hole, especially since games have the interactive element. What you do/see in gameplay is still part of the story.

But I can accept the argument it's not. It's just immersion breaking for me either way.

I think that's fair.  There was one conversation with the Templar Cullen when Anders chimed in (a little snottily) and I too was distracted by it.  I think, had the game had more time to be polished, there could have been things to mitigate the immersion break-- for example, if more had been made about how the Templars, and others, didn't want to mess with Hawke or those under his protection.  That was the rationale I came up with in my head.  Polishing some of the dialogue would have kept me from working so hard to reach that conclusion, and thus kept my head "in the game."

I think a few quests and interactions with Cullen and Aveline would've gone a long way in disarming the problem. In Act 3, it becomes easier to understand, but in Act 2 and Act 1 especially, it was very jarring. The "Mages aren't normal people. They aren't like you or me" type of dialog sticks out too.

I think it was made all the worse as the last RPG I had sunk my teeth into was New Vegas, which absolutely thrives on such consistency and factional interaction.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 30 mai 2011 - 04:46 .

[neppakyo]

RaenImrahl wrote...

I think that's fair.  There was one conversation with the Templar Cullen when Anders chimed in (a little snottily) and I too was distracted by it.  I think, had the game had more time to be polished, there could have been things to mitigate the immersion break-- for example, if more had been made about how the Templars, and others, didn't want to mess with Hawke or those under his protection.  That was the rationale I came up with in my head.  Polishing some of the dialogue would have kept me from working so hard to reach that conclusion, and thus kept my head "in the game."

I did like the concept of DA2, it was just poorly done imho, and its the first BW game I couldn't complete more than once. The first time was a huge chore. And I still think hawke him/herself is a poor protagonist. Feels like a poor mans Shepard, but gone horribly wrong.

To the bolded part. Thats a good rationale for that, something (the time thing again) that definatly would of added more to the game.

RaenImrahl wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

Even in the witcher, you draw your sword, and the guards will come and warn you to put it away, and if you don't..

Every game is going to have its little elements which detract or re-enforce the story.  I did notice this in the Witcher, when I wasn't grinding my teeth at the abysmally monotone voice acting.  Different elements will impact peoples' immersion in the game differently.

If you have ever read the two witcher books that are available in english, the VA for Geralt fits him perfectly. TW2 immensly improved the VA. Overall very good, but some improvement is needed. I should try the polish voices and see how it works.

[RaenImrahl]

Since I chimed in, I guess I am obligated to address the original poster's premise, lest I be accused of trolling

What DA2 did right:
-- Improved the combat timings over Origins.  No more lag.
-- Vastly improved how DLC is authorized in the game.
-- Made effective use of the "framed narrative" idea, whether you agree with the choice to use it or not.  Without spoilers, there's one point half-way through the game where Varric's penchant for embellishment comes through gloriously.
--  Made the companion characters interesting, or at least notable.  I cared about some of them and hated others.
--  Made a compelling antagonist in the Qunari (admittedly at the expense of some other antagonists). 

As to what didn't work, that's been cataloged many places, including in my own post on the subject.

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 30 mai 2011 - 04:53 .

[Zeevico]

Re: combat timings. This is an issue only in as much as DAO and DA2 were both action RPGs rather than turn-based RPGs.

DAO went halfway as semi-turn based. Without revealing the turn mechanics, however, or letting you play turn by turn, meant that players inevitably complained that the game's combat wasn't reactive. Run away and still get hurt by the swords, etc. Whereas in NWN or BG2, the turn-based mechanics were plain to see.

DA2 attracts much the same criticism as DAO for the same reason, but less so. Good examples of these flaws includee include the Arishok fight and the Varric Act III Golem fight.

Modifié par Zeevico, 30 mai 2011 - 05:01 .

[RaenImrahl]

neppakyo wrote...

If you have ever read the two witcher books that are available in english, the VA for Geralt fits him perfectly. TW2 immensly improved the VA. Overall very good, but some improvement is needed. I should try the polish voices and see how it works.

Interesting.  Going back to the Tolkien analogy, if you listen to the director's commentary on the movie version of "Fellowship of the Ring", the writers say explicitly that they gave Aragorn a sword to use in the first half of the movie because audiences would think it silly otherwise.

So perhaps the lesson there, and by extension with DA2, is that sometimes what works on the page doesn't work in other media.  Issues like this don't always become obvious until you see the translation... in the case of DA2, from script to final game.  So, the point about timing and polish, versus intent of the writers, seems valid.

Wow, I'm doing too much thinking for a weekend. 

[LobselVith8]

RaenImrahl wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

So, the story and plot about mage vs templar, and how the templars are crushing the mages, making them tranquil.. and if you happen to be amage, and have mage companions that isn't a plot hole?

