341 réponses à ce sujet

[robotnist]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

 So Since I was one of the many who waited for reviews to buy DA2, and consequently DIDN'T buy DA2, I'm going to address this here. I'm sure it's been said in the official thread, but as someone who loved DAO with a passion, one of the few games this generation I've played through multiple times: Too Little, Too Late.

For months, people on the forums voiced complaints, warned Bioware about the direction they were taking DA2. Quite bluntly, we were told to shove it. We got posts like Gaider's "Stages of A Dragon Age Fan", comparing our fear and anger to that of the stages of Grief. We got other posts saying that "Since we didn't play it yet, we couldn't judge".

Even more so, we got posts insisting that this game was in development long before DAO was released, and that it was NOT EA pushing Bioware to rush out a sequel to work with the whole "New Entry Each Year" that EA and Activision follow.

Then the game came out. With critic reviews that average a near 10 points below the original , and user reviews that are drastically lower, our fears were confirmed. The final nail in the coffin came from inside Bioware itself, confirming that our greatest fear was realized: DA2 was rushed out at the beck and call of EA. 

To end this ramble, my point is this: When you start releasing info about future games, don't look down your nose at your forum goers. Don't tell them that since they haven't played the game, their critiques are unwarranted. Don't post charts and insist that people are overreacting.

while your opinion matters, i take it with a grain of salt. does a game
fail because a group of people (whether minority or majority), hate it? using
this basis for judgment, mcdonalds is one of the best restaurants.

i
think that if were judging all biowares games on pure RPG merit, as what it seems with most posts dealing with the
disappointment of DA2, then i think my opinion may matter the most.

i
loved every RPG bioware made up until ME2 came out. while i really LIKE ME2, its no ME1 or DAO. and what blows my mind is that
people who loved DAO and ME1, went ape-poop for ME2 and then hated DA2...???
based on what evidence is being used for example, this theory seems unbalanced.
because DA2 is more RPG than ME2.

its also worth noting i love DA2. mind
you, i played DAO more on average over the first 6 months as well as ME1, but
DA2 is up there with KotOR and higher than NWN.

so based on these
theories, attempting to use evidence and factual analysis, does my opinion
matter more? not to mention i have actually played DA2 over and over. how could
someone who loved ME1, DAO and KotOR also love DA2 and it doesnt count for
something.

i think that it was quite a shock to see where the DA
franchise went, but i went in with an open mind after being a little belligerent
at the announcements about DA2 last year, dealing with a set protagonist, the
removal of dwarves and elves etc... but if i'm a bioware "fan", and i appreciate
bioware for its RPG execution, doesn't that mean that DA2 was a success? doesn't
it mean that more avenues are worth exploring in this vein?

[DariusKalera]

Huntress wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Thandal NLyman wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Thandal NLyman wrote...
...[Edit]  "Things that make you go hmmm..."  Scroll through the thread and notice the incredibly high percentage of posts by people who (judging by their game badges) don't actually have DA2.   

This isn't so much a thread about the quality of the game as it is about the quality of the "Bioware" that made the game, and the events leading up to the games release.

Which "quality" you are detemining based on the reports of others, (not having purchased, or apparently even played) the game yourself. 

What I'm saying is that when I read such opinions, knowing that they are based on second-  (or more-) hand knowledge, I discount them very heavily.  And for you to have started what is basically a "slam BioWare" topic, rather than responding dricetly to Mr. Laidlaw's "open letter" without  first-hand experience of the product under discussion seems more than a little, impertinent... to put it mildly.

If you're gong to address it's shortcomings, then come back and tell him (and the rest of us) what's "wrong" with DA2 after you've played it. 

This is in no way a "Slam Bioware" topic, and I get the feeling you are one of few who agree. Clearly by Mr. Eplers responses he, and Bioware, don't feel that way either. Secondly, I'd love to have responded directly to Laidlaw's post, but sadly he put it in a forum you need to have a registered copy of the game to post in. Again, Mr. Epler has agreed that we who did not purchase the game need a place to discuss his post, and has sensibly decided not to lock the topic.



