341 réponses à ce sujet

[AmstradHero]

Imrahil_, you've been given a partially inaccurate representation of the game:

limiting companion customization - only armor modification has been removed. Companions actually have custom and unique skill trees for their character.
ninja-combat - "Correct." I'll concur the animations are over the top, but that doesn't impact on gameplay.
not addressing
issues like Wynne->Blood Mage (made it worse even, Hawke->Blood
Mage) - Correct, but this was also an issue with DAO. Not really much change here. I'd actually argue it's worse in DAO in this case, because you can turn Wynne into a blood mage as she still carries on about how evil blood magic is at every turn.
removing specializations - Completely false.
removing dual-wielding warriors - Correct. That said, I never saw this as a negative, as it makes warriors more distinct from rogues.
less customization of the PC (only human, u r Hawke) - Correct. It's a set character. In DAO you were The Warden. You always assume a role, DA2 just pre-defines it a little more than DAO.
no
Skills - Correct.
less Attributes - False.

This is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about, There are gross exaggerations about the importance of certain aspects (you can still get more than enough of an inventory management fix from DA2), neglect the weakness of DAO (Wynne is case in point), or are making out-right inaccurate claims (Where did you pull "no specializations" from?)

I love seeing reasoned criticism of DA2, as there's a lot that can be learned from some of the very significant mistakes that it makes. It's just unfortunate that it seems the vast majority of the criticism is inaccurate or focused on trivialities rather than the big issues, or so filled with vitriol and hatred that the important messages that could and should be conveyed are lost.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 mai 2011 - 03:12 .

[Edhriano]

I do not find

1. Recycled copy paste maps
2. Armor restriction 'hawke'
3. Spawn from thin air Mobs
4. Kill everyone ending no matter which side you choose

To be fun and enjoyable, and yeah my opinion. :innocent:

Modifié par Edhriano, 28 mai 2011 - 03:23 .

[neppakyo]

Edhriano wrote...

I do not find

1. Recycled copy paste maps
2. Armor restriction 'hawke'
3. Spawn from thin air Mobs
4. Kill everyone ending no matter which side you choose

To be fun.

What about the herp derp tonal paraphrasing? Ya know, the three choices. Happy, retarded, and douchey.

[Edhriano]

neppakyo wrote...

Edhriano wrote...

I do not find

1. Recycled copy paste maps
2. Armor restriction 'hawke'
3. Spawn from thin air Mobs
4. Kill everyone ending no matter which side you choose

To be fun and enjoyable, and yes my opinion :innocent:.

What about the herp derp tonal paraphrasing? Ya know, the three choices. Happy, retarded, and douchey.

Hmmm I don't know if odd would be the proper word for it.

To put it simple if a choice among this 3
a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe

and I choose ex: b it would make sense if my hawke say : No
But instead my hawke say ... well I think you get the idea. :innocent:

[neppakyo]

Edhriano wrote...
Hmmm I don't know if odd would be the proper word for it.

To put it simple if a choice among this 3
a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe

and I choose ex: b it would make sense if my hawke say : No
But instead my hawke say ... well I think you get the idea. :innocent:

Yeah.. like NPC: "Oh, can you do this and this for me?" hawke: "No" NPC:" Great! I knew I could count on you!" *Quest added to journal* FUUUUUUUUUU......

[Imrahil_]

