I think your all overreacting a little, Bioware isn't 'turning it's back on it's fans' or anything overdramatic like that, they tried something new which failed, EA rushed the game 'to capitalize on the success of Dragon Age: Origins' and Bioware is trying to keep up with changing technology and features...if games were still like Baldur's Gate then they wouldn't make enough money to survive, Dragon Age 2 is actually doing well when it comes to money.
I totally agree, tbh. I think it was part rushed, part they tried some new things that didn't work out. I mean, personally, I think it was a mistake to make a Mass Effect style game and market it to people who like Origins-style games -- they're two totally different audiences. BUT. You never know about these things until to you try. The game also wasn't executed very well (so-so story, lackluster quests, overused maps, etc), which definitely hurt the cause.
I think the ultimate baromete for future games is how much money they make off DA2 and whether it's still financially feasible or desirable, in a few years, to make Origins-style games. EA is a business, so...you know.
I think your all overreacting a little, Bioware isn't 'turning it's back on it's fans' or anything overdramatic like that, they tried something new which failed, EA rushed the game 'to capitalize on the success of Dragon Age: Origins' and Bioware is trying to keep up with changing technology and features...if games were still like Baldur's Gate then they wouldn't make enough money to survive, Dragon Age 2 is actually doing well when it comes to money.
I totally agree, tbh. I think it was part rushed, part they tried some new things that didn't work out. I mean, personally, I think it was a mistake to make a Mass Effect style game and market it to people who like Origins-style games -- they're two totally different audiences. BUT. You never know about these things until to you try. The game also wasn't executed very well (so-so story, lackluster quests, overused maps, etc), which definitely hurt the cause.
I think the ultimate baromete for future games is how much money they make off DA2 and whether it's still financially feasible or desirable, in a few years, to make Origins-style games. EA is a business, so...you know.
http://www.pcgamer.c...n-age-2-review/
I found this to be a very good review and with wich I mostly agree. Hope that shows BioWare they shouldn't give up on this trend of evolution despite the critics.
http://www.pcgamer.c...n-age-2-review/ I found this to be a very good review and with wich I mostly agree. Hope that shows BioWare they shouldn't give up on this trend of evolution despite the critics.
haha. You're pretty funny. That review came out before DA2 shipped. The score is on the bloody box. PC Gamer is a very poor source for reviews.
DA2 wasn't evolution. It was one step forward and then ten steps back.
http://www.pcgamer.c...n-age-2-review/ I found this to be a very good review and with wich I mostly agree. Hope that shows BioWare they shouldn't give up on this trend of evolution despite the critics.
haha. You're pretty funny. That review came out before DA2 shipped. The score is on the bloody box. PC Gamer is a very poor source for reviews.
DA2 wasn't evolution. It was one step forward and then ten steps back.
Also I don't see how bad games make money. People only buy games they like which are by definition good. Unless you are a niche and want bioware to stay in that niche. Which I hope they don't
http://www.pcgamer.c...n-age-2-review/ I found this to be a very good review and with wich I mostly agree. Hope that shows BioWare they shouldn't give up on this trend of evolution despite the critics.
haha. You're pretty funny. That review came out before DA2 shipped. The score is on the bloody box. PC Gamer is a very poor source for reviews.
DA2 wasn't evolution. It was one step forward and then ten steps back.
I respect your opinion and disagree.
I know its your opinion, and that my isn't any better/worse, but I sincerly hope Bioware takes this backlash of criticism to heart. I mean, if so many people are passionately complaining (and still do so months after the game is released), then isn't a sign that something is 'wrong' with the final product as a whole?
http://www.pcgamer.c...n-age-2-review/ I found this to be a very good review and with wich I mostly agree. Hope that shows BioWare they shouldn't give up on this trend of evolution despite the critics.
haha. You're pretty funny. That review came out before DA2 shipped. The score is on the bloody box. PC Gamer is a very poor source for reviews.
DA2 wasn't evolution. It was one step forward and then ten steps back.
I respect your opinion and disagree.
I know its your opinion, and that my isn't any better/worse, but I sincerly hope Bioware takes this backlash of criticism to heart. I mean, if so many people are passionately complaining (and still do so months after the game is released), then isn't a sign that something is 'wrong' with the final product as a whole?
Absolutely. They should do wathever the sales tell them to do. If it sold less, then they need to change because it was a bad game. That doesn't mean it isn't the number 1 RPG since the 3d era for me.