Secondly, so you're argument is: "Buy a game that reviewers, videos, friends, and the demo all say you don't and won't enjoy, THEN you get to critique it"? Do you work for EA? I'm just curious, because you seem awfully insistent on me giving them money for something I don't want. Give me a free copy of DA2 and I'll play it.


There's this large misconception that you NEED to play the full game to know whether you like it or not. I'm going to tell you, and the others in this thread, that that's blatantly false. Thats the reason we have videos, demo's, and reviews. We aren't illinformed, we aren't people who came to this forum to complain about a game we know nothing about. Many of us have done research, many of us have followed DA2 for months before it released, and after it released.

You don't need to experience something for it to be true. If 9/10 people tell me that a new restauraunt has terrible food, am I obliged to eat that food, and pay for it, to say it has terrible food? Are you telling me that those 9/10 people are lying unless I eat there too? 

I can see the validity in disregarding the opinions of someone who knows nothing, or little about the item at hand. I'm not complaining about the story because I know very little about the story of DA2, only the premise. I'm complaining about the way the transparent development and buildup to DA2 was handled because I experienced that first hand.

If you played the demo ( like I and many others did) let me tell you, alot have changed this 4 months, If you play in a PC many of the things that really annoy us have been removed, thanks to mods.

1)Exploding bodies
2)Bosses drinking potions
3)Mages teleport
4)mages inmune shields
5)Rogues teleports
6)Character speed
7) More valance spells- all characters
8)Companions armors-yes you can put armors on them now.


The list go on and on, and all this have been done without a toolset.
I would like to thanks all the modders out there for making DA2 more enjoyable.

A patch is coming soon, hopefully will add some if not all of this for console players.

Now if you want to complain about the main chracter voice acting, well I can tell you that I love it and using sarcastic+diplomat rules, DA2 is not better that any other game out there, but is fun to play, mages got better this round, thats all I have to say.

Now, a simple question.

Is it acceptable for all those changes that you mentioned to be done by modders and not by EA/Bioware themselves?

I should be able to enjoy the game for what it is, and has, at launch and not have to wait for a third party to come along to fix bugs, over sights, and other annoyances to make a game playable.

[AmstradHero]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
This isn't so much a thread about the quality of the game as it is about the quality of the "Bioware" that made the game, and the events leading up to the games release.

That's odd, because your primary argument seems to be able the quality of the game and why you think it's terrible. That's not about events leading up to the game, that's about the game itself.

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
... your argument is: "Buy a game that reviewers, videos, friends, and the demo all say you don't and won't enjoy, THEN you get to critique it"? ... Give me a free copy of DA2 and I'll play it.

There's this large misconception that you NEED to play the full game to know whether you like it or not. I'm going to tell you, and the others in this thread, that that's blatantly false. Thats the reason we have videos, demo's, and reviews. We aren't illinformed, ...

You're confusing making an informed judgement on whether to buy a game with having an informed opinion on the game itself.  I can read reviews about the latest Sandra Bullock movie, know it's a romantic comedy, get told what it's like, and I can make an informed judgement that I don't think I'll like it. However, this in no way allows me to make an informed judgement on the quality of the movie itself because I haven't seen it. I am making my judgement based on other people's opinions. I have nothing on which to base an argument to judge the quality of the movie because I have no experience of watching it.

The thing I find most ridiculous with all the hate against Dragon Age 2 is that so much of the arguments declaring why it is such a horrible game are frequently poorly constructed and often stem from four misconceptions:
a) I expect DA2 to be exactly like DAO. - It's not, and that was never promised by the developers.

Combat sucks and is shallow because of waves - The combat style is different, not shallow. It's far less about positioning and pre-planning and more about threat management, cross-class skills and combos.

c) You don't get to make any choices, there's no roleplaying - Not entirely accurate. You just don't get to make choices that affect or prevent key catastrophic events. The "roleplaying" aspect in terms of minor effects is very well fleshed out in terms of how you change the lives of the little people throughout your interactions. To be honest, I'd actually say that's done better than DAO. It's the big choices where players get horribly railroaded into potential stupidity.

d) DA2 sucks, TW2 rules - This occurs so frequently on the forums that it's childish.

