204 réponses à ce sujet

[erynnar]

Gatt9 wrote...

ZombiePowered wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

This^

[Denizen89]

Not owning to a failure as big as this 1.3-1.5 million sold to customers in 3 months is pretty bad. It shows that they think they did the right thing in making the fundamental changes that made DA2. In pure honesty it did not work as well as they hoped it flopped. I would say stop what you are doing with DA3 go back to origins reviews and start with a chart with what made it a massive success, also note flaws with what could be improved. DA2 should have been in spirit the same feel as Origins not an action game but an Old School RPG. The combat system needing improvement was not exactly wrong but the execution of it was horrible. Dynasty Warriors like battles, no real tactics, and overpowered mages is the end result. What should have improved over origins was simplifing the tactics a little as in setting them up and giving the gamer a tutorial. Next would have been for the ones that want to dive into the action for themselves, making the slashing attacks one for each button press was a small step forward but that was it. If you want to improve the combat you have to either dump tactics or make the interactive action a not so impressive concern. But anyway interactive action one way would be button combos, another would be to integrate formations and tactics in the button combos. That way the wave after wave of enemies would fit in nicely.

Artistically, scenery was good and some of the redesigns especially the qunari was excellent. However the darkspawn from the first game was fine redoing the darkspawn was unnecessary. The textures, areas, and etc was a terrible job. The game needs a new engine to improve everything cosmetic and otherwise graphically. The Unreal engine used for Mass Effect is perfect to be used here. Though the attention to detail in DA2 was bad seriously Helmet? Ring? Boots? Come on that is lazy. Use of the same dungeon map there is no excuse that was a bad choice. You could tell them you need more time. Look into facial graphics to give the voice acting more weight.

Story wise you had some pretty bad plot holes, characters acting bizarre, and Act 3 was handled badly. Act 2 was the best part of the game and there were some great lines from the game, but the need to use the importing style from Mass Effect is needed here for more cinematic experience. I would say to use DA2 events but emphasize DA:O events on the third game. It should have been done much more properly. I would also return to using the story and romances from DA origins there was nothing wrong. If anything you could give more time to character development and giving it time for communication. The important thing to also realize is that the Warden's story isn't done for those that did not walk through the certain portal. Even then it isn't a proper way to get rid of a character like that. The reason we the people who enjoyed our Wardens was that they were immersive and developed well and we felt connected because we thought it was US in the story. Hawke there was no connection like that, it was watching events go from bad to crap storm and nothing we could do about it.

In all DA3 needs a much longer time in development than 18 months, try 3 years. Update the game engine if you want to better the graphics and aesthetics, and combat. Combat you need to make a choice about interactive or tactics or try and figure out a better way to merge them together. Think ME2 but without guns and with formations with magic and steel, also try and use button combos and certain combos are finishers with nice amounts of gore. This should help with the waves of enemies. Story wise don't try and focus on one spot or disjoint it. Give us stories, origins, and a fill in with what happened in X amount of year with the character. Bring back character creation the boss man was wrong about character creation as that was part of the reason for Origins success and it was relatively simple. In other words our importing of DA2 and DAO should have big effects on DA3 and give us the option to play as a new character, Hawke , or the warden but if we import make the game a wee bit harder to accommodate the level discrepancy. That is my opinion.

[HTTP 404]

read the second article. it was good. same reviewer also wrote positive things about Da2 instead of that link OP posted...o wells. As much as I want bioware to work on things that are not working I do not want them to forget about the things that DO work.

[Wolfborn Son]

You'd think by reading some of the posts here that DAII was a worse game than Superman 64. Everyone that I know, outside of the internet, enjoyed the game. Yes, most of them thought that Origins was a superior game, but none of them thought that DAII was a bad game.

If DAII has any issue, its that its an average game. While certian aspects are top notch (companions, Act II, general over-all plot concept, combat), most other things are just... Alright. Yes, Bioware needs to up the ante for DAIII, as the game has obvious faults.

That said, I feel that its a step in the right direction, even if its a drunken staggering step. While I enjoyed Origins more, the game wasn't without its faults; number one of which is it didn't have its own identity. It was marketed as the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate II and from that perspective, I feel it failed miserably.

Long story short? Yes, Bioware should pay attention to the bad reviews. They should also pay attention to the good reviews. Learn from their mistake, improve on their strengths, and make DAIII the best game it can be; not a pale imitation of classic even if that means its a good game, not the "ill-received" sequel, but a game that stands on its own.