I think your all overreacting a little, Bioware isn't 'turning it's back on it's fans' or anything overdramatic like that, they tried something new which failed, EA rushed the game 'to capitalize on the success of Dragon Age: Origins' and Bioware is trying to keep up with changing technology and features...if games were still like Baldur's Gate then they wouldn't make enough money to survive, Dragon Age 2 is actually doing well when it comes to money.
That said I'm not saying DA 2 isn't a terrible game or a good game, I reckon it was rushed and that some of the features should be more like DAO still, it's just things like the dialog wheel, voiced protagonist, change of design and new companion and character inventory system that is good.
Ummm...I've gotta strongly disagree with you here.
First, why would they try something new? DAO(3.6 million) outsold ME(2 million) and ME2(Either 1.6 or 2.5 depending on which source you like), nearly outsold both combined. Did nearly as well as Oblivion(4 million). If you've got something that works, why would you try something new, unless you're trying to grab a completely different audience.
Second, they're not trying to keep up with technology. Like everyone else and their grandmother, they're designing everything around the X-box or the PS3, which is many generations old at this point. They ignore the new technology just to aim for the console crowd.
Third, they're not trying to keep up with new features, which implies there's some kind of yearly release of "Features for RPGs". OTOH, if you meant "Keep up with the latest fads", you'd be right. Which, historically, is a fast path to bankruptcy when you do things just because it's "The latest cool thing every game has to have!". Everytime the Industry does it, it's quickly followed by a very large round of high profile bankruptcies. It's pretty consistent.
DAO was like BG2, it sold better than ME, ME2, and DA2, in fact one of it's PR draws was that it was like the older RPGs. So there goes that theory right there. I'm also pretty confident that only selling around 1 million units after 3 months is widely regarded as a catastrophic failure for both Bioware and EA.
It's also worth noting, pretty much everything you listed as "Good" is exactly why I didn't buy the game, and what more than a few cited as their reason for not buying it.
I respect your opinion and disagree.
I stopped trusting PCGamer when they got busted letting the author of Ascendency's strategy guide do the review for the game, which oddly came out glowing. IMO, they've always had integrity issues.
Well all "evolution' is just mutation over time, DA 2 was a very bad mutation for me...in alot of ways that I've grown tired of mentioning.
Thanks OP, I had not read the Rock Paper Shotgun review yet, and it was pretty good. The opinions offered are strangely aligned with my perception of the game.
Many of the criticisms of DA2 stem from how different the game is than DA:O. If this is the case you wish to support, isn't it counterproductive to complain about aspects of a game that is different from its predecessor? Evolution of games can't happen if things stay the same all the time.
This is the part that leaves me a bit concerned, as I believe this is the overall sentiment of Bioware in regards to DA2's reviews. Which is unfortunate.
While I think it's fair to assume there are some who simply don't like it becuase it's too much of a change, I feel there are far more who simply don't like poor aspects of game design and rushed products. I mean, has any RPG of this generation ever re-used maps as much as DA2? That's just one example but how can anyone justify that?
To me, the above quote from a Bioware poster comes off as outright self-denial of serious issues.
Ummm...I've gotta strongly disagree with you here.
First, why would they try something new? DAO(3.6 million) outsold ME(2 million) and ME2(Either 1.6 or 2.5 depending on which source you like), nearly outsold both combined. Did nearly as well as Oblivion(4 million). If you've got something that works, why would you try something new, unless you're trying to grab a completely different audience.
Second, they're not trying to keep up with technology. Like everyone else and their grandmother, they're designing everything around the X-box or the PS3, which is many generations old at this point. They ignore the new technology just to aim for the console crowd.
Third, they're not trying to keep up with new features, which implies there's some kind of yearly release of "Features for RPGs". OTOH, if you meant "Keep up with the latest fads", you'd be right. Which, historically, is a fast path to bankruptcy when you do things just because it's "The latest cool thing every game has to have!". Everytime the Industry does it, it's quickly followed by a very large round of high profile bankruptcies. It's pretty consistent.
Very well said, that is how much faith Bioware had in their audience that they immediately changed the direction of DA2 before they knew the sales numbers, which incidentally, grew due to great word of mouth AND Bioware's name alone.
The simple fact that Bioware would betray their best selling game in order to attract an "extended audience" by means of pursuing the lates fad (which Laidlaw pretty much confirms every chance he has) speaks greatly about what I have been saying: for EA it is a game of odds, and it is the better gamble to simplyfy and streamline their products when there is a chance to hit a minegold, rather than to build them little by little with respect towards a constant community. Bioware has been for years now taking their fans for granted and it is starting to bite them in the azz.