I have no issue with people making reasoned arguments about DA2's shortcomings. It has a lot of them, and I wouldn't argue that for a second. Heinous area reuse, awkward core plot development, major choice rail-roading... it has massive issues and I wouldn't argue for a second. I'm a BioWare fan, and I'll happily admit that. But I'm not a mindless fan who will praise every game they release.

To be honest, I had more fun playing DA2 than DAO, but I certainly consider it a worse game. I had more fun, but had less satisfaction once it was all over. There's an important distinction between the two, and there is no way I could have known that's how I would feel without having played it. Nor could anyone.

DA2 didn't have the deep roads that when on and on and on and on... It didn't have a palette consisting mostly of brown for 90% of the game. It had a lot more humour. It had multiple moments in the plot that took me by surprise.

DAO by comparison had a beautiful raft of choices that I could make to affect Ferelden's future. It had a vast scope filled with hundreds of individually crafted characters, and a world you could truly get lost in. But it had tedious combat that for most part involved just watching my warrior smack away at creatures because he had no stamina to do anything else. It was a story based around antangonists that gave me no real sense of fear or connection to my actions.

Both games inspired emotional reactions from events and characters. Both got me to care about (or hate) people I encountered. Both provided me with an adventure that I really wanted to finish. I could only make these judgements if I play the game and consider exactly what it is I like about the game, why I feel that way, and what elements of the game caused that reaction. That's what reviewing is. That's how a reasoned opinion is formed as opposed to mere opinion, and only reasoned opinions are useful in determining how to improve a game.

I want BioWare to listen to their customers. I want them to listen to the people who can clearly elucidate their concerns and the glaring problems with their games. If they listen to people who haven't played the game, they're going to make poor, knee-jerk reactions based on biased and ill-informed hearsay. If they do that, then we'll end up with an inferior product.

[AngelicMachinery]

DanaScu wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I would personally like another
180. Didn't feel this 180 was even necesarry, really. I mean the combat needed to get rid of the shuffling. Everything else was a trope and needed to be shaken up.

Fixed.

AngelicMachinery wrote...

I can't believe the rage is still burning this bright after such a long time. It's kinda funny.

Ain't it just?  :D:D

You know, you are the perfect audience for the new direction in EABioware games. Extremely short main quest, no long involved story, no inventory to keep track of, superfastandshinycombat, long stretches of cinematics that require no input from the player, voiced character [don't want to strain any imagination or anything], linear railroaded story; all of that is perfection for you.

If they keep streamlining, simplifying, restricting, and limiting, they might someday manage to make a game that even you wouldn't play. It would be interesting to see what that would take.

Come on,  don't you just think it's a little silly that people are still raging over a game?  No matter how half cocked it was this just seems a little sad really.  It's a bad game,  why keep throwing the same fit over and over and over again?  

[Ottemis]

DariusKalera wrote...
Now, a simple question.

Is it acceptable for all those changes that you mentioned to be done by modders and not by EA/Bioware themselves?

I should be able to enjoy the game for what it is, and has, at launch and not have to wait for a third party to come along to fix bugs, over sights, and other annoyances to make a game playable.

If it wasen't supposed to happen, it wasen't possible imho.
Their priorities with the game after release are not necessarily yours, just the way the cookie crumbles.
I do even remember seeing somewhere that Bioware is very glad to have modders 'fix' issues pre-patch, because it's an asset to the community. It does not mean they aren't aware of such issues and working on them.

Keep in mind that arguments like "the community does it faster" don't generally hold up, because we prioritize what we personally find important to fix singly, while Bioware tries to create priority out of a bucket of community complaints when working on bug fixes.
Also, aside from that, modders often provide crude solutions to problems, which Bioware obviously CANNOT do, as they are bound to actually make (asmuch as they can) sure a fix doesn't break something else inadvertently. 
Like pulling a couple of bricks out of a house and replacing it with another while trying not to have parts collapse as you do.