[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Imrahil_, you've been given a partially inaccurate representation of the game:
[/quote]
I do not think that word means what you think it means. 
[quote]
limiting companion customization - only armor modification has been removed. Companions actually have custom and unique skill trees for their character.
[/quote]
Right, that's limiting my companions.  I can't make them anything I want.  For instance, if I put enough time/xp into Zevran, I could make him a Lockpicking master.  He was a "Rogue", regardless of anythng else, & he, & Leliana, & my PC had all the same skillsets available.  And they could swap armor.  *I* could customize them.  They weren't pre-customized, which is where I think we're using the word "customize" differently.  Not saying you're wrong, just using the word different.
[quote]
ninja-combat - "Correct." I'll concur the animations are over the top, but that doesn't impact on gameplay.
not addressing
[/quote]
We agree.
[quote]
issues like Wynne->Blood Mage (made it worse even, Hawke->Blood
Mage) - Correct, but this was also an issue with DAO. Not really much change here. I'd actually argue it's worse in DAO in this case, because you can turn Wynne into a blood mage as she still carries on about how evil blood magic is at every turn.
[/quote]
Exactly.  That's what I said.  They took an issue that was messed up in DA1 & made it worse in DA2 instead of fixing it.
[quote]
removing specializations - Completely false.
[/quote]
I was under the impression that you could no longer be an Arcane Warrior, or a Reaver, or a Spirit Warrior in DA2.  Did they replace them with something at least, or are they just "gone"?  I could be mistaken, I admit.  I also could have phrased that poorly - I meant removing *some* of them, not all of them.  My mistake if so.
[quote]removing dual-wielding warriors - Correct. That said, I never saw this as a negative, as it makes warriors more distinct from rogues.
[/quote]
More choice > Less choice.  I liked that you could at least choose this.
[quote]less customization of the PC (only human, u r Hawke)
- Correct. It's a set character. In DAO you were The Warden. You always assume a role, DA2 just pre-defines it a little more than DAO.
[/quote]
We agree.
[quote]
Skills - Correct.
[/quote]
We agree.
[quote]
less Attributes - False.
[/quote]
How so?  I thought you had less attributes in DA2?  May be wrong, though, Or maybe it was that I read they had less impact.
[quote]
This is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about, There are gross exaggerations about the importance of certain aspects (you can still get more than enough of an inventory management fix from DA2), neglect the weakness of DAO (Wynne is case in point), or are making out-right inaccurate claims (Where did you pull "no specializations" from?)
[/quote]
I could be wrong, although the less specialiazations part I think I'm right on, given the "removed some of them" not "removed all of them" interpretation.
[quote]
I love seeing reasoned criticism of DA2, as there's a lot that can be learned from some of the very significant mistakes that it makes. It's just unfortunate that it seems the vast majority of the criticism is inaccurate or focused on trivialities rather than the big issues, or so filled with vitriol and hatred that the important messages that could and should be conveyed are lost.
[/quote]
One man's trivialities are another man's game-breakers.  I haven't ever posted my reasons for not buying DA2 before, & I didn't spend a whole lot of time on my initial post, so I probably missed some stuff, but the fact is that am a DA:O enthusiast, while ackowledging it has a lot of flaws (I even wrote a long post on my criticisms of it - I can probably dig it up if you want), & yet I didn't buy DA2, after reading up on it.  I don't reget that decision.

[Imrahil_]

Here we go:

http://social.biowar...66/index/471808

My post on what I felt were the problems of DA:O. I don't feel like DA2 addressed them, only added problems.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The tones system is actually fine, it's just these tones or personalities weren't really relating to choices you made. So the system of tones was basically all the character development you got. Not only that, but the sometimes inaccurate paraphrasing of dialog options made it hard to actually develop the character in a way which you wanted.

The best dialog options (imo) are ones that don't require the character to say something unexpected. It should be something you determine for your character.

Some people argue this leads to boring, bland or stale dialog, I disagree. Fallout 1/2/NV and especially Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines stand out as having excellent player responses. They were clear enough to convey their own meaning and actually make choices with consequence but open enough to allow the player to develop your character's personality. It's just a matter of writing, really.







Difficult to convey meaning, intent or personality via text?

Yes. I'm sure.

[empetus]

Thanks for this, I was going to respond in the official post you refer to but then it said you had to be a registered game owner to even comment. WTF?  Anyway. 

I also didn't buy DA 2, based on what I read about where the design was heading.
Turns out I was correct, from the many reviews I've read I know I would have hated it.

I think the lead designer, Mike Laidlaw,  holds a lot of the blame. I read his supposed apology and it sounds like he is still not accepting of the main focus of the criticism, in that his vision of how DA 2 should be designed was a horrifically flawed one, and he still believes that with a few minor tweaks the Dragon Age franchise will yet prosper with his direction.  I heard sales were not great with DA 2, and I feel that if Laidlaw is not replaced by a lead designer who understands why DA:O was such a success in the first place, that the DA franchise will continue to lose support and end up being cancelled.

