1373 réponses à ce sujet

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Actually all of the things you point out, expect for the recycled enviroments which everyone seems to think is a bad idea (myself included) it's almost always made in comparison to what they could do in DAO. I haven't really seen much complain about the new combat system. The companion customization I've seen mainly revolves around the armor issue. The major complains I've seen have been more to the line of "why can't I play an elf/dwarf", "why does my PC have to be voiced", "I can't RP a VO protaginst" "DAO was so much better that DA2 for (fill in the blank)"

Do I think there are places that DA2 could have done better, yes. The story needs a little tightening up, as I've mentioned before. I would have liked what (I think it was DG) suggested in frontloading character conversation a bit more. The option to kill Sebastian when he makes certain demands would have been nice, but that's just me. And more Deep Roads. I adore the DR, they were the first set of dungeons I actually enjoyed..

But there was (feel free to go look back around release date) a great deal of "This wasn't a direct sequel" commentary. And it does obscure the more important things, but it's the people who scream about it in the first place who drown out legit commentary.

Your projecting, imposing your views onto what others have said in order to try and belittle one side of the argument aka those who dislike aspects of DA2. Where they never once compared it to the prequel you impose the comparrison on them so please stop doing that. There was some who relate the sequel to the prequel but they also base criticism seporate from it aswell.

Actually, there was a lot of comparing DA2 to DAO, I distinctly recall several threads where you yourself complained to that effect. mind you, I was of the opinion that you may have not intended to appear that way, but you did.

[thebatmanreborn]

JohnEpler wrote...

devSin wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Alright, folks. Let's try to bring this off Yet Another Thread About The Witcher 2. It's fine to mention it as a comparable, but I'd rather not have another thread hijacked by debating its merits.

I hope there's like a whole mess of posts you deleted or something. ;-)

I caught the post just before mine and realized where this was inevitably heading.

Moderate the forums enough and you'll be able to recognize a derail before it's even really starting I don't have any problem with discussing TW2 (as it does some things quite well and I think it's a worthy game to discuss), but I don't think we have to enter into another 'no, YOU'RE wrong' debate about the merits of the two games as so many of these debates tend to turn into.

I think its cool that TW2 appears to be an Xbox 360 console exclusive (its obviously on the PC right now).  Should be announced shortly at e3.  In the meantime, there are some things they did well...and some things (like some bugs and some of the cheap combat) that was not done so well.  Still, when are we getting some DLC for DA2??? 

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ariella wrote...

KennethAFTopp wrote...

Ariella wrote...

[As for the accusations of half truths and out right lies... I saw neither when I played DA2. With the exception of the recycled enviroments, most of what I saw in the complaints was subjective in that this game wasn't DAO2 or that they didn't like the framed narrative etc.

That's a bit of a limited view of the criticisms of DAII.

I think it's a rather fair summary. In all the pages of I've read since this game came out, what stands out is the fact that this game isn't Origins, have the exact same options (like varied races as Origins) and generally is not a direct sequel. That's not to say there haven't been other legitmate complaints  (bug issues for example). But the fact that DA2 isn't  a direct Warden filled sequel to DAO frustrated a lot of people who should have known better.

Don't insult us. We know the difference. Most of us base our criticisms both on the reality of DA2 as a seporate entity and as a sequel to DAO and explain as much generally quite clearly differently and seporatley. There is a level of subjective debating going on but to brand most of our criticisms as mostly subjective is too much and rather arrogant.

I'm not insulting you personally, I'm pointing out what I've seen from a lot of many threads here on this forum. And I would say there's a minority that bases itself on criticism of legitmate facts. The majority of the people who complained about DA2 did just as I said. And even the criticisms that were legitimate did have subjective elements (not liking the new art style for example is subjective). As Mike has pointed out, the issue with the exploding bodies will be fix, was a bug and not a concious design choice.

Dragoonlordz, you've been on this board as long as I have, you seen the, er, flostom that needs to be waded through to get to any meat here. You, Angrywater, and a few others are that minority who are reasonable, and make good points, but for each one of you it seems there are ten people who are pissed off because this wasn't DAO2, and I don't just say this as some generalization but as experience,

[Dragoonlordz]

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Actually all of the things you point out, expect for the recycled enviroments which everyone seems to think is a bad idea (myself included) it's almost always made in comparison to what they could do in DAO. I haven't really seen much complain about the new combat system. The companion customization I've seen mainly revolves around the armor issue. The major complains I've seen have been more to the line of "why can't I play an elf/dwarf", "why does my PC have to be voiced", "I can't RP a VO protaginst" "DAO was so much better that DA2 for (fill in the blank)"

Do I think there are places that DA2 could have done better, yes. The story needs a little tightening up, as I've mentioned before. I would have liked what (I think it was DG) suggested in frontloading character conversation a bit more. The option to kill Sebastian when he makes certain demands would have been nice, but that's just me. And more Deep Roads. I adore the DR, they were the first set of dungeons I actually enjoyed..

