738 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Persephone wrote...
No. Just different pixels in the final battle.

That's a completely bogus argument. In DA:O your actions actually change the status in the game world and you can see it  happen during the game.

[Aaleel]

The main difference between the two games as far as choices to me was there were too many times in DA2 when you made a decision to prevent something and it still happened anyway.

Like getting the shard for Merrill. I don't agree with blood magic so I'm not giving you this. Then she completes the eluvian anyway. So not only was the choice ignored, but the quest was made irrelevant because the shard wasn't that important to begin with.

Same with not helping Andres. Obviously it was not something he couldn't do alone.

There was just too much of this. Choices and quests were irrelevant.

[jlb524]

magelet wrote...

Wow...I just...wow.

They are ADMITTING that they know people didn't like it and that they are going to try to change things that people didn't like! I mean...why are you complaining about this? How does that translate to "horrible for the gaming community?"

I guess it's b/c of the word 'innovation' being used as it's impossible for DA2 to have improved anything over Origins.

[Persephone]

csfteeeer wrote...

Persephone wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Guns wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Xayoz wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Xayoz wrote...

EA wrote...
We tried to innovate and do some different things with the combat system and some of the way we told story.

Awesome way to innovate rpg's storytelling by removing players' ability to make choices.

Except they didn't.

Oh? Then, I must have been unfortunate enough to receive the elusive 'no choice' edition of the game.
I will ask them to send me another one.

Probably. I noticed several choices on a personal scope as well as several quest choices that may lead to very interesting consequences in the next game. (Rather than MS Dos epilogue boxes I don't care for) I liked that. Would I have liked more ala TW2? Sure. But the "no choice" thing is just untrue.

Exactly. All of them affect the next game. None of the choices affected the current game which was rediculous. Especially since the game takes place over a decade. 

Exactly!!!!
i'm gonna sit there and make choices that are suppose to matter here and then think to my self "oh, then it will probably affect the sequel!", G*d Damn it i hate that, focus on your current product and then start thinking of something else.

I felt that way in Origins until the Epilogue boxes popped up. No real difference in Awakening either. So I knew what to expect.

You'll be here defending DA2 to death won't you?

ok, yeah, in terms of gameplay it didn't change much, but at least, Origins you truly feel like you are affecting a lot of peoples lives, there are multiple ways of how you can affect said lives (ex: Dalish), and i liked that, it only works in terms of story, but still feels like it matters.

in DA2, most end up in the same way in terms of story and gameplay, that is my biggest problem.

Awakening.... can't argue with you there.

No. I won't "defend it to death" but I'll not watch it being "bashed to death" either because I care about it. Shocking, right?

You can affect the Dalish the same way in DAII btw. (Both outcomes are possible based on what you do) 

[Mr.House]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
No. Just different pixels in the final battle.

That's a completely bogus argument. In DA:O your actions actually change the status in the game world and you can see it  happen during the game.

No they don't, you only read about them after you beat the game. No matter what choices you make, the Archdemon still dies, the only diffrence is you have diffrent troops. Not really that big imho.

[Persephone]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
No. Just different pixels in the final battle.

That's a completely bogus argument. In DA:O your actions actually change the status in the game world and you can see it  happen during the game.

See it happen during the game? Really? I finished it well over 20 times and haven't seen many IN GAME consequences.

[the_one_54321]

jlb524 wrote...
I guess it's b/c of the word 'innovation' being used as it's impossible for DA2 to have improved anything over Origins.

Nice attempt at satire. However, it's not really that it's "impossible." It's more that for the most part it just didn't happen and insisting that it did is erroneous. If you have a list of things that were specifically innovative and beneficial, I'm asking to hear about exactly that here.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 14 juin 2011 - 10:08 .

[the_one_54321]

Persephone wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
No. Just different pixels in the final battle.

That's a completely bogus argument. In DA:O your actions actually change the status in the game world and you can see it  happen during the game.

See it happen during the game? Really? I finished it well over 20 times and haven't seen many IN GAME consequences.

Dalish camp? Redcliff? Etc? You just responded to a post where I brought all this up.

[alex90c]

This is just going to go round in circles so maybe we should stick to things that are 100% definitely wrong about DA2/DA:O.

[Persephone]

Aaleel wrote...

The main difference between the two games as far as choices to me was there were too many times in DA2 when you made a decision to prevent something and it still happened anyway.