I have no faith in Laidlaw as a designer and I doubt I will be surprised when DA 3 is rushed out the door either. It might be the case that Origins will be the last good deep rpg Bioware ever makes unfortunately. The company perhaps sold out and now is only interested in yearly installments of shallow action rpgs and psuedo-rpg shooters. I say if Bioware is so jealous of the kind of numbers in terms of sales that games like the Call of Duty series generates, then go ahead and abandon all pretense as a rpg developer and make a first person shooter!
I would be interested to see what Bioware came up with to be honest, I like shooters. But as an old school rpg player, I'm not interested in consolish arcadey rpgs. And even if I was, then Diablo 3 is what I would buy, not some mediocre imitation. Anyway, the days of masterpieces like Baldur's Gate series is long behind Bioware unfortunately. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Updated just in case someone "important" from Bioware happens upon to read this thread: What would I do to get back the fans support and make my next game a blockbuster?  Go back to your roots. Get inspiration from Baldur's Gate. Yes, 6 character parties. Yes, complexity. Yes, high difficulty and challenge.   Yes, elaborate story with multiple side branches, each with deep substance. Yes,  extensive exploration with freedom to go places just on a whim, with nothing there but some obscure side quest or unexpected mini-dungeon waiting to be discovered. In short, an epic and no compromises game that has multiple levels upon layers to explore. A game that can take possibly a couple hundred of hours to see everything. That would be awesome, but who am I kidding. It won't happen again unless an upstart little known studio with much to prove creates it.

Modifié par empetus, 28 mai 2011 - 08:09 .

[Edhriano]

empetus wrote...

Thanks for this, I was going to respond in the official post you refer to but then it said you had to be a registered game owner to even comment. WTF?  Anyway. 

How right you are . Why do people keep on insist ,
not register = don't have game = never play it = don't make comment.
It is hilarious. 

[csfteeeer]

AmstradHero wrote...

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.

your statement of fun combat is one that many people (myself included) don't share(especially pc gamers, at least for what i have seen).
i could simply say DA2 combat is more fluid and faster, which it is, but what does that mean?
i don't like to feel like i just won a battle because i improvised, that's just not satisfactory, the combat in DAO was very rewarding because it was difficult, the combat in DA2 was way too easy, or cheap, as in nightmare the only class that really works is the warrior, as mages are almost useless, except for support, as well as rogues.
in DAO, you see almost immediately the amount of enemies that you are going to fight, except and the final bits of the game, so you're always like "ok, what should i do to survive this", and when you do, is very rewarding.
in DA2, the combat gets to be so crazy and any plan you have for strategy swiftly descent into a button mashing fest, sure, you would think that the abilities are still there, and they are, but they are so useless, i did not had to use for a large proportion of my time, which only made it less satisfying.
in DA2, the fact that the enemies just pop out of nowhere out of thin air is ridiculous.
what im trying to point out here, is that DA2 is a game that does not feel rewarding for me because is so random, and the constant explosions right in my face are just boring, then again, you seem to look for a different type of entertaiment that i do, so at the end, you and i just have different ideas of what is rewarding and what is not, so i don't really think you have the good idea to say that DAO was tedious because you didn't like it.

[Serpieri Nei]

neppakyo wrote...

Edhriano wrote...
Hmmm I don't know if odd would be the proper word for it.

To put it simple if a choice among this 3
a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe

and I choose ex: b it would make sense if my hawke say : No
But instead my hawke say ... well I think you get the idea. :innocent:

Yeah.. like NPC: "Oh, can you do this and this for me?" hawke: "No" NPC:" Great! I knew I could count on you!" *Quest added to journal* FUUUUUUUUUU......

This is why the murder knife needs to be set to a hot key.

[AmstradHero]

csfteeeer wrote...
your statement of fun combat is one that many people (myself included) don't share(especially pc gamers, at least for what i have seen).