But there was (feel free to go look back around release date) a great deal of "This wasn't a direct sequel" commentary. And it does obscure the more important things, but it's the people who scream about it in the first place who drown out legit commentary.

Your projecting, imposing your views onto what others have said in order to try and belittle one side of the argument aka those who dislike aspects of DA2. Where they never once compared it to the prequel you impose the comparrison on them so please stop doing that. There was some who relate the sequel to the prequel but they also base criticism seporate from it aswell.

Actually, there was a lot of comparing DA2 to DAO, I distinctly recall several threads where you yourself complained to that effect. mind you, I was of the opinion that you may have not intended to appear that way, but you did.

I have done both actually. But if your coming from the viewpoint of if you ever compare anything between the two that everything you say is a comparisson then that viewpoint is flawed. It is easy to debate both aspects without having to be branded as one camp or another. Some of my opinions are subjective some are objective.

@ Ariella
And yes I have been here while now and yes I have seen such subjective threads and opinions but you can't brand them all or even most as such. There are obviously exceptions but you cannot claim most are doing it. Sometimes someone will say something subjective they might then say something objective and factually different or flawed but you can't or more precisely shouldn't brand them as mostly subjective as that is quite insulting. It's using a broad paint brush to cover a vast amount of people and their opinions. I'm not having a go really I'm just saying your using too big a term and generalisation of us fans for my liking.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mai 2011 - 03:52 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Ariella wrote...

MassFrost wrote...

Ariella wrote...

KennethAFTopp wrote...

Ariella wrote...

[As for the accusations of half truths and out right lies... I saw neither when I played DA2. With the exception of the recycled enviroments, most of what I saw in the complaints was subjective in that this game wasn't DAO2 or that they didn't like the framed narrative etc.

That's a bit of a limited view of the criticisms of DAII.

I think it's a rather fair summary. In all the pages of I've read since this game came out, what stands out is the fact that this game isn't Origins, have the exact same options (like varied races as Origins) and generally is not a direct sequel. That's not to say there haven't been other legitmate complaints  (bug issues for example). But the fact that DA2 isn't  a direct Warden filled sequel to DAO frustrated a lot of people who should have known better.

That's interesting, because I haven't seen that complaint on anywhere near the scale that I have criticism over the new combat system, recycled environments, lack of companion customization, etc. Complaining that DA2 isn't a direct sequel to DA:O isn't a valid complaint and shouldn't be taken as one, and to sum up all criticism of the game as "people were just expecting DA:O2" only serves to diminish the real issues people have had with the game.

Actually all of the things you point out, expect for the recycled enviroments which everyone seems to think is a bad idea (myself included) it's almost always made in comparison to what they could do in DAO. I haven't really seen much complain about the new combat system. The companion customization I've seen mainly revolves around the armor issue. The major complains I've seen have been more to the line of "why can't I play an elf/dwarf", "why does my PC have to be voiced", "I can't RP a VO protaginst" "DAO was so much better that DA2 for (fill in the blank)"

Do I think there are places that DA2 could have done better, yes. The story needs a little tightening up, as I've mentioned before. I would have liked what (I think it was DG) suggested in frontloading character conversation a bit more. The option to kill Sebastian when he makes certain demands would have been nice, but that's just me. And more Deep Roads. I adore the DR, they were the first set of dungeons I actually enjoyed..

But there was (feel free to go look back around release date) a great deal of "This wasn't a direct sequel" commentary. And it does obscure the more important things, but it's the people who scream about it in the first place who drown out legit commentary.

What you've written there does have some element of truth to it - complaints are often framed with reference to DA:O.  However, I think you may be mistaking the reason for this referencing.  DA:O was considered by many to be a fantastic game, full of great features.  When somebody complains that DA2 does not allow you to do something that DA:O did (e.g. play as an elf/dwarf), the complaint is not really about DA:O at all - it is noting that a great feature is not present in DA2.