Modifié par Ottemis, 27 mai 2011 - 11:54 .

[tariq071]

I don't see why everyone is getting all wrapped up around the ML post.

He is prepping the ground for next DLC by showing few drawings of possible gameplay in hope that he will intrigue people and pretending really, really hard that nothing negative happened with DA II.

You know how people wanabee artists are, thinking that there is some sort of conspiracy at first sign of criticism of their work and never their fault.

Just another money grab PR strategy imho, and pretty obvious one that to.You can fall for it and buy it or not, but his post is not even remotely that importatnt to warrant any deep discussion whatsoever.

Modifié par tariq071, 27 mai 2011 - 11:45 .

[Fayth18]

Scimal wrote...

If you accurately predict the sales figures of ME3 at least one month before its release, I will concede that you are correct.

People predicted that the game would be bad by following it for months in advance and watching all the previews and developer diaries. I don't think anyone was sure it would sell terribly, but I for one hoped it would. I knew it wasn't going to be a proper sequel to DA:O and I sure as hell hoped fans of the franchise would vote with their wallets. Turns out a lot of them did.

[88mphSlayer]

oldmansavage wrote...

Everyones delicate sensibilities aside I come from a more commercial approach.  You make a product I don't like that I payed good money for then I have every right to spew forth vitriol, rhetoric or reasonable criticism, whichever I prefer.

yep

i try to be really polite about my spewing of vitriol at the very least

[Huntress]

"Now, a simple question.

Is it acceptable for all those changes that you mentioned to be done by modders and not by EA/Bioware themselves?

I should be able to enjoy the game for what it is, and has, at launch and not have to wait for a third party to come along to fix bugs, over sights, and other annoyances to make a game playable."

The patch takes longer because there is consoles that looks like need some type of premition? and then is PC. IF the consoles get it all done then very soon the patch comes for everyone. I play in a PC so I have no clue what console needs. sorry.
I can't speak for bioware or EA, not even for you, sorry!

I understand people are upset, heck many things still bothers me from DA2, but I don't let it eat me away and always try to see the better side of it.

I like DA2 and I love DAO, I want many thing from DA2 to be add to DAO, one of them is voice for the warden but, tell me, if thats acceptable to you?

I believe DA2 has introduced many good things, hopefully they will be added to any future DA games! I hope!

Modifié par Huntress, 28 mai 2011 - 12:00 .

[Lumikki]

What I can say, I'm pretty sure, I would not like any game developed by OP. DA2 did alot of mistakes, but it's not as bad people say it is. Also DAO is not as good people say it is. That's my opinion.

[Teredan]

Lumikki wrote...

What I can say, I'm pretty sure, I would not like any game developed by OP. DA2 did alot of mistakes, but it's not as bad people say it is. Also DAO is not as good people say it is. That's my opinion.

depends on what people, the nutcracks are few that praise da:O to the heavens, it's just that a lot of people are thinking it was way better than DA2

Modifié par Teredan, 28 mai 2011 - 12:11 .

[Stanley Woo]

This is a reminder to please keep your comment and arguments directed at the posts of your fellow community members, and not AT the community members themselves. Thank you.

[Scimal]

Fayth18 wrote...

People predicted that the game would be bad by following it for months in advance and watching all the previews and developer diaries.

This is the more casual definition of "predicted." You literally mean they assumed it would be "bad" (whatever that vague term subjectively means to you), and then expressed those assumptions. Prediction requires a cause and an effect that coincides more often than you would see with random chance.

People who predicted the game would be "bad" did so because they didn't personally agree with what was being done. Their subjective interpretation of the information at their disposal lead them to the conclusion that the game would not be worth their effort/money/etc.