For one I think that it will be tough to see them trip over and over, and that the more they pander to their target audience the worse they will begin to perform as a studio. It will probably take them some several hundred layoffs and a good hard look to realize that the kind of games they are known for do not appeal to everyone, and their focus tested output wil be easily ignored amidst other games that do far better what BW is trying to accomplish.
Shall SWTOR fail grandly (which might happen) it will be a tragic sight to see them fall like this, but it will also be hilarious.
Many of the criticisms of DA2 stem from how different the game is than DA:O. If this is the case you wish to support, isn't it counterproductive to complain about aspects of a game that is different from its predecessor? Evolution of games can't happen if things stay the same all the time.
In other words, you're looking for a new market for your games. Well,I respect that. I do. I just don't like the fact that it leaves me, as a gamer, high and dry. DA2 still sits in the shadow of BG2 simply because you sold DAO as a game that sat in the shadow of BG2. So now all those fans who loved BG2 (and loved or at least liked DAO, despite its faults), are unhappy. That's who you marketed this game to, Stan. That's who's going to play it. DA2 is not a good game for me, but you advertised it as a game for me. Hence, displeasure. Simple formula.
But for me the point isn't that this game is different from its predecessor. ME2 was very different from ME1. I quite liked it and am still playing it; I liked it far more than ME1, whose RPG mechanics were (to my mind) simply awkward and mostly added little to the game. DA2 wasn't just different. It was, to my mind, worse, in many, many ways. Let me list them.
- Fighting the same battles over and over again. Haven't you had enough of skeleton archers? Shadows? Rage Demons? No? Why not have some more? Maybe just make a game called Dragon Age: Endless Waves Of the Same Thing Over and Over Again. (This was a big problem for DAO as well and even bigger for DAA). For this reason I stopped playing this game by Act III, set the difficulty to casual, just to find out how much of a copout Act III was. And I wasn't disappointed.
- Hello pointless immunites on Mabari (now immune to fire) and Mercenaries (immune to cold). A rubbish non-attempt at gameplay/storyline segregation that made no sense and was clearly a failed attempt to spice up gameplay for lack of any real, compelling enemies to fight.
- Hello enemies with basic attacks that differ only in animation. Shades, mercenaries, what's the difference? Who cares if one has a shield that one never uses? Who cares if all I do is try to hit you in slow motion? Only the PC could possibly ever use an ability. Basic enemies with special attacks? Heaven forbid, tactical variation to make this onslaught more interesting? That's crazy talk!
- A combat system with basically no payoff for leveling up after level 16.
- Environments that feel like quest corridor A to B simply destroys any sense of wonder or exploration inherent in the game, whether it be in the wounded coast or in the recycled dungeons.
-The fact that Bioware saw fit to recycle dungeons over and over again.
- Bye bye skill system. Bye bye setting traps. Bye bye persuasion, intimidate, bye bye any alternative to pointless waves of fighting.
-- Paraphrase system. Voice acting for everyone. To me this just screams "waste of money." Don't worry, I get it. Cinematics and voice acting are much more important than gameplay.
Otherwise: --Ambient companion dialogue sometimes inappropriate and often (if not always) unnecessary--adds little to the game if it is too general and said everywhere regardless of circumstance. Additionally, use of ambient dialogue system discourages player from spontaneously beginning conversations with NPCs or companions, simply because players don't expect NPCs or companions to have anything to say outside of a quest.
I've been a bioware fan since forever. I like good games and Bioware generally used to make good games. That's no longer generally true. There is no reason to think your company is constantly above average anymore. This game feels like something thrown together in iMovie with the same fight scene interspersed and repeated, over and over again.
That's all the negatives.
The positives? -Good writing (some of the time). The Qunari sub-plot a high point. Everything else not so good. - Initially interesting combat that tapers off mid-way through the game. -Friendship/rivalry system an interesting experiment. - Companions well written. (However, feel a bit bare bones due to lack of opportunities for interaction/reaction and/or discussion outside of quests, particularly in Act I.)
So there were some enjoyable elements. But is this an 'evolution'? Not by any metric I care to use.
Many of the criticisms of DA2 stem from how different the game is than DA:O. If this is the case you wish to support, isn't it counterproductive to complain about aspects of a game that is different from its predecessor? Evolution of games can't happen if things stay the same all the time.