The fact that DA:O had the feature is a moot point.  What does matter, what drives the complaint, is that DA2 does not have the feature.

It is completely illogical to dismiss all complaints that reference another product.  If other products did not exist, the consumer would have little idea of what was 'good' or 'bad' and have little to say at all.

People were not complaining because DA2 was not DA:O 2, they are complaining because they do not believe it had many great features.  DA:O did happen to have many great features.

[Serpieri Nei]

Ariella wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Derrick1011 wrote...
Look at The Witcher 2. That game shows what the medium is capable of, and indeed what you are capable of accomplishing. Your challenge is to exceed the standards set there.

More story. More choices. More quality art. More personality.

We don't get any points for having more controllable party members, or, say, playable genders?

Don't get me wrong, I think TW2 is great, and I hope it does very well. There's not enough fantasy RPG out there.

Why would you get points for controllable party members when you have done quite a lot to take that control away from the player? But at least I have the male and female option left for the protagonist right?

Take control away? Where? I missed that memo? I can still control what my party members do, what they specialize in, weapons and trinkets. I'm actually glad I don't have to worry about the armor, because that was a pain and it gives each of the characters a more unique feel IMO to have their own personal armor.

Did I say I can't control the party members Ariep? 

I'm actually not glad that I don't have the ability to choose the weapons/armor/role my companions play. Are you saying that Fenris was unique because of what he was wearing. If that’s the case, then why give them a voice, a story, goals, or even character since it's the clothes that fleshed them out.

Modifié par Serpieri Nei, 27 mai 2011 - 03:49 .

[highcastle]

[quote]Serpieri Nei wrote...

I'm aware Hawke can be a BM and a SH, and it makes no sense. I'd be all for them making certain specs mutually exclusive to jibe with the lore. BM is about working with demons, being a SH is about working with spirits. Those two entities don't normally get along well. Case in point: Justice. Try to do anything with a demon around that guy, and see how he takes it.

As for weapons styles, it gets trickier. I can buy that Aveline, for instance, as a soldier recieved training in a certain style. The same for Fenris and his position as a bodyguard. And Varric and Bianca...why would you even want to separate them? The fact that he named his crossbow says a lot about the guy. It makes no sense that he'd swap her out for something else.

This isn't DnD, you're right. But that doesn't mean people can do whatever they want. People have certain sets of skills (like Liam Neeson). They may not be trained for every circumstance. And when they have established backstories or personalities, that may not fit with the people you want them to be. Should they change to suit you? No. You can't change people that way in real life. 
[/quote]

Are you going to point out why it makes no sense and provide some kind of backing from the lore? The mage doesn't have to sign an agreement with a demon or a spirit to gain access to those spells. Are we also forgetting, how limited the blood magic is when a player or a companion has access to it? I can't summon demons, I can't control people's mind in cut scenes?

As for weapon styles, soldiers are trained in various weapons/fighting styles, as were gladiators, as were Spartans, as were Samurai's, and even in today's military. 

So all the other companions should have had weapons they named as well? Since they didn't what's stopping them from picking up something special that was given to them or they found. I would throw away my 2hander if I had located a magical long sword without hesitation or are we applying some game mechanics that don't exist? I'm pretty sure; Fenris doesn't get +5 when using two handed swords due to specialty.

Protagonist/Companions can do whatever they want if they are not restricted but it comes down to one very simple fact. They are one and the same. [/quote]

I thought I did. It's canon that BM is learned through demons. This is how you get the spec in Origins. Tahrone mentions it in DA2. Merrill mentions it. Anders mentions it. "You look a demon in the eye and you accept its offer," he says to Fenris. That Hawke isn't shown accepting the offer is irrelevent. It occurs off-screen, a case of gameplay and story segregation.

Likewise, the SH abilities come from a spirit. Hence the spirit portion of the name. This was established in Origins via conversations with Wynne. 

Spirits do not get along with demons. Evidence: Justice's reactions to the Baronness in Awakening. Justice's reaction to Torpor in DA2. I don't see a demon and spirit coinciding peacefully. I don't see them working together, as they'd have to in some small way for Hawke to be both a blood made and a spirit healer.

As for fighting styles, yes groups collectively were trained in various disciplines. As an individual, you tend to specialize. And Varric's not part of an army. He has a sentimental attachment to Bianca that's very much a part of his character. Yes, if another character felt as strongly for their weapon as Varric does for Bianca, they shouldn't use anything but that.