That's fine. What's not fine is acting like assumptions are really facts after you've been vindicated by whatever metrics you choose to use. For an analogy, see the Doomsday cult. Like I said before, the only difference between one group's "predictions" is that for the Doomsdayers theirs didn't come to pass, and for people who felt DA2 wouldn't sell as well as DA:O, theirs did.

[Bostur]

Thandal NLyman wrote...

I'm coming to this thread a little late, and I'm not going to scroll through over 200 posts to see if there was an update, but did I read the OP correctly?!?

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

 So Since I was one of the many who waited for reviews to buy DA2, and consequently DIDN'T buy DA2...

Someone starts a topic to argue about comments made by the developer, regarding a product that they DIDN'T  buy?

I can almost see where this might have been appropriate as a post to that  thread, but to start a new one simply to argue the points that Mr. Laidlaw raised, (from the other perspective) seems both superfluous and more than a bit mean-spirited.

Based on the lack of a DA2 badge under the OP's avi, I'm guessing that they stuck with "didn't buy".  So I have to wonder if their opinions are based on second- (or third-) hand information.  And while it may not be totally without value, I heavily discount what someone thinks about a game they haven't played.  Gaming experiences are too subjective for one to make broad generalizations based on someone else's summary theirs.  I might make my own purchase decision that way, but I would never believe that I'm then in a position to tell the developer what's wrong with their creation. 

[Edit]  "Things that make you go hmmm..."  Scroll through the thread and notice the incredibly high percentage of posts by people who (judging by their game badges) don't actually have DA2.  

It's a common misconception that people who bought DA2 automatically have a badge beneath their avatar. For instance I bought it and registered it with this account, but I don't have a badge. It's a manual process and I didn't see much reason to add the badge. When BW chose to make 2 general forums I refused to add it out of principle.

Unfortunately a lot of people starts bashing others based on what icons they have beneath their avatar.

[ItsTheTruth]

AmstradHero wrote...

DAO had tedious combat that for most part involved just watching my warrior smack away at creatures because he had no stamina to do anything else.

This part I never understand (along with people complaining about warriors being slow when they charge). Do you play on a PC? With tactical camera you can follow the battle and switch to four different characters. That is what makes DAO combat so great. Why would you just control one warrior and smash buttons expecting something awesome to happen? That is not what the Dragon Age series is about.

...Oh wait.

Modifié par ItsTheTruth, 28 mai 2011 - 01:31 .

[AmstradHero]

ItsTheTruth wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

DAO had tedious combat that for most part involved just watching my warrior smack away at creatures because he had no stamina to do anything else.

This part I never understand (along with people complaining about warriors being slow when they charge). Do you play on a PC? With tactical camera you can follow the battle and switch to four different characters. That is what makes DAO combat so great. Why would you just control one warrior and smash buttons expecting something awesome to happen? That is not what the Dragon Age series is about.

...Oh wait.

Why yes, I do play on PC. In fact, if you decided to pay attention to my signature block, you'd note that I actually create mods for DAO, so I've plumbed the depths of the game and its mechanics fairly extensively. If I'm going to create decent mods for DAO (or any game, for that matter) I need to understand a lot about the game, not to mention games in general. if I didn't do that, I would feel too ashamed to release my work.

Yes, I can control four characters and get them to do multiple things, but the combat is still far less dynamic and a lot more pause, click, select, unpause, wait, wait wait, pause, click, select... Unless you change the default tactics, anyone you're not micromanaging will happily use up all their stamina and mana in the first few moments of combat, and then combat devolves into a waiting game of watching your characters slug it out.  Alternatively, you turn off tactics (or customise them a heck of a lot) and you actually get to control everything to the nth degree.

The thing is, you can still turn off tactics and control every action in DA2. The game still allows you to pause - though sometimes its detractors apparently forget this because they're too busy complaining about how fast and unrealistic the combat is and the fact that enemies come in waves. This doesn't mean you can't turn off tactics and micromanage your characters to your heart's content. That is still possible in DA2, it's just that the focus of combat in DA2 is different from DAO.