*shakes head*

To me, the term "plot hole" implies some negligence or unintended mistake on the part of the writers.  For better or worse, I don't think this is the case in DA2 where mage characters and companions are concerned. 

Isn't it negligence that an apostate Hawke and his apostate companions aren't recognized as illegal mages for most of the storyline? Wouldn't it have been better to preclude scenes where members of the guard and templars would see Hawke and his mage companions using magic, rather than ignoring that such an event happened?

RaenImrahl wrote...

Given the story they chose to tell in DA2, I think it would have been difficult... or better, unenjoyble for the gamer... if mage Hawke or mage companions were totally under the heel of the templars from day one.  The alternative... to preserve the in game "logic" of the situation... would be to NOT allow gamers to play mages.  Imagine the bloody outcry if *that* had happened.

It could have been handled without ruining our immersion. We could have avoided scenes where templars, like Cullen, witnessed Hawke performing magic instead of denying the option for the protagonist to be a mage. Simply because the creators didn't handle it appropriately doesn't mean exclusion would be the solution. Malcolm, after all, went to Kirkwall as an illegal mage.

RaenImrahl wrote...

I haven't played DA2 yet as a mage.  So in my play-through, I had Bethany with me.  Around the end of Act I/beginning of Act II, there was some pretty significant mage-templar stuff with her. So they did address it in the game, though not, maybe, to the extent that the in-game "logic" would dictate.  Hence, it was a choice, for good or ill. 

In my opinion, I didn't find it significant. Bethany wrote a letter at the beginning of Act I, and she was there at the end of Act II. It also bothered me how Bethany's imprisonment was handled. Hawke can defeat an Abomination and an Ancient Rockwraith, but he can't deal with two templars? Especially after what he finds out happened to the Harrowed mage Karl in "Tranquility"? I don't see any logic in Hawke doing nothing about this when it comes to the well-being of a family member.

[neppakyo]

RaenImrahl wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

If you have ever read the two witcher books that are available in english, the VA for Geralt fits him perfectly. TW2 immensly improved the VA. Overall very good, but some improvement is needed. I should try the polish voices and see how it works.

Interesting.  Going back to the Tolkien analogy, if you listen to the director's commentary on the movie version of "Fellowship of the Ring", the writers say explicitly that they gave Aragorn a sword to use in the first half of the movie because audiences would think it silly otherwise.

So perhaps the lesson there, and by extension with DA2, is that sometimes what works on the page doesn't work in other media.  Issues like this don't always become obvious until you see the translation... in the case of DA2, from script to final game.  So, the point about timing and polish, versus intent of the writers, seems valid.

Wow, I'm doing too much thinking for a weekend. 

I'm sure if DA2 was given a proper development time it would of been a better game. As it stands, I still can't fathom why they did a complete 180 and threw out almost everything DAO. With the short dev time it wasn't a good idea.

And quick, no thinking! Drink more alcohol! No Vodka. No Pass.

[craigdolphin]

What was done well in DA2?

The Qunari retcon was good IMO
The skill trees were better than in DAO. (Although I think it would be better to have one large skills tree around a central device, instead of several independent ones like DA2. That way you'd be able to benefit by particular complementary combinations)
The option to hide the helmets was fantastic.
Friendship/rivalry system was good.

And that's about all I can say for it, sadly.

[TaHol100]

After very hard thinking I found two things that were improved:
-Isabela looks better
-Giant shoulders in armors are gone

That is not much

[In Exile]

Zeevico wrote...

Re: combat timings. This is an issue only in as much as DAO and DA2 were both action RPGs rather than turn-based RPGs.

DAO went halfway as semi-turn based. Without revealing the turn mechanics, however, or letting you play turn by turn, meant that players inevitably complained that the game's combat wasn't reactive. Run away and still get hurt by the swords, etc. Whereas in NWN or BG2, the turn-based mechanics were plain to see.

I just want to point out, both games were real-time with pause, like DA:O. The real-time mechanism was just implemented differently. Bioware has never done true turn based combat.

ETA:

What I liked:

The pace of the combat
The friendship/rivarly system
The PC VO
   On that note, the tone icons
Some of the revamped armours/weapons
The new mage staff style
Some of the new mage spells
The new talent trees for warriors & rogues (Vanguard, etc.)
The qunari redesign
Moving away from the 'save the world' plot, even if poorly done
A hero who could not care about the central conflict (if only we had one that could care)

Modifié par In Exile, 30 mai 2011 - 06:54 .

[Xewaka]

What DA 2 did Right:
Varric.
Skill webs rather than lines.

What good ideas it executed poorly:
Force Mechanics (good concept, needs a bit of rebalancing)
Cross class Combo (good concept, but intra class combos were a needless casualty)
Wave combat (used judiciously, it would have made certain encounters much more interesting. As is, it's just boring, repetitive, and a drag on)
Crafting Overhaul (it was supposed to remove the clutter in the character sheet. It removed what made building the character something else than making a lawnmower)
Unique Companion Characterization (Rather than giving them unique, personal skills, and extra choices to make them shine in their specialization field, they removed any option to be built as anything else than field specialists, removing the flexibility in party composition in DA)

[Mecher3k]

TaHol100 wrote...