I'm for consistency of story over gameplay. I play BioWare games for the characters, for the writing, for the plot. Not so much for playing dress up with a bunch of dolls. If there's a story-based reason for things being as they are, I'm fine with it. There is, so I'm fine with it. Companions have their own backgrounds and personalities which reflect their equipment and their skills. Lore factors into this as well. I'm cool with it. You don't have to be (that's the marvelous thing about opinions, isn't it?).

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Actually all of the things you point out, expect for the recycled enviroments which everyone seems to think is a bad idea (myself included) it's almost always made in comparison to what they could do in DAO. I haven't really seen much complain about the new combat system. The companion customization I've seen mainly revolves around the armor issue. The major complains I've seen have been more to the line of "why can't I play an elf/dwarf", "why does my PC have to be voiced", "I can't RP a VO protaginst" "DAO was so much better that DA2 for (fill in the blank)"

Do I think there are places that DA2 could have done better, yes. The story needs a little tightening up, as I've mentioned before. I would have liked what (I think it was DG) suggested in frontloading character conversation a bit more. The option to kill Sebastian when he makes certain demands would have been nice, but that's just me. And more Deep Roads. I adore the DR, they were the first set of dungeons I actually enjoyed..

But there was (feel free to go look back around release date) a great deal of "This wasn't a direct sequel" commentary. And it does obscure the more important things, but it's the people who scream about it in the first place who drown out legit commentary.

Your projecting, imposing your views onto what others have said in order to try and belittle one side of the argument aka those who dislike aspects of DA2. Where they never once compared it to the prequel you impose the comparrison on them so please stop doing that. There was some who relate the sequel to the prequel but they also base criticism seporate from it aswell.

Actually, there was a lot of comparing DA2 to DAO, I distinctly recall several threads where you yourself complained to that effect. mind you, I was of the opinion that you may have not intended to appear that way, but you did.

I ahve done both actually. But if your coming from the viewpoint of if you ever compare anything between the two that everything you say is a comparisson then that viewpoint is flawed.

My viewpoint is that some of the comparisions were used to utterly villify Bioware, and a great number of people freaked out by assuming that bioware didn't care, when they were busy collating data on the bugs and glitches. people gave them some undeserved flak by maliciously, even deliberately, flaming the devs over minor things.

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Actually all of the things you point out, expect for the recycled enviroments which everyone seems to think is a bad idea (myself included) it's almost always made in comparison to what they could do in DAO. I haven't really seen much complain about the new combat system. The companion customization I've seen mainly revolves around the armor issue. The major complains I've seen have been more to the line of "why can't I play an elf/dwarf", "why does my PC have to be voiced", "I can't RP a VO protaginst" "DAO was so much better that DA2 for (fill in the blank)"

Do I think there are places that DA2 could have done better, yes. The story needs a little tightening up, as I've mentioned before. I would have liked what (I think it was DG) suggested in frontloading character conversation a bit more. The option to kill Sebastian when he makes certain demands would have been nice, but that's just me. And more Deep Roads. I adore the DR, they were the first set of dungeons I actually enjoyed..

But there was (feel free to go look back around release date) a great deal of "This wasn't a direct sequel" commentary. And it does obscure the more important things, but it's the people who scream about it in the first place who drown out legit commentary.

Your projecting, imposing your views onto what others have said in order to try and belittle one side of the argument aka those who dislike aspects of DA2. Where they never once compared it to the prequel you impose the comparrison on them so please stop doing that. There was some who relate the sequel to the prequel but they also base criticism seporate from it aswell.

I know what I saw, DL, and please stop acting like this is all aimed at you. There were a great many people (more than I care to keep track of) who overstepped the bounds of a critical response to the game and just whined that this isn't what they wanted and they wanted either free stuff or refunds in conpensation. If you skipped those posts, I don't blame you, but I know what I saw.

[mesmerizedish]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

Would you mind addressing the only glaring complaint not in the big four I had with DAII, the shortage of named items. It was so tedious running though 20 "rings" instead of the one "ring of Vitality" I was saving for a tank

Very good point, and one I agree with.

I think a random magic item naming scheme similar to Diablo II's would be great. Each property has a suffix and prefix, so a random +health ring could be that "Ring of Vitality." A staff with +% fire damage would be "Pyromancer's Staff." And so on.

I think item descriptions are overrated. Unique items should have them (which is why each of my companion armors in my mod, Diversified Follower Armors, has a description written by the beautiful Maria Caliban). But those randomly generated items really don't need them.