Let's take a generic encounter from both games.
A spider battle in DAO:
I approach, lay down an AOE, let the enemies get damaged as they come towards me (or wade into it if friendly-fire is off). I use taunt on my tank so that all the enemies are attracted to him. My rogue moves to a flanking position in order to do extra damage. My mage lays down some delibitating spells to impair the biggest spider. My offtank starts working their way through the stragglers and weaker spiders.

A spider overwhelms my tank and starts eating him. My offtank delivers a shield bash to get it off. My rogue potentially delivers a few high damage attacks using a large portion of their stamina.  My mage delivers focused fire on the spiders that might overwhelm my tank in order to dispatch them quickly.

Another spider overwhelms my tank. My offtank tries to shield pummel but misses/is resisted. My mage casts a stonefist and that gets it off.  Mage then delivers a heal to protect my damaged tank.

And so on...

A random street battle in DA2:
I approach, lay down me AOE and run into the fray. (Unless I'm on Nightmare, in which case I let them come to me). My warrior uses taunt to pull all the enemy aggro, and my thief immediately goes for a backstab on a commander to take it down. My offtank moves into dispatch the weaker enemies around my tank.

I note my rogue building up explosive strike charges, and my tank delivers a blow to stagger the slightly weakened commander. My rogue immediately exploits that by unleashing the explosive strike for massive damage, killing the commander. This immediately weakens the remaining enemies, who start dying quickly.

Suddenly a second wave drops in and starts swarming my mage. A quickly mind blast followed by a fatiguing fog puts the out of action and gives me time to move my mage to safety. At the same time, my tank uses scatter to capitalise on the disoriented enemies and deal a large amount of damage to the new enemies. My tank is then getting swarmed by the new wave and the weakened stragglers of the last and thus losing quite a bit of health. To help him, my offtank delivers a tremor to knock some of them down, and my mage delivers a chain lightning to inflict massive damage.

And so on...

There's more going on in DA2's combat. It forces me to adapt and gives me more ways to do so rather than forcing me to hold onto a handful of abilities I have to use sparingly in order to avoid running out of stamina/mana so I have them to counter specific enemy abilities when needed.

DAO's combat is about your initial positioning, planning out your strategy before you initiate combat. It's about timing the usage of your abilities so that you don't use up all your stamina/mana in the initial burst of the fight, and reserving abilities you need to counter specific enemy attacks like grabs and overwhelms. It's about placement to allow flanking and prevent enemy attacks like AOE and pull.

DA2's combat is about adapting on the fly to rapidly changing situations. It's about managing threat on individual party members and making sure that your tank has aggro rather than your mage or rogue getting ripped to shreds from sustained assault. It's about pairing up then abilities used by different classes and managing cooldowns such that you can exploit cross-class combos to obliterate smaller enemies rapidly and disable or impair bigger enemies.

The two styles of play are extremely different, as one demands you pre-plan your approach, whereas the latter forces you to throw your plans out the window and adapt on the fly because the situation turns to custard once you get into the thick of battle.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 mai 2011 - 02:27 .

[Addai]

Lumikki wrote...
Also DAO is not as good people say it is. That's my opinion.

You're wrong- it is that good.  That's just my opinion.

[Riloux]

I think, as long games are developed for consoles, and ported to the PC, we're never going to get a game like DA:O again. I guess we have to hope that they get really good at making great revolutionary console games.

Modifié par Riloux, 28 mai 2011 - 02:36 .

[neppakyo]

Riloux wrote...

I think, as long games are developed for consoles, and ported to the PC, we're never going to get a game like DA:O again. I guess we have to hope that they get really good at making great revolutionary console games.

heh. that made me laugh. In a sad way. 80% of devs can't do a decent job on the consoles as it is.

[Imrahil_]

Before DA2 came out, I read the forums about it & the reviews about it.  I was skeptical if I'd like it, despite the fact that I really enjoy Origins & am still enjoying it (I even bought Leliana's Song & Golems after DA2 came out).  From what I read at the time, they removed stuff I liked & didn't address the stuff I didn't like, so I didn't buy it.