Nope. It's contrary to the opinions of the people who've posted on the forums vehemently declaring they hate DA2 combat. Many people and professional reviewers felt the combat system was much improved over DAO. There are people who prefer one style of play over the other, and there are some that can appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of both.

csfteeeer wrote...
i could simply say DA2 combat is more fluid and faster, which it is, but what does that mean?
i don't like to feel like i just won a battle because i improvised, that's just not satisfactory, the combat in DAO was very rewarding because it was difficult,

You don't find improvisation satisfactory. That's a personal opinion, and I'm happy to accept that. However, that doesn't mean that DA2's system is bad/crap/shallow/whatever. It means that it's not to your personal taste. I'm not saying that the extended planning and working out your entire battle plan beforehand is bad. Doing so and then executing it in methodical fashion is indeed rewarding. But it makes the gameplay very measured and mechanical. It involves a lot of you waiting and watching until the right conditions are met until you take very specific actions. You find that rewarding, but I personally (and many people agree) that they wanted more interactivity from DA2's combat.

csfteeeer wrote...
in DA2, the combat gets to be so crazy and any plan you have for strategy swiftly descent into a button mashing fest, sure, you would think that the abilities are still there, and they are, but they are so useless, i did not had to use for a large proportion of my time, which only made it less satisfying. in DA2, the fact that the enemies just pop out of nowhere out of thin air is ridiculous.
... the combat in DA2 was way too easy, or cheap, as in nightmare the only class that really works is the warrior, as mages are almost useless, except for support, as well as rogues. in DAO, you see almost immediately the amount of enemies that you are going to fight, except and the final bits of the game, so you're always like "ok, what should i do to survive this", and when you do, is very rewarding.

Actually, they leap from the rooftops. That's a symptom of the overblown combat style. But the gameplay does not "swiftly descend into a button mashing fest." If that's the case and you're playing on PC, you're certainly not implementing the full gamut of tactics available to you. The same applies to thinking that classes are useless. People wouldn't post differing opinions on various builds and tactics if this was the case.

csfteeeer wrote...
what im trying to point out here, is that DA2 is a game that does not feel rewarding for me because is so random, and the constant explosions right in my face are just boring, then again, you seem to look for a different type of entertaiment that i do, so at the end, you and i just have different ideas of what is rewarding and what is not, so i don't really think you have the good idea to say that DAO was tedious because you didn't like it.

You're making quite the assumption about the type of games I've played and which ones I do or don't like there. I've played RPGs all the way since the gold box days. I've played and loved RTS games like Warcraft and Command and Conquer and played turn based games like Panzer General and the Heroes of Might and Magic series for countless hours. I enjoy my FPS games, stealth-em-ups, adventure games, puzzle games, racing games... you get the picture. I enjoy lots of different types of gameplay. If I have an opinion on a game, I will know why I have that opinion.

For me personally, the deep roads was far more tiresome than anything I ever encountered in DA2. It was tedious, and I've seen countless people who love DAO say exactly the same thing. Some of them also prefer DAO's combat to DA2. I've explained why in my previous example. It was dozen of fights that played out exactly the same way and mostly involved a lot of waiting. I did not intend to declare all of DAO's combat to be tedious - there were some truly interesting fights that you could have. But if I'm fighting generic trash mobs, give me DA2's combat any day of the week. And in terms of the big set pieces, DA2's boss fights were far more tactically involved and demanded changing tack more frequently than DAO's. The preposterous nature of some of the enemies shattered the suspension of disbelief, but that's a writing/style issue rather than a mechanics issue.

I love DAO, and if you bother to read my posts in this thread detailing what I like about both DAO and DA2, you'd see that. Heck, I'm still writing mods for DAO - I like the game a lot. But I won't gloss over its weaknesses just as I won't gloss over DA2's. There are weaknesses to DA2. I'm not arguing that for a second. I don't consider the combat system to be one of them. There are issues with the encounter design in how and where new enemies pop into the fray, I agree. These are a bit of a band-aid approach to faciltating the usage of the full range of tactical options available to the player. I don't (yet) have a perfect answer for how to combine the fluidity of the new system with the fully pre-planned approach that some players really loved from DAO (but it's something I'm thinking about), and I'm certain there's no way to do it that would make everyone perfectly happy. I'm interested in the discussion from a design perspective.