This is the part that leaves me a bit concerned, as I believe this is the overall sentiment of Bioware in regards to DA2's reviews. Which is unfortunate.
While I think it's fair to assume there are some who simply don't like it becuase it's too much of a change, I feel there are far more who simply don't like poor aspects of game design and rushed products. I mean, has any RPG of this generation ever re-used maps as much as DA2? That's just one example but how can anyone justify that?
To me, the above quote from a Bioware poster comes off as outright self-denial of serious issues.
This is pretty much exactly why Bioware (And EA) are in desperate trouble right now.
13 years ago, in Fallout, I had skills and attributes that affected how my game played. If I had low intelligence, I had different dialogues, I had different dialogues depending on my sex, if I had certain skills high enough I could get certain party members, or even talk the end boss into killing himself.
Today, I have 5 word sentences, color coded so I don't have to read them, that everyone else has no matter what character they rolled, with no regard to skill, and the things often don't even relate to what I'm actually going to say.
This is evolution?
No.
I can do more in a 13 year old game with a budget a fraction of the size than I can in DA2. It's not evolution. Bioware's doing Bethseda and making RPGs for people who hate RPGs. It really irks me that they then claim WE'RE the problem, and something's wrong with us for not accepting less.
If Bioware wants to Evolve games, perhaps they should try giving us at least as much as we had 13 years ago. Because Evolution's a funny thing, it doesn't exist if you're disimproving. The word for that is De-evolution, and I'm sorry, but I don't accept it.
I am curious as to just why these reviews are the "must see," while others are not. Or is this another case of assuming we only listen to or read positive reviews?
It's simple. Those reviews obviously point out the problems that the OP agrees with. I also think that more mainstream reviewing sites which have to put out reviews quickly did not have enough time to accurately review the game.
Gamespot, for example, says that the game "focuses on the element of choice to great effect." It's clear to me that the reviewer did not do his job from that statement, because the game is extremely linear and the major choice you make in the game has the same outcome no matter what. It seems like they even realized they did a poor job and gave an inflated score to your game because a few weeks later, Gamespot had a "Final Thoughts" interview with Mike Laidlaw about the game's shortcomings and largely mixed reaction.
And you can be as defensive as you like about which reviews are and are not read, but the moral of the story is that you guys didn't listen to the numerous protests prior to launch about many of the game features, and the game suffered greatly as a result. Therefore, threads like this one are made.
Ummm...I've gotta strongly disagree with you here.
First, why would they try something new? DAO(3.6 million) outsold ME(2 million) and ME2(Either 1.6 or 2.5 depending on which source you like), nearly outsold both combined. Did nearly as well as Oblivion(4 million). If you've got something that works, why would you try something new, unless you're trying to grab a completely different audience.
...
DAO was like BG2, it sold better than ME, ME2, and DA2, in fact one of it's PR draws was that it was like the older RPGs. So there goes that theory right there. I'm also pretty confident that only selling around 1 million units after 3 months is widely regarded as a catastrophic failure for both Bioware and EA.
You can't make progress without changing things. Did Bioware change/overcompensate a bit too much in response to feedback about Origins? Yes. But that doesn't mean the ideas that were the basis for the change (more active and intense combat, removing pointless and nonsensical mechanics like 'persuade skill', etc.) are wrong. Too many people play the game, don't like the overall product, and respond by denouncing everything different from the predecessor they did like. Many seem to have forgot the gripes they had with Origins.
Bioware should drift back towards certain aspects of DA:O, but they shouldn't abandon everything different about DA2. There needs to be differentiation between the problems people had: some are the result of bad ideas, but many are the result of too much of a good idea. Origins was our vanilla ice cream, and we asked for fudge. DA2 had way too much fudge, but that doesn't make fudge a bad idea. We just need less of it.
You can't make progress without changing things. Did Bioware change/overcompensate a bit too much in response to feedback about Origins? Yes. But that doesn't mean the ideas that were the basis for the change (more active and intense combat, removing pointless and nonsensical mechanics like 'persuade skill', etc.) are wrong. Too many people play the game, don't like the overall product, and respond by denouncing everything different from the predecessor they did like. Many seem to have forgot the gripes they had with Origins.
And there we have it again: Tastes.
Not a bad thing, but accroding to my tastes they devolved massively. Did I expect DAO, no I didn't. I expected them to include more choices and make the world feel more alive. In that they failed. Instead they looked at the rocks of Gibraltar and took their combat animations from their fury inhabitants.
