738 réponses à ce sujet

[Dazaster Dellus]

Another thing I read on here from the Devs was about the issue of reuse of the same environments. They mentioned not having enough disc space. Really?!

[Sabs59]

I rather enjoyed the game overall. The story was great, as were the characters. Although Anders will always drive me totally batty. Dx I did like the whole paraphrase thing that went on, where you had Hawke's voice. Though the Hawke voice did get old fast.
Hopefully next time we can choose our voice?
However.
I think my biggest gripe, like may others, is that the game felt rushed. I really think more time would have resulted in a SPECTACULAR game. Stupid EA. >:I

[ElLemur]

Xayoz wrote...

On the topic of choice.

The reason why I felt like this game gave my none is basically this...
Say, my character is a mage. A bloodmage even.
And I do what? I spend the better part of the game killing my potential allies, without any option of talking my way out of those fights.
This would be perfectly fine, if I where to be role play someone strictly moral that maybe sympathizes with the templars.
However, what if I want to play as someone who wouldn't blink an eye at someone summoning demons and performing bloodmagic?
As this claims to be an RPG, I certainly feel like I should have had that option.
In truth, it really puzzles me why I didn't.
Surely it would not have been difficult to implement diplomatic solutions to many such quests or provide alternative ways of completing them, nor would it have prevented the game from reaching it's current conclusion.
There where oh so many instances where the game gave you no 'option b' for solving a quest, where as it clearly could and should have.
In the end, this left me incredibly frustrated and feeling like every dialogue was there simply to give you 3 different ways for reaching the same outcome.

The game just forces you into this one role.
You are Hawke. You are the champion. You do what is right and heroic.
But what if you want to play a rogue who only cares about coin and getting out of this mess with mages and templars, alive?
What if you want to be a mage who is all for killing every single templar, not matter the means?
A warrior that actually believes ridding the world of mages is for the best?

All I really wanted to see was more than one predetermined path to reach the final outcome (witch I tough was perfectly fine).
Even 2 would have been fine.
Witcher 2 for instance, is a good example of how this could have been done.

I agree, cue my Stay-out-of-Templar/Mage-Business rogue. I can even imagine Hawke siding with no one, fleeing Kirkwall and the final battle only to be held accountable some months into the future, on the Wounded Coast or somewhere else, creating a totally different final boss fight in that way.

A related issue that I forgot to include in my previous post: What does it take to become a blood mage? Nothing! What consequences does it have? Sweet abilities and... nothing else!
In Origins, at least you had to make a pact with a demon to become a blood mage, do a dragon blood ritual to become a reaver, or just talk to someone who could teach you what needed doing. Isabela's duelist game was one of the best ways of unlocking a specialisation imo, but nothing like this occurs in DA2. It would be sweet if you had to find and unlock specialisations, and that there would perhaps even be multiple opportunities to do so. For instance, you could unlock Shadow by siding with Athenril and Assassin by siding with Meeran, learn Blood Mage from Merrill, Spirit Healer from Anders and Duelist from Isabela, and there would be other chances if you miss out on these.
What isn't in any of the games is consequences. Sure, some people freak out if you unlock the reaver spec, but nobody questions you BEING a reaver or a blood mage. I can imagine great drama between Hawke and Anders on account of choosing either Blood Mage or Templar specs - provided that he ever witnesses any of those abilities in action, of course - or bonus points from Merrill for going Blood or from Isabela for becoming her Duelist apprentice, while she would dislike the sneakiness of the Assassin. Of course, some of these specialisations are more laden (*cough*Blood Mage and Templar*cough*) but it would still be a nice addition that would definitely deepen the RPG experience.

[rougeman]

so out of the 2 threads with this topic they locked the one that wasn't people saying how much like d.a.2 and bioware because we all know developing time would have made it more like origins and less crappy lets face it there "innovations" were nothing more then a step towards hack-n-slash, and bioware trying to make there games try to appeal to call of duty fans since we can tell they don't like there core fanbase.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ink07 wrote...
whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes

This link may be helpful to you. 

No. This is not clever or applicable in this case.

This is not a matter of "I don't like it." 
This is a matter of copy-paste areas that aren't even re-skinned, and enemy mobs that spawn out of thin air right in front of you in an "RPG" is just plain lazy shoddy design work.

And that is a statement of objective assessment, not opinion.

[Huntress]

"I agree, cue my Stay-out-of-Templar/Mage-Business rogue. I can even imagine Hawke siding with no one, fleeing Kirkwall and the final battle only to be held accountable some months into the future, on the Wounded Coast or somewhere else, creating a totally different final boss fight in that way.