You actually sort of did this, with the really cool items getting codex entries. I love that you guys did that. But I also really missed having just a few sentences on the item itself.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 27 mai 2011 - 03:54 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Ariella wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Actually all of the things you point out, expect for the recycled enviroments which everyone seems to think is a bad idea (myself included) it's almost always made in comparison to what they could do in DAO. I haven't really seen much complain about the new combat system. The companion customization I've seen mainly revolves around the armor issue. The major complains I've seen have been more to the line of "why can't I play an elf/dwarf", "why does my PC have to be voiced", "I can't RP a VO protaginst" "DAO was so much better that DA2 for (fill in the blank)"

Do I think there are places that DA2 could have done better, yes. The story needs a little tightening up, as I've mentioned before. I would have liked what (I think it was DG) suggested in frontloading character conversation a bit more. The option to kill Sebastian when he makes certain demands would have been nice, but that's just me. And more Deep Roads. I adore the DR, they were the first set of dungeons I actually enjoyed..

But there was (feel free to go look back around release date) a great deal of "This wasn't a direct sequel" commentary. And it does obscure the more important things, but it's the people who scream about it in the first place who drown out legit commentary.

Your projecting, imposing your views onto what others have said in order to try and belittle one side of the argument aka those who dislike aspects of DA2. Where they never once compared it to the prequel you impose the comparrison on them so please stop doing that. There was some who relate the sequel to the prequel but they also base criticism seporate from it aswell.

I know what I saw, DL, and please stop acting like this is all aimed at you. There were a great many people (more than I care to keep track of) who overstepped the bounds of a critical response to the game and just whined that this isn't what they wanted and they wanted either free stuff or refunds in conpensation. If you skipped those posts, I don't blame you, but I know what I saw.

This is the last post I will put on this aspect. You appear to have become bitter and point it out and put down everyone who uses anything subjective attacking them with what others have done in the past in order to belittle their point of view. You seem to think that something subjective is not valid when in reality it is in relation to a persons enjoyment not everything has to be factual regarding flaws to be allowed to post their opinion whether it's subjective or not.

[Mike Laidlaw]

scyphozoa wrote...

Hi Mike, I'd like to ask you about Dragon Age as an open-world game, or a sandbox. One of my biggest issues with DA2 was the heavily instanced level design, as well as the World Map+Day/Night interface. I really disliked this interface as I felt it dwarfed the game world and made it feel very contained and small. I am a big fan of sandbox games, so my opinion is very biased towards large, open worlds. Would you be willing to consider a departure from DA2's World Map and level design to move towards a more open-world design for DA3?

Presuming there will be a DAIII, I expect that level variety and open-ness will be important areas of focus for us. I don't know that we'd move completely to an open world game (ala Fallout/Elder Scrolls), but a more open game certainly would not hurt.

Again, that's a ways off, but I can give you a sense of my leanings/inclinations.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

Would you mind addressing the only glaring complaint not in the big four I had with DAII, the shortage of named items. It was so tedious running though 20 "rings" instead of the one "ring of Vitality" I was saving for a tank

Very good point, and one I agree with.

I think a random magic item naming scheme similar to Diablo II's would be great. Each property has a suffix and prefix, so a random +health ring could be that "Ring of Vitality." A staff with +% fire damage would be "Pyromancer's Staff." And so on.

I think item descriptions are overrated. Unique items should have them (which is why each of my companion armors in my mod, Diversified Follower Armors, has a description written by the beautiful Maria Caliban). But those randomly generated items really don't need them.



You actually sort of did this, with the really cool items getting codex entries. I love that you guys did that. But I also really missed having just a few sentences on the item itself.

I give my Dark Seal of Bloodstained Approval!

+100,000 Approval

Friendship bonus: + 1.5% chance to invoke The Blood-Lord's gift, a rare and forbidden secret of Blood-Magic persuasion.

Modifié par Blood-Lord Thanatos, 27 mai 2011 - 03:59 .

[Dave of Canada]

Serpieri Nei wrote...

I'm actually not glad that I don't have the ability to choose the weapons/armor/role my companions play. Are you saying that Fenris was unique because of what he was wearing. If that’s the case, then why give them a voice, a story, goals, or even character since it's the clothes that fleshed them out.

Clothes don't flesh them out completely, clothes help in fleshing them out? It gives them an identity?