Like getting the shard for Merrill. I don't agree with blood magic so I'm not giving you this. Then she completes the eluvian anyway. So not only was the choice ignored, but the quest was made irrelevant because the shard wasn't that important to begin with.

Same with not helping Andres. Obviously it was not something he couldn't do alone.

There was just too much of this. Choices and quests were irrelevant.

What shard was that? You mean the carving tool? She actually rages about that an Act later & it makes her final request more urgent.

[Mr.House]

Aaleel wrote...

The main difference between the two games as far as choices to me was there were too many times in DA2 when you made a decision to prevent something and it still happened anyway.

Like getting the shard for Merrill. I don't agree with blood magic so I'm not giving you this. Then she completes the eluvian anyway. So not only was the choice ignored, but the quest was made irrelevant because the shard wasn't that important to begin with.

Same with not helping Andres. Obviously it was not something he couldn't do alone.

There was just too much of this. Choices and quests were irrelevant.

Wrong, she does not complete it. It is still broken. If oyu give her the tool, the mirror has no more cracks, if you don't give her the tool there is still cracks. Also she desroys the mirror, she does not on the friendship path.

[the_one_54321]

Mr.House wrote...
No they don't, you only read about them after you beat the game. No matter what choices you make, the Archdemon still dies, the only diffrence is you have diffrent troops. Not really that big imho.

When you go back to these places during the game they are not the same.

[csfteeeer]

Mr.House wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...
You'll be here defending DA2 to death won't you?

ok, yeah, in terms of gameplay it didn't change much, but at least, Origins you truly feel like you are affecting a lot of peoples lives, there are multiple ways of how you can affect said lives (ex: Dalish), and i liked that, it only works in terms of story, but still feels like it matters.

in DA2, most end up in the same way in terms of story and gameplay, that is my biggest problem.

Awakening.... can't argue with you there.

My choices in DA2 changed quest, addedv new quest or removed quest but made no diffrence in the end, my choices in DAO only affected the final battle AND how their lives would turn out , shown by the epilogue.

Solution? Make choices matter for once in DA3.

i just finished the phrase for you.
in terms of story, there are a FEW exceptions, (like Fenryel) but there are too few to care.

but yeah, they should make truly matter in terms of both story and gameplay, i'm not asking for The Witcher 2, but at least try a little harder.

[Huntress]

twincast wrote...

Persephone wrote...
Do you REALLY expect the devs to bash their own game?

They managed to bash the hell out of Origins for months well enough.

And that they did, I was not only surprised by it, but angry aswell, so many players joined the massacre too, I felt sick, err more sick of how I feel in most of my days.

I like DAO so much but I too like DA2.. I like all my hawkes, and the moment I don't like a game and stop playing it I leave the freaking site, the game company and go somewere also, I do not post in World of warcraft forum and bash the game, I just LEAVE.

[ink07]

Persephone wrote...

So those are facts written in stone now? 

WOW. Just WOW. Yes, Bioware should totally ignore those who loved the game by "owning up to their mistakes" ....

Interesting context for the word "jaded".......the irony.....

Yes they are. I know you are one of the posters constantly campaigning in favour of DA2 because you loved the game so much and you think Merril is the bestes character ever, and I don't have anything against that, you are free to like the game as much as you wish.

But you simply fail to understand you are in the minority here. For the majority out there DA2 failed to improve on the original, was marketed to capitalize on its succes and most of its design decisions were taken in order to make development faster/ bring in other people, not out of respect and love to the source material or audience that bought the game in the first place, but to make room for other big releases in the fiscal year 2012.

I seriously want you to disprove the fact that most of the design choices that made this game poor, like reuse of dungeons, removal of origins stories, a single city/character to choose from, cookie-cutter MMO like quests, less customization options, less dialogue options, the lack of consecuences for your choices, no change in the city at all after "10 years", disjointed storyline were not due to time/probably budget constrains. You may think that the story was the best ever, and the mashy combat improved on consoles, whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes and EA/Bioware are still not owning up to that, rather blaming the gamers for not "getting it".

Modifié par ink07, 14 juin 2011 - 10:11 .

[Mr.House]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
No. Just different pixels in the final battle.

That's a completely bogus argument. In DA:O your actions actually change the status in the game world and you can see it  happen during the game.

See it happen during the game? Really? I finished it well over 20 times and haven't seen many IN GAME consequences.