A related issue that I forgot to include in my previous post: What does it take to become a blood mage? Nothing! What consequences does it have? Sweet abilities and... nothing else!
In Origins, at least you had to make a pact with a demon to become a blood mage, do a dragon blood ritual to become a reaver, or just talk to someone who could teach you what needed doing. Isabela's duelist game was one of the best ways of unlocking a specialisation imo, but nothing like this occurs in DA2. It would be sweet if you had to find and unlock specialisations, and that there would perhaps even be multiple opportunities to do so. For instance, you could unlock Shadow by siding with Athenril and Assassin by siding with Meeran, learn Blood Mage from Merrill, Spirit Healer from Anders and Duelist from Isabela, and there would be other chances if you miss out on these.
What isn't in any of the games is consequences. Sure, some people freak out if you unlock the reaver spec, but nobody questions you BEING a reaver or a blood mage. I can imagine great drama between Hawke and Anders on account of choosing either Blood Mage or Templar specs - provided that he ever witnesses any of those abilities in action, of course - or bonus points from Merrill for going Blood or from Isabela for becoming her Duelist apprentice, while she would dislike the sneakiness of the Assassin. Of course, some of these specialisations are more laden (*cough*Blood Mage and Templar*cough*) but it would still be a nice addition that would definitely deepen the RPG experience."

I remember when I started playing DA2 I saw my rogues get Isabela skills, Mages get Anders and warrior learned Fenris.. I haven't see it or notes any more, Do you think is probably because of a mod I have they won't show? hmm I should check that out, I think you get this skills if you had max reputation on this characters.

I am not intersted on any of this builds but, now that you mention it, I should check it out.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ink07 wrote...
whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes

This link may be helpful to you. 

No. This is not clever or applicable in this case.

This is not a matter of "I don't like it." 
This is a matter of copy-paste areas that aren't even re-skinned, and enemy mobs that spawn out of thin air right in front of you in an "RPG" is just plain lazy shoddy design work.

And that is a statement of objective assessment, not opinion.

Words like "inferior", "lazy", and "shoddy" are rarely objective. If you think that they aren't opinionated, I think you could probably learn a thing or two from Arthur and his friends. 

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 15 juin 2011 - 01:57 .

[Maria Caliban]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Words like "inferior", "lazy", and "shoddy" are rarely objective. If you think that they aren't opinionated, I think you could probably learn a thing or two from Arthur and his friends. 

Hoorayforicecream debates with the_one? Hmmm...

[Maverick827]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Everything is math.

We're not laying pipe, we're talking about roleplaying!

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ink07 wrote...
whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes

This link may be helpful to you. 

No. This is not clever or applicable in this case.

This is not a matter of "I don't like it." 
This is a matter of copy-paste areas that aren't even re-skinned, and enemy mobs that spawn out of thin air right in front of you in an "RPG" is just plain lazy shoddy design work.

And that is a statement of objective assessment, not opinion.

Words like "inferior", "lazy", and "shoddy" are rarely objective. If you think that they aren't opinionated, I think you could probably learn a thing or two from Arthur and his friends. 

No, you need to learn a little something about applying objectivity to your assessments.
DAII vs DA:O in terms of the the details, the sense in the combat situations, and the availability of options for defusing situations shows incredibly clearly how DAII is inferior to DA:O.

And it has nothing at all to do with "I just don't like this." People have pointed out what is wrong over and over. Enemy spawning that is just... inexcusably badly designed. Areas that are re-used multiple times without even getting new skins. The complete lack of any way to deal with almost all the situations by avoiding some kind of combat. These are not issues of opinion. These are issues of your game is not polished and it shows.

edit: For contrast, here's some examples of opinions:

I hated Zevran and Isabella. I loathe morally ambiguous characters. After my first playthrough, one of the things I enjoyed most was slitting Zevrans throat before he has a chance to speak. I have not had enough experience with Isabela to say the same because I haven't played DAII, but from what I've seen in vids and what I've heard said, I thinking she can rot in the Hanged Man forever planning how to find what she lost.

But I think that Zevran was written excellently. I'm willing to accept that Isabela was probably written well too.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 15 juin 2011 - 02:13 .

[Monica83]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ink07 wrote...
whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes

This link may be helpful to you. 

No. This is not clever or applicable in this case.

This is not a matter of "I don't like it." 
This is a matter of copy-paste areas that aren't even re-skinned, and enemy mobs that spawn out of thin air right in front of you in an "RPG" is just plain lazy shoddy design work.

And that is a statement of objective assessment, not opinion.

Words like "inferior", "lazy", and "shoddy" are rarely objective. If you think that they aren't opinionated, I think you could probably learn a thing or two from Arthur and his friends. 