Some people who haven't played the game are declaring that the combat (and the entire game) sucks. And some people simply say "combat sucks" and "waves suck" without being able to clearly state why except "I don't like it", or saying "there are no tactics". As stated previously, the game is no less tactical, it's just tactical in a different fashion.

I take as much issue with the people who love DA2 unequivocally as the people who hate it unequivocally. It's just that the latter are louder, and generally assume that anyone who defends DA2's good points is the former.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 mai 2011 - 06:37 .

[abaris]

AmstradHero wrote...

Nope. It's contrary to the opinions of the people who've posted on the forums vehemently declaring they hate DA2 combat. Many people and professional reviewers felt the combat system was much improved over DAO. There are people who prefer one style of play over the other, and there are some that can appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of both.

Let me put it this way: When playing a fantasy RPG I don't want to experience that monkey feeling. I don't want to be part of a comic book adaption where exploding enemies cloud my vision.

I understand, its polarising, but that in itself made me decide, this game isn't for me.

[-Semper-]

slimgrin wrote...

Look on the bright side. I'm pretty sure they've gotten the message now. Loud and clear.

the most important sentence from laidlaw: "From my perspective, as someone looking to the future and the DA
franchise, I think that DA II moved us into a space that has more
potential."

let alone all the dumbed down rpg mechanics and the horrible desgin decisions made but how can a sequel, which damaged the whole franchise in such a way that the sales were at "zero" after 2 weeks and there won't be much preorders for da3, move bioware into a more potential position?

simply seems that they completely missed the point. their main goal stays the same: attract a huge gamer base by all costs!

i bet da3 will be the same as da2 with watered down inventory management, meaningless companion interactions both in conversation and equipment, action paced fighting mechanic, dumbed down dialogue branching and choices which are no choices at all due to the same outcome. the only thing they will improve will be the spawn encounters and the level usage :innocent:

[Bostur]

@mrcrusty
That's some nice examples of what good paraphrasing can do. When a game insists that all choices must be voiced and all conversation must be animated it does put a lot of limit on the depth and variety. Making dialogue choices fit into categories to match icons like in DA2 doesn't help creativity either I bet.

[Monica83]

Honestly i don't understeand something..

In DA2 i had huge problem with paraphrasing in fact my hawke tend to say something different from what i mean...

In the witcher 2 paraphrasing fit perfectly with what the character is going to say

[psychk]

 Nice try, BioWare...

Just le tthe game die already, there's nothing to save this polished turd.

[psychk]

AmstradHero wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...
your statement of fun combat is one that many people (myself included) don't share(especially pc gamers, at least for what i have seen).

Nope. It's contrary to the opinions of the people who've posted on the forums vehemently declaring they hate DA2 combat. Many people and professional reviewers felt the combat system was much improved over DAO. There are people who prefer one style of play over the other, and there are some that can appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of both.

csfteeeer wrote...
i could simply say DA2 combat is more fluid and faster, which it is, but what does that mean?
i don't like to feel like i just won a battle because i improvised, that's just not satisfactory, the combat in DAO was very rewarding because it was difficult,

You don't find improvisation satisfactory. That's a personal opinion, and I'm happy to accept that. However, that doesn't mean that DA2's system is bad/crap/shallow/whatever. It means that it's not to your personal taste. I'm not saying that the extended planning and working out your entire battle plan beforehand is bad. Doing so and then executing it in methodical fashion is indeed rewarding. But it makes the gameplay very measured and mechanical. It involves a lot of you waiting and watching until the right conditions are met until you take very specific actions. You find that rewarding, but I personally (and many people agree) that they wanted more interactivity from DA2's combat.

csfteeeer wrote...
in DA2, the combat gets to be so crazy and any plan you have for strategy swiftly descent into a button mashing fest, sure, you would think that the abilities are still there, and they are, but they are so useless, i did not had to use for a large proportion of my time, which only made it less satisfying. in DA2, the fact that the enemies just pop out of nowhere out of thin air is ridiculous.
... the combat in DA2 was way too easy, or cheap, as in nightmare the only class that really works is the warrior, as mages are almost useless, except for support, as well as rogues. in DAO, you see almost immediately the amount of enemies that you are going to fight, except and the final bits of the game, so you're always like "ok, what should i do to survive this", and when you do, is very rewarding.