Dalish camp? Redcliff? Etc? You just responded to a post where I brought all this up.

What changes in the Dalish camp? What you lose a merchant if you side with the werewolfs? Oh big change!

I will give you Redcliffe, but that's one example.

[Persephone]

Mr.House wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...
You'll be here defending DA2 to death won't you?

ok, yeah, in terms of gameplay it didn't change much, but at least, Origins you truly feel like you are affecting a lot of peoples lives, there are multiple ways of how you can affect said lives (ex: Dalish), and i liked that, it only works in terms of story, but still feels like it matters.

in DA2, most end up in the same way in terms of story and gameplay, that is my biggest problem.

Awakening.... can't argue with you there.

My choices in DA2 changed quest, addedv new quest or removed quest but made no diffrence in the end, my choices in DAO only affected the final battle.

Solution? Make choices matter for once in DA3.

This. Yup. IMO putting the best out of both games together is the way to go. I want more Origins aspects back. But I also want them to keep what I loved about DAII.

[Mr.House]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
No they don't, you only read about them after you beat the game. No matter what choices you make, the Archdemon still dies, the only diffrence is you have diffrent troops. Not really that big imho.

When you go back to these places during the game they are not the same.

Looking diffrent and meaning something are two diffrent things. I don't see Bhelen making things good for the dwarfs, I only read about it after the game. Ect.

Modifié par Mr.House, 14 juin 2011 - 10:11 .

[Wolfborn Son]

Guns wrote...

No action game with rpg elements. Dragon Age is a tactical RPG. Which brings the point of duel wielding warriors. Bring them back. There is plenty to differentiate warriors and rogues and when you cut out duel wielding warriors you ruin 2h style by trying to flashy it up and make it fast.

I will agree with almost everything you said, except for this.  I refuse to call DA:O a tactical RPG.  Combat is a lot closer to World of Warcraft than it is Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale.  As I've said before, Origins really doesn't offer any really tactical challenge when compared to the games that its supposedly modeled after.  Personally, I'd rather see half-assed action combat over half-assed "tactical" combat that isn't really tactical.

Of course, they could up the default difficulty and do away with silly things like regenerating hit points, mana, and companions jumping right back up even if they have their head caved in.  But will they? No. :-(

[Persephone]

ink07 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

So those are facts written in stone now? 

WOW. Just WOW. Yes, Bioware should totally ignore those who loved the game by "owning up to their mistakes" ....

Interesting context for the word "jaded".......the irony.....

Yes they are. I know you are one of the posters constantly campaigning in favour of DA2 because you loved the game so much and you think Merril is the bestes character ever, and I don't have anything against that, you are free to like the game as much as you wish.

But you simply fail to understand you are in the minority here. For the majority out there DA2 was failed to improve on the original, 
*Snips*
whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes and EA/Bioware are still not owning up to that, rather blaming the gamers for not "getting it".

I "think Merril is the bestes character ever"? (Sic!) Are you bloody joking? She is probably my least fave DAII companion.

Majority out there? You know all of them or just the 2% who post online? Jesus, the presumption!

Objective truth....

You know what? This is beyond offensive and entitled.

[csfteeeer]

Persephone wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Persephone wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Guns wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Xayoz wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Xayoz wrote...

EA wrote...
We tried to innovate and do some different things with the combat system and some of the way we told story.

Awesome way to innovate rpg's storytelling by removing players' ability to make choices.

Except they didn't.

Oh? Then, I must have been unfortunate enough to receive the elusive 'no choice' edition of the game.
I will ask them to send me another one.

Probably. I noticed several choices on a personal scope as well as several quest choices that may lead to very interesting consequences in the next game. (Rather than MS Dos epilogue boxes I don't care for) I liked that. Would I have liked more ala TW2? Sure. But the "no choice" thing is just untrue.

Exactly. All of them affect the next game. None of the choices affected the current game which was rediculous. Especially since the game takes place over a decade. 

Exactly!!!!
i'm gonna sit there and make choices that are suppose to matter here and then think to my self "oh, then it will probably affect the sequel!", G*d Damn it i hate that, focus on your current product and then start thinking of something else.

I felt that way in Origins until the Epilogue boxes popped up. No real difference in Awakening either. So I knew what to expect.