For example, just stuff off the top of my head, limiting companion customization, ninja-combat, not addressing issues like Wynne->Blood Mage (made it worse even, Hawke->Blood Mage), removing specializations, removing dual-wielding warriors, less customization of the PC (only human, u r Hawke), no Skills, less Attributes, etc.  I didn't care that it wasn't a continuation of "my" Warden - that was fine - my Warden was way too powerful for a new game.

That was why I didn't buy DA2 (& thus am not allowed to comment on the "official" thread & tell them *why* I didn't buy the game - way to annoy me even more).

It wasn't until much later that I read about stuff like recycled areas, lack of important choices, wave combat, mutant elves, Skeletor Darkspawn, etc. The things people discovered & commented on while playing the game only reinforced my decision not to buy.

My problem with Laidlaw's post is that he doesn't understand why I didn't buy the game.  He only understands the reasons that people who bought the game hated the game. It sounds like he thinks all the reasons I didn't buy the game were great ideas, & the stuff people complained about while playing the game can be addressed.

It sounds like he wants DA3 to be a game I still won't buy, but with no recycled areas, more important decisions, & no wave combat - things that never should have happened anyway.

[jds1bio]

If you check out the DA2 tech forums, you will see that the next patch will be tweaking and balancing the combat in pretty substantial ways. Much less exploding bodies. You might actually like the combat after the patch. We'll see.

But the one thing that can't be patched, the effect your choices have on DA2's main story, will be staying the same. That is, zero. No rise to power and Hawke's choices having little effect on how the main story concludes. Even so, I still got three playthroughs worth from this game.

How many of you have been specifically replaying DA:O this month instead of DA2?

[kglaser]

Addai67 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Also DAO is not as good people say it is. That's my opinion.

You're wrong- it is that good.  That's just my opinion.

I have to concur.

When I first started DA:O, I didn't like it.  I couldn't put my finger on why...I just couldn't get into it in any way whatsoever.  I dropped it at Level 4 in the Korcari Wilds and shelved it for months.  I cursed my expenditure on a game that didn't captivate me, and played other things.

After 4 months or something, I figured, "I paid good money for this...I intend to finish it, dammit!"  So I gave it another shot, starting all over with a new character...and ended up loving the game.  I played it for something like 110 hours, but it didn't feel like it, so swiftly did it end for me.  I'm not going to go into all the reasons it sold me, but suffice it to say, I've played well in excess of 300 games, for multiple platforms, and I think I can recognize a quality game when I see one.  The sheer love and sweat and work that went into this impressive game are readily apparent; even if I hadn't ended up liking it, I would have had to fairly concede that.  The game is truly remarkable, which is all the more apparent when compared to its sequel.  Indeed, I feel that without the noteworthy achievement that is DA:O, DA2 would have gotten off a lot easier, simply because many felt it was such a comedown from its predecessor.

[Ottemis]

@Imrahil_

Seemingly not getting what you want doesn't mean they haven't seen or even considered your arguments.
Just means they're possibly just not thinking of 'heading in that direction'.
As-in, they choose to go another way then you'd pref seeing.

Modifié par Ottemis, 28 mai 2011 - 02:49 .

[Imrahil_]

Ottemis wrote...

@Imrahil_

Seemingly not getting what you want doesn't mean they haven't seen or even considered your arguments. Just means they're possibly just not thinking of 'heading in that direction'.
As-in, they choose to go another way then you'd pref seeing.

And that's fair.  It also means they won't be getting my money.

[Ottemis]

Imrahil_ wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

@Imrahil_

Seemingly not getting what you want doesn't mean they haven't seen or even considered your arguments. Just means they're possibly just not thinking of 'heading in that direction'.
As-in, they choose to go another way then you'd pref seeing.

And that's fair.  It also means they won't be getting my money.

Fair enough heh, but I really wouldn't worry about not being heard.
Getting a responce is another thing though.