Actually, they leap from the rooftops. That's a symptom of the overblown combat style. But the gameplay does not "swiftly descend into a button mashing fest." If that's the case and you're playing on PC, you're certainly not implementing the full gamut of tactics available to you. The same applies to thinking that classes are useless. People wouldn't post differing opinions on various builds and tactics if this was the case.

csfteeeer wrote...
what im trying to point out here, is that DA2 is a game that does not feel rewarding for me because is so random, and the constant explosions right in my face are just boring, then again, you seem to look for a different type of entertaiment that i do, so at the end, you and i just have different ideas of what is rewarding and what is not, so i don't really think you have the good idea to say that DAO was tedious because you didn't like it.

You're making quite the assumption about the type of games I've played and which ones I do or don't like there. I've played RPGs all the way since the gold box days. I've played and loved RTS games like Warcraft and Command and Conquer and played turn based games like Panzer General and the Heroes of Might and Magic series for countless hours. I enjoy my FPS games, stealth-em-ups, adventure games, puzzle games, racing games... you get the picture. I enjoy lots of different types of gameplay. If I have an opinion on a game, I will know why I have that opinion.

For me personally, the deep roads was far more tiresome than anything I ever encountered in DA2. It was tedious, and I've seen countless people who love DAO say exactly the same thing. Some of them also prefer DAO's combat to DA2. I've explained why in my previous example. It was dozen of fights that played out exactly the same way and mostly involved a lot of waiting. I did not intend to declare all of DAO's combat to be tedious - there were some truly interesting fights that you could have. But if I'm fighting generic trash mobs, give me DA2's combat any day of the week. And in terms of the big set pieces, DA2's boss fights were far more tactically involved and demanded changing tack more frequently than DAO's. The preposterous nature of some of the enemies shattered the suspension of disbelief, but that's a writing/style issue rather than a mechanics issue.

I love DAO, and if you bother to read my posts in this thread detailing what I like about both DAO and DA2, you'd see that. Heck, I'm still writing mods for DAO - I like the game a lot. But I won't gloss over its weaknesses just as I won't gloss over DA2's. There are weaknesses to DA2. I'm not arguing that for a second. I don't consider the combat system to be one of them. There are issues with the encounter design in how and where new enemies pop into the fray, I agree. These are a bit of a band-aid approach to faciltating the usage of the full range of tactical options available to the player. I don't (yet) have a perfect answer for how to combine the fluidity of the new system with the fully pre-planned approach that some players really loved from DAO (but it's something I'm thinking about), and I'm certain there's no way to do it that would make everyone perfectly happy. I'm interested in the discussion from a design perspective.

Some people who haven't played the game are declaring that the combat (and the entire game) sucks. And some people simply say "combat sucks" and "waves suck" without being able to clearly state why except "I don't like it", or saying "there are no tactics". As stated previously, the game is no less tactical, it's just tactical in a different fashion.

I take as much issue with the people who love DA2 unequivocally as the people who hate it unequivocally. It's just that the latter are louder, and generally assume that anyone who defends DA2's good points is the former.

The internet is serious business, ok?

[AmstradHero]

-Semper- wrote...
i bet da3 will be the same as da2 with ... all the dumbed down rpg mechanics ...

Such as?

-Semper- wrote...
... horrible desgin decisions ...

Such as?

-Semper- wrote...
... watered down inventory management ...

Maybe you played a different DA2, but I stilll got inventory management from weapons, amulets, rings for everybody and also picking Hawke's individual armor. You know what, I really didn't mind not having to decide whether this new pair of pants was better than that pair of pants (on each character, including those that might not be in my party at the time) for every new set of pants I found. Is it fun at times to have to pick between equipment, sure? But it sure doesn't impinge on my enjoyment when I'm picking up a new pair of pants every second fight.

I do understand that people love customising their entire party to the nth degree, but I'll confess I find it gets a little old after a while for me.

-Semper- wrote...
... meaningless companion interactions in conversation ...