You'll be here defending DA2 to death won't you?

ok, yeah, in terms of gameplay it didn't change much, but at least, Origins you truly feel like you are affecting a lot of peoples lives, there are multiple ways of how you can affect said lives (ex: Dalish), and i liked that, it only works in terms of story, but still feels like it matters.

in DA2, most end up in the same way in terms of story and gameplay, that is my biggest problem.

Awakening.... can't argue with you there.

No. I won't "defend it to death" but I'll not watch it being "bashed to death" either because I care about it. Shocking, right?

You can affect the Dalish the same way in DAII btw. (Both outcomes are possible based on what you do) 

yeah, by  killing them, or let them leave to god knows where (or doing absuletely nothing, which doesn't really count)

in DAO, you can give them a brand new territory for them (Dalish Origin only btw), leave Zathrian as their leader, which will lead them to either have no leader, or more problems with the humans, you can out right kill them all, or you can make Zathrian sacrifice himself and leave the Dalish with a new Keeper, which leads to a more peaceful ending.
oh and at the same you are also affecting the Werewolves lives you know.

[Master Shiori]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
No. Just different pixels in the final battle.

That's a completely bogus argument. In DA:O your actions actually change the status in the game world and you can see it  happen during the game.

You can see it written in the epilogue slides. Your choices in treaty quests do come down to the same thing, because your only real concern is getting your troops, which you will acomplish regardless of what you do.
So the only real difference ingame is who will aid you during the final battle. The far reaching consequences aren't evident until the epilogue.

Example:

Supporting Bahlen or Harrowmont will initialy have the same result: crisis in Orzammar is resolved and dwarves have joined your army. You don't see the political or social consequences in the game.

Siding with templars or mages is the same. Demons are banished and the tower is scured once more. You lose one potential quest if you sided with the templars, but nothing else changed.

Dalish and werewolves can result in the Dalish camp being wiped out, which means you lose access to their vendor and, possibly, some Dalish quests. Other than that it has no impact on the final battle.

[the_one_54321]

Persephone wrote...
Objective truth....

You know what? This is beyond offensive and entitled.

Even Shooters that last only 10 hours of play and have zero customization offer you enemy spawning that makes sense and reacts dynamically to your play, and environments that are individual and dynamic. DAII could hardly even be considered to use reskinned copied layouts.

[Persephone]

csfteeeer wrote...

yeah, by  killing them, or let them leave to god knows where (or doing absuletely nothing, which doesn't really count)

in DAO, you can give them a brand new territory for them (Dalish Origin only btw), leave Zathrian as their leader, which will lead them to either have no leader, or more problems with the humans, you can out right kill them all, or you can make Zathrian sacrifice himself and leave the Dalish with a new Keeper, which leads to a more peaceful ending.
oh and at the same you are also affecting the Werewolves lives you know.

I know about the (bugged) Dalish Origin boon. And again, all these things are hardly shown IN GAME, just in MS Dos Epilogue boxes.

[Mr.House]

ink07 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

So those are facts written in stone now? 

WOW. Just WOW. Yes, Bioware should totally ignore those who loved the game by "owning up to their mistakes" ....

Interesting context for the word "jaded".......the irony.....

Yes they are. I know you are one of the posters constantly campaigning in favour of DA2 because you loved the game so much and you think Merril is the bestes character ever, and I don't have anything against that, you are free to like the game as much as you wish.

But you simply fail to understand you are in the minority here. For the majority out there DA2 failed to improve on the original, was marketed to capitalize on its succes and most of its design decisions were taken in order to make development faster/ bring in other people, not out of respect and love to the source material or audience that bought the game in the first place, but to make room for other big releases in the fiscal year 2012.

I seriously want you to disprove the fact that most of the design choices that made this game poor, like reuse of dungeons, removal of origins stories, a single city/character to choose from, cookie-cutter MMO like quests, less customization options, less dialogue options, the lack of consecuences for your choices, no change in the city at all after "10 years", disjointed storyline were not due to time/probably budget constrains. You may think that the story was the best ever, and the mashy combat improved on consoles, whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes and EA/Bioware are still not owning up to that, rather blaming the gamers for not "getting it".

Typical ignorence. "You like DA2 so that means your blind to the flaws!" Before you type, know who you are talking about, not all DA2 fans like everything about the game, nor do they think it's perfect. So grow up, get off your high horse and grow the hell up.

Modifié par Mr.House, 14 juin 2011 - 10:28 .