[ZombiePowered]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

ZombiePowered wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Is this an armor thing? It sounds like an armor thing. If so, I hear ya!

I'd just like to add that companions having their own dress style is definitely a good thing. Limiting us 100% to a single outfit is a bit much, but simply adding customization to those outfits (or, time willing, multiple outfits, and, more time willing, maybe the option to have companions customize their own appearance in the same way the player would) would be the best option. In Origins I felt like I was leading a plate-clad clone army, which naturally brought back Attack of the Clones flashbacks. Attack of the Clones flashbacks are never something a game should seek to induce in its players.

The way I see it ~

I consider personality forged through dialogue not what they wear, I could wear jeans and t-shirt or a tutu neither of which changes my personality just my fashion sense. It wouldn't take anymore imagination to use the concept that what gear you equip your companions to wear was something they wanted to wear.  

With Morrigane I put some different clothes on her, she was still Morrigane,she still spoke and acted like Morrigane and her personality was the same so this limitation in DA2 bares no relation to me as far as set personalities.

Of course personality isn't dependent on clothing--it's vice versa. People have their own tastes, which are part of their personality. Fashion sense is an external manifestation of personality. Most people view what they wear as a method of showing others who they are. Wearing something else doesn't change that, but if someone has a strong fashion sense the likelyhood of them wearing clothing outside of their style is rather small. For example, I could wear a kilt. I have that potential. But I'm not going to do it. Because that is really not my style. It'd be like asking Isabela to put pants on. No way would she do that.

Point is, companions should maintain their style. It adds personality to their looks, makes them more characterful. And we all like character.

[John Epler]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

By the way John, why have you only got two registered Bioware title's under your profile, as a Bioware developer shouldn't you have them all?

Mostly because I've never gotten around to registering them I actually worked on all of them but Awakenings! But excellent point. Time to register the rest!

[General Malor]

Nice Mike, good to see that you're listening and what not. I personally loved Dragon Age 2, aside from a few technical issues (Ander's glowing eye things moving, same goes for candle flames) I thought it was wonderful. With Origins and Dragon Age 2 I can really tell that you all are moving to better understand how to give us a superior product, that is both familiar and new at the same time. It is in no way an easy task and I highly praise Bioware for being daring enough to take that risk.

With Dragon Age 2 there was a sizable amount of features from Origins that I missed, but so much that I enjoyed. I can really see how this will be only a jumping point for great and innovative installments in the series. The world already has a feel all it's own, which is amazing in the "nothing new under the sun" gaming market we currently have. It's all games being made into movies, books into games, television into broadway... okay maybe not the last one, but I'm sure you get the point about recycled entertainment. From the gate Dragon Age: Origins was new and familiar in an astounding way, same goes for Dragon Age 2. Both had their own flavor while being very much a Dragon Age title. And the two games stand just as that, two separate games. Dragon Age 2 wasn't Origins with a new story, playing it safe. It was a move away from some of the problems.

So the fact is I love the games, I really, really admire Bioware's abilities in terms of creating brilliant new worlds(Mass Effect, Jade Empire, Dragon Age), and I'll be playing them for as long as they are made. I have a review I'm planning on writing for the constructive criticism thread that I hope, but am pretty sure, you will read. I hope one man's opinion helps.

P.S.- In terms of all the haters... burn those blighted nug-humping, Darkspawn loving haters with the wrath of the Maker himself. All those haters would make a Broodmother look good... I'll tell you they got faces that not even Andraste could love.

P.S.S.- if you won't be "unprofessional" with the haters, can I be? (Without getting banned of course.)

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

JohnEpler wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

By the way John, why have you only got two registered Bioware title's under your profile, as a Bioware developer shouldn't you have them all?

Mostly because I've never gotten around to registering them I actually worked on all of them but Awakenings! But excellent point. Time to register the rest!

Lord Epler will rule the forums during the NIGHT!

[Kinkaku]

No Mike Thank You! I personally liked the game even for its flaws. Thanks for posting this.

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Actually all of the things you point out, expect for the recycled enviroments which everyone seems to think is a bad idea (myself included) it's almost always made in comparison to what they could do in DAO. I haven't really seen much complain about the new combat system. The companion customization I've seen mainly revolves around the armor issue. The major complains I've seen have been more to the line of "why can't I play an elf/dwarf", "why does my PC have to be voiced", "I can't RP a VO protaginst" "DAO was so much better that DA2 for (fill in the blank)"

Do I think there are places that DA2 could have done better, yes. The story needs a little tightening up, as I've mentioned before. I would have liked what (I think it was DG) suggested in frontloading character conversation a bit more. The option to kill Sebastian when he makes certain demands would have been nice, but that's just me. And more Deep Roads. I adore the DR, they were the first set of dungeons I actually enjoyed..