Uhh, did we play the same game? I didn't get to talk to my companions as much as I would have liked, but the conversations I did have with them were far from meaningless.

-Semper- wrote...
... action paced fighting mechani c...

We're never going to get Ninja Gaiden or God of War in a BioWare game, they're not that stupid. But up until now, if you asked to declare which combat was more "fun", I'd say DA2 over DAO. I'd probably say Jade Empire over DAO. Sure, mechanically it was slightly broken, but it really fit with the style of the game and was "fun". If "action paced fighting mechanic" means I actually get to be involved in the combat in a meaningful way, heck, sign me up! Sure, I had a lot of fun with BG/BG2 watching people slug it out while tossing the occasional spell... but if I can actually get involved, I'll probably enjoy that more.

-Semper- wrote...
... dumbed down dialogue branching ...

"Dumbed down" means nothing. If you'd said "reduced role-playing flexibilty because in some cases you receive fewer options in how to give a 'flavour' response", you might have a point. Otherwise, dialogue is frequently on-par with DAO. There's less of it, without doubt, but as far as a voice protagonist goes, I really liked my snarky FemHawke. I mean, as a modder, I love giving the player options like: noble/self-sacrificing response, friendly response, neutral response, snide response, hostile/selfish response. I like that degree of choice, so I like giving my players that. But saying that only getting three choices to push a conversation forward is "dumbed down" is a bit of a stretch. I loved Alpha Protocol's dialogue system, and that was based around 3 choices.

-Semper- wrote...
... and choices which are no choices at all due to the same outcome.  ...

For the core plot. I agree wholeheartedly that the main plot was horribly rail-roaded at certain points. I understand why it was done, but I really didn't like it. The choices for side quests, however, I felt were pulled off far better than DAO, because you did get to see the effects of those.

Many of the negative claims in this thread (and hundreds of other before it) aren't backed up by anything more than "I don't like it" or "it's not DAO" or other equally shallow justifications. I wholeheartedly agree that DA2 was a massive step back in more than a few areas, but saying "the game sucks" doesn't lend any credence to arguments about its shortcomings.

[Firky]

@Monica Is it because Geralt is just Geralt, and you kinda already know what he's like? If you have customized your own protagonist, you expect them to talk like you want them to talk - if they are voiced. I dunno. Just a guess.

I thought the paraphasing in TW2 was inconsistent. Sometimes he seemed to (almost) exactly repeat the line you picked. Other times, you got something unexpected - especially if it was short. Overall, it didn't bother me, but I"d have preferred to pick the exact dialogue, even if it meant hearing after reading it. (You can just skim read it, right?)

PS. Good posts, Amstrad. Hope the modding is going well.

Modifié par Firky, 28 mai 2011 - 09:00 .

[AmstradHero]

psychk wrote...
The internet is serious business, ok?

Forgive me if I'm actually trying to make a positive contribution to this discussion, offer reasoned criticism as to the problems with DA2 (and DAO), and learn more about people's likes and dislikes to help me produce better mods that people can play for free. That's why I frequent these forums.

@Firky - Thanks. The modding is coming along nicely, with plenty of dialogue and level design polished off. I almost feel like I'm getting a hint of the light at the end of the tunnel.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 mai 2011 - 09:04 .

[Corto81]

AmstradHero wrote...


I love DAO, and if you bother to read my posts in this thread detailing what I like about both DAO and DA2, you'd see that. Heck, I'm still writing mods for DAO - I like the game a lot. But I won't gloss over its weaknesses just as I won't gloss over DA2's. There are weaknesses to DA2. I'm not arguing that for a second.

There's a big difference when the general opinion is that DA:O was a great game with some weak points that needed tweaking...

...and that DA2 is a weak game with some (and few) good points.

And contrary to what you said before, most people actually do put up arguments as to WHY they thought the game is lacking, not just say "I don't like, hah".

Modifié par Corto81, 28 mai 2011 - 09:05 .

[Firky]

AmstradHero wrote...

@Firky - Thanks. The modding is coming along nicely, with plenty of dialogue and level design polished off. I almost feel like I'm getting a hint of the light at the end of the tunnel.

Shattered War? I promise I'll play it.