After very hard thinking I found two things that were improved:
-Isabela looks better
-Giant shoulders in armors are gone

That is not much

Isabela was such a minor character in DA:O that her looks didn't matter at all.

And giant shoulders? LOL, lay off the drugs.

[Renoscott]

To me DAO2 was a VAST improvment of the first i just wish they took a little more time to add some more stuff, Like have more dungens maps and more monsters skins Fighting shades and spiders is cool but where are the Bears? Wolfs? wheres the demons of greed? and smoth? The story of DAO2 is vary good to like you sed and mades the seconday quest feel really important One thing they did right in the story is have it vary dinamic in the conversations you have with people, For exsample once you first arive in Kirkwall and you talk to the first guard, if you investagate a little and then head inside to the 2nd guard, theres a diolog pice that you can select from.
DAO2 is REALLY good and i do love this game but with how few dungen maps there are and so few monster skins(and iv only gotten to chapter 2 in the middle) this game dosnt supass the first but it DID do alot right.

[neppakyo]

Renoscott wrote...

(and iv only gotten to chapter 2 in the middle)

Act II is the only good part in DA2..

[Renoscott]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

(and iv only gotten to chapter 2 in the middle)

Act II is the only good part in DA2..

And Varric being a bro. Though Vernon has him beat in the bro department.

Varric is always awsome in my mind

[bEVEsthda]

Daveros wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Now the first thread like this had a lot of people, who liked DA2, posting about the things they adored. Since many of those things are exactly the same things that make a lot of us others blow out temple veins, they ARE NOT THINGS DA2 did "right". They may well be *Things I liked in DA2*, but they are definitely not hings done "right".   

 

I absolutely challenge this. It seems to me that you are saying: "If you like it, but I do not, it cannot be the correct thing to have done.", which is just ridiculous.

I think Dragon Age 2 did more right than just about any sequel I have ever played. It took the game in a direction that stopped it from being a repetitive indulgance solely for fans of the older schools of RPG and made it into a very interesting property. It needs polishing, yes, but it's streets ahead of DA:O already.

If all you're going to focus on is not being able to change armour on your companions, or NPCs not running from the rain ("What? The weather doesn't change in ten years? My God, I can't play this game!"), then you'll miss one of the best games of recent years; and it'll be all your own fault.

- Thankyou for so perfectly illustrating my point! And proving me right!
You liked DA2. Now what is "right" or not may be viewed as just opinion. ( I for instance, regard the notion, that DA2 is "streets ahead of DA:O already", as absolutely ludicrous. My opinion is that there is not one single instance where DA2 is ahead of DA:O) However, in the context of learning something from DA2, as in the failure DA2, "right" is not a matter of just opinion. As for the purpose of avoiding another failure, we cannot find out what DA2 did "right" from you or other persons who think DA2 is "one of the best games of recent years". Beacause this game didn't fail because of you.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 30 mai 2011 - 05:16 .

[neppakyo]

Renoscott wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

(and iv only gotten to chapter 2 in the middle)

Act II is the only good part in DA2..

And Varric being a bro. Though Vernon has him beat in the bro department.

Varric is always awsome in my mind

One of the very few things DA2 did right. Act I and Act III are a mish-mash of a mess imho. Its been explained to death about the poor handling of the story, so I wont go into that.

[andar91]

There were several things I really liked; graphically, it looks nicer. I also can't rant and rave enough about how much I like the new talent/spell progression and the talents/spells themselves. The animations were also well done for the most part. All of the companions were interesting; I think the story was better were the character interaction is concerned, it's the plot that was lackluster. There're probably more, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

[Theagg]

Mister_Shepard wrote...

Bioware should be taking some notes from The Witcher 2. Picking TW2 over DAII is a no brainer if you compare them side-by-side.  

Just had to put that out there. Although I do love me some DAII, TW2 is my new lover, and I haven't even played it yet! But i know that I'll love it  

Well, that's an opinion.

My opinion is that despite all of TW2's claimed superiority over DA 2 when it comes to role playing (better story, more in depth, more pathways through the plot etc) you still can't divorce all that from the required combat part of the game.

And the combat in TW2 is full on twitchy action style.

A style of combat I really don't enjoy. So in spite of the other bits in TW2 supposedly being better, the fact I would have to deal with that degree of twitch based combat in order to progress through the game means I'm not going to feel encouraged to do so. Therefore its a no brainer to choose DA2.

[grey_savant]

Compare the tepid High Dragon fight in DA:O to the much more dynamic and challenging High Dragon fight in DA2. The boss fights were greatly improved.