But there was (feel free to go look back around release date) a great deal of "This wasn't a direct sequel" commentary. And it does obscure the more important things, but it's the people who scream about it in the first place who drown out legit commentary.

Your projecting, imposing your views onto what others have said in order to try and belittle one side of the argument aka those who dislike aspects of DA2. Where they never once compared it to the prequel you impose the comparrison on them so please stop doing that. There was some who relate the sequel to the prequel but they also base criticism seporate from it aswell.

Actually, there was a lot of comparing DA2 to DAO, I distinctly recall several threads where you yourself complained to that effect. mind you, I was of the opinion that you may have not intended to appear that way, but you did.

I have done both actually. But if your coming from the viewpoint of if you ever compare anything between the two that everything you say is a comparisson then that viewpoint is flawed. It is easy to debate both aspects without having to be branded as one camp or another. Some of my opinions are subjective some are objective.

@ Ariella
And yes I have been here while now and yes I have seen such subjective threads and opinions but you can't brand them all or even most as such. There are obviously exceptions but you cannot claim most are doing it. Sometimes someone will say something subjective they might then say something objective and factually different or flawed but you can't or more precisely shouldn't brand them as mostly subjective as that is quite insulting. It's using a broad paint brush to cover a vast amount of people and their opinions. I'm not having a go really I'm just saying your using too big a term and generalisation of us fans for my liking.

I'm one of us fans too, DL, and in my mind there have always been two groups of people who've been critical of DA2. Group A) are the ones who actually want to see a better game come out of the experience, even if they were disappointed with DA2, and they make both objective and subjective criticism clear. Group is pretty much the ones who either didn't pay attention or didn't want to pay attention, and got themselves burned for their troubles. This second group is the loud one. The ones who wanted Mike and others fired etc.

But going back to the original original reason I posted, I don't see where Bioware lied (ie was maliciously misleading) or used half truths. I do believe expectations were very high, and the game disappointed some, but there's a world of different between not completely hitting the bar with a fan base and lying.

DL. I may not agree with you, but I do tend to respect you. I hope the middle ground between what did work in Da2 and what did work in DAO can be combined with some new tricks in DA3. Good criticism will get that, but until recently the good criticism was being drown out by noise coming from other corners.

[Dragoonlordz]

JohnEpler wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

By the way John, why have you only got two registered Bioware title's under your profile, as a Bioware developer shouldn't you have them all?

Mostly because I've never gotten around to registering them I actually worked on all of them but Awakenings! But excellent point. Time to register the rest!

Hehe, yeh might be wise.

It's a bit odd and don't know if see why I mention it but it's odd because you kind of expect the developers to own a copy of each of their games and played them (even awakening). Though given how busy you are I could fully understand why wouldn't have time to enjoy them all between projects. Just seeing the fans owning more games from a developer than the development staff have registered themselves was a little wierd.

[Daveros]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Presuming there will be a DAIII, I expect that level variety and open-ness will be important areas of focus for us. I don't know that we'd move completely to an open world game (ala Fallout/Elder Scrolls), but a more open game certainly would not hurt.

Again, that's a ways off, but I can give you a sense of my leanings/inclinations.

Just don't make it boring. Sandbox games are booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring.

[mesmerizedish]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Presuming there will be a DAIII, I expect that level variety and open-ness will be important areas of focus for us. I don't know that we'd move completely to an open world game (ala Fallout/Elder Scrolls), but a more open game certainly would not hurt.

Again, that's a ways off, but I can give you a sense of my leanings/inclinations.

I think looking back toward Baldur's Gate would do some good in that direction. I know that designing a 3D level is a more complex task than designing a level in a 2D sprite-based game. I don't think it's practicable under today's development schedules and philosophies to have the number of areas BG did.

But I think you need to do your best to recreate the same feeling of exploration for players. The Witcher 2 did a great job of that, though I think the walkable area often made less-than-perfect sense.

[Serpieri Nei]

highcastle wrote...

Serpieri Nei wrote...