They had great plans for their storyline, which could be a good one, but failed to deliver, including plot holes to drive a lorry through. Instead of creating the illusion of lively places they threw in no reacting cardboards standing idely in the same place for seven years.
Ummm...I've gotta strongly disagree with you here.
First, why would they try something new? DAO(3.6 million) outsold ME(2 million) and ME2(Either 1.6 or 2.5 depending on which source you like), nearly outsold both combined. Did nearly as well as Oblivion(4 million). If you've got something that works, why would you try something new, unless you're trying to grab a completely different audience.
...
DAO was like BG2, it sold better than ME, ME2, and DA2, in fact one of it's PR draws was that it was like the older RPGs. So there goes that theory right there. I'm also pretty confident that only selling around 1 million units after 3 months is widely regarded as a catastrophic failure for both Bioware and EA.
You can't make progress without changing things. Did Bioware change/overcompensate a bit too much in response to feedback about Origins? Yes. But that doesn't mean the ideas that were the basis for the change (more active and intense combat, removing pointless and nonsensical mechanics like 'persuade skill', etc.) are wrong. Too many people play the game, don't like the overall product, and respond by denouncing everything different from the predecessor they did like. Many seem to have forgot the gripes they had with Origins.
Bioware should drift back towards certain aspects of DA:O, but they shouldn't abandon everything different about DA2. There needs to be differentiation between the problems people had: some are the result of bad ideas, but many are the result of too much of a good idea. Origins was our vanilla ice cream, and we asked for fudge. DA2 had way too much fudge, but that doesn't make fudge a bad idea. We just need less of it.
With all due respect,
Where do you draw the line between what is a problem, and what is the user disliking the genre?
The "Persuade skill" is neither nonsensical nor pointless, it's the implementation of the Character's ability to speak persuasively. A Car Salesman is going to be pretty persuasive, a Computer Scientist notsomuch. It exists because in an RPG, your Character's skill is what is meant to be the decidiing factor in success vs failure.
So why should the genre be changed to accomidate people who either don't understand, or don't like RPG mechanics? Should Chess be changed because some people don't like or don't understand it? How about Hockey? I know alot of women who don't understand the game, should it be changed too?
There's some point where there *must* be a line drawn, and people gently nudged towards the genre they prefer. Because removing fundamental mechanics from RPGs isn't progress, nor is it making anything any better. It's just slow errosion until RPGs become Adventure Games, much like Oblivion, and RPGs cease to exist. Continually removing the differentiation between the Character and the Player isn't improving anything, Adventure Games are exactly what this amounts to, no defined Character.
It's truely ironic, Bioware was credied with assiting in reinvigorating RPGs 10 years ago, and today, they're a major contributer to the death of RPGs. By continually removing fundamental mechanics and increasingly becoming Adventure games or Shooters, because they're more interested in selling as many units as possible more than making great RPGs.
Ummm...I've gotta strongly disagree with you here.
First, why would they try something new? DAO(3.6 million) outsold ME(2 million) and ME2(Either 1.6 or 2.5 depending on which source you like), nearly outsold both combined. Did nearly as well as Oblivion(4 million). If you've got something that works, why would you try something new, unless you're trying to grab a completely different audience.
...
DAO was like BG2, it sold better than ME, ME2, and DA2, in fact one of it's PR draws was that it was like the older RPGs. So there goes that theory right there. I'm also pretty confident that only selling around 1 million units after 3 months is widely regarded as a catastrophic failure for both Bioware and EA.
You can't make progress without changing things. Did Bioware change/overcompensate a bit too much in response to feedback about Origins? Yes. But that doesn't mean the ideas that were the basis for the change (more active and intense combat, removing pointless and nonsensical mechanics like 'persuade skill', etc.) are wrong. Too many people play the game, don't like the overall product, and respond by denouncing everything different from the predecessor they did like. Many seem to have forgot the gripes they had with Origins.
Bioware should drift back towards certain aspects of DA:O, but they shouldn't abandon everything different about DA2. There needs to be differentiation between the problems people had: some are the result of bad ideas, but many are the result of too much of a good idea. Origins was our vanilla ice cream, and we asked for fudge. DA2 had way too much fudge, but that doesn't make fudge a bad idea. We just need less of it.
I didn't have any gripes with Origins. Still don't and I am replaying it along side TW2. And I still don't have any complaints. And by the by, you may not have liked persuasion or coersion, but I do. That is how I feel. From what I can tell, I am not alone, and neither are you.
Retour en haut