I'm aware Hawke can be a BM and a SH, and it makes no sense. I'd be all for them making certain specs mutually exclusive to jibe with the lore. BM is about working with demons, being a SH is about working with spirits. Those two entities don't normally get along well. Case in point: Justice. Try to do anything with a demon around that guy, and see how he takes it.

As for weapons styles, it gets trickier. I can buy that Aveline, for instance, as a soldier recieved training in a certain style. The same for Fenris and his position as a bodyguard. And Varric and Bianca...why would you even want to separate them? The fact that he named his crossbow says a lot about the guy. It makes no sense that he'd swap her out for something else.

This isn't DnD, you're right. But that doesn't mean people can do whatever they want. People have certain sets of skills (like Liam Neeson). They may not be trained for every circumstance. And when they have established backstories or personalities, that may not fit with the people you want them to be. Should they change to suit you? No. You can't change people that way in real life. 

Are you going to point out why it makes no sense and provide some kind of backing from the lore? The mage doesn't have to sign an agreement with a demon or a spirit to gain access to those spells. Are we also forgetting, how limited the blood magic is when a player or a companion has access to it? I can't summon demons, I can't control people's mind in cut scenes?

As for weapon styles, soldiers are trained in various weapons/fighting styles, as were gladiators, as were Spartans, as were Samurai's, and even in today's military. 

So all the other companions should have had weapons they named as well? Since they didn't what's stopping them from picking up something special that was given to them or they found. I would throw away my 2hander if I had located a magical long sword without hesitation or are we applying some game mechanics that don't exist? I'm pretty sure; Fenris doesn't get +5 when using two handed swords due to specialty.

Protagonist/Companions can do whatever they want if they are not restricted but it comes down to one very simple fact. They are one and the same. 

I thought I did. It's canon that BM is learned through demons. This is how you get the spec in Origins. Tahrone mentions it in DA2. Merrill mentions it. Anders mentions it. "You look a demon in the eye and you accept its offer," he says to Fenris. That Hawke isn't shown accepting the offer is irrelevent. It occurs off-screen, a case of gameplay and story segregation.

Likewise, the SH abilities come from a spirit. Hence the spirit portion of the name. This was established in Origins via conversations with Wynne. 

Spirits do not get along with demons. Evidence: Justice's reactions to the Baronness in Awakening. Justice's reaction to Torpor in DA2. I don't see a demon and spirit coinciding peacefully. I don't see them working together, as they'd have to in some small way for Hawke to be both a blood made and a spirit healer.

As for fighting styles, yes groups collectively were trained in various disciplines. As an individual, you tend to specialize. And Varric's not part of an army. He has a sentimental attachment to Bianca that's very much a part of his character. Yes, if another character felt as strongly for their weapon as Varric does for Bianca, they shouldn't use anything but that.

I'm for consistency of story over gameplay. I play BioWare games for the characters, for the writing, for the plot. Not so much for playing dress up with a bunch of dolls. If there's a story-based reason for things being as they are, I'm fine with it. There is, so I'm fine with it. Companions have their own backgrounds and personalities which reflect their equipment and their skills. Lore factors into this as well. I'm cool with it. You don't have to be (that's the marvelous thing about opinions, isn't it?).

Care to point out the spirit that I talked to in Origins/DA2 to gain access to healing? Oh wait in origins it was bought in the Wonders of Thedas shop in Denerim or from Levi after  you complete Warden's Quest. You can also gain access to unique blood abilities drinking from a vile. You are partially correct  on how Blood Magic is learned, but you still haven't shown why Merril or why Hawke is not capable of using both. What demon offer are you referring too in DA2, all I had to unlock Blood magic was reach the appropriate level to specialize in it.

Already showed how spirit healing didn't come from a spirit. And how demons and spirits interact has nothing to do with the use of blood magic or spirit healing. Also let’s not forget that a certain blood mage had an apprentice and was willing to teach him. As far as we know, the Demon passed on the knowledge. So Whats stopping him from teaching it to another?

Is that why in Origins I was able to have Leliana use daggers instead of that Bow which she felt strongly about? Or how I can make Sten use a different weapon then the one he was searching for?

edit - Blood Magic 

Blood mage is one of the mage specializations in Dragon Age:
Origins and Dragon Age: Origins -
Awakening. A blood mage is a mage
who employs dark rites, originally taught to mortals by demons, in order to access more powerful magic. A blood
mage must be willing to sacrifice his/her own life force or that of others in
order to wield this power. 

Modifié par Serpieri Nei, 27 mai 2011 - 04:20 .