Im with the one about this.. I don't see how those things must be seen as improvements since: the game is rushed.. suffer of a great lack of details.. The plot is not so awesome its just mediocre..Then japanese silly animation style..exploding corpse and ennemy in wawes from the sky... All the quest are in the same way.. Talk-kill kill kill kill kill kill-talk-kill kill kill kill also the choice are not relevant in this game.. Is very linear and quest are always soo schematic...i loved DAO but DA2 its a total letdown.. in my opinion of course..and im not alone it seems..if you liked the game is ok.. But since i prefear title with depth as an rpg.. And i hate this nonsense streamlization on things..

For me da2 was like spore..
Spore at the beginning was presented like a nice simulation game a complex one.. Then at the release we get a streamlized game for kids...

[VanDraegon]

Persephone wrote...

Let's see... I have 7 finished Hawkes with Post Campaign saves. And I'm attached to them all. Can't say the same for all of my Wardens.

Exactly the opposite for me.

We all know the general high and low lights of DA2, so i wont go into that. I will just say that the lows combined to make a game that was only good enough for one play through for me. That is my biggest disappointment of all.

[oldmansavage]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ink07 wrote...
whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes

This link may be helpful to you. 

No. This is not clever or applicable in this case.

This is not a matter of "I don't like it." 
This is a matter of copy-paste areas that aren't even re-skinned, and enemy mobs that spawn out of thin air right in front of you in an "RPG" is just plain lazy shoddy design work.

And that is a statement of objective assessment, not opinion.

Words like "inferior", "lazy", and "shoddy" are rarely objective. If you think that they aren't opinionated, I think you could probably learn a thing or two from Arthur and his friends. 

All the semantical bull**** aside, the reuse of areas was a terrible implementation.  Lets not be stupid here it is what it is. 

[csfteeeer]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ink07 wrote...
whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes

This link may be helpful to you. 

No. This is not clever or applicable in this case.

This is not a matter of "I don't like it." 
This is a matter of copy-paste areas that aren't even re-skinned, and enemy mobs that spawn out of thin air right in front of you in an "RPG" is just plain lazy shoddy design work.

And that is a statement of objective assessment, not opinion.

Words like "inferior", "lazy", and "shoddy" are rarely objective. If you think that they aren't opinionated, I think you could probably learn a thing or two from Arthur and his friends. 

i'll give you a little segment:

"Theres like 30.000 books in the circle tower, so when you go to the circle tower, theres always books all over the floor, were you paying any attention to that ? did you even know before a said that? No!
so the designers went through all that detail for no reason"

sure, a detailed world.... God Forbid!

Tell me this doesn't Scream laziness.

[ink07]

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...
No argument there, besides pointing out that this was already acknowledged by Mike
Laidlaw as a result of short development circle where they wanted to
squezze in as much content as possible[/quote]

That is exactly my point. I said corners were cut to fit a rushed dev cycle. That doesn't happen in a quality game by a qulaity studio. In fact, few quality games have 18months- dev cycles.

[quote]Choosing your origin was marketed as an aspect that was specific to DA:O.[/quote]

True, but comparable content wasn't included in the sequel. By comparable I mean a unique storyline designed for your character other than the "main" quest. If that were the case we would've seen much more developed secondary quests, which wasn't the case. The amount of content "cut" isn't there in any tangible way, not in lenght, assets or more story than before.

[quote]I don't see having to play as a more defined protagonist to be a bad thing, nor is having the story take place in a single city.[/quote]

I do, if only because there is no point in the game where you see the benefit of it. One would imagine choosing a single city meant a better developed one, with living/breathing environments and heavily populated. It was a barren small prison that you couldn't escape that objectively did not benefit DA2's universe and was done purely due to time constraints.

[quote]You had the same type of quests in DA:O. I do, however, agree that quests like these have no place in a single player, story driven rpgs.[/quote]

My point again, why have them in the sequel if tehy are just mindless filler nobody likes?
So you agree that these are "objectively" bad design decisions. In a way you are actually proving my points so far.

[quote]If by "less" you mean the lack of options when it comes to race and
origin, then yes. Everything else, like choosing your gender, looks,
class and personality, was still possible.
[/quote]

How about equiping your characters instead? Again, Laidlaw came out to say it was a conscious decision, in which they wanted to add more "personality" to them and avoid them all looking the same. Then, they don't change a bit in 10 years except for Isabella's clothes, which in any case is almost unnoticeable. Another objective design fault.

[quote]Subjective. I didn't feel there were less dialogue options[/quote]

I remember reading that this game had less dialogue lines due to VA. I can't recall where so I'll give you this one.

[quote]There were consequences for quests not related to the main storyline,
like "Sheparding Wolves" effecing how you get along with Patrice,
sparing Gascard during "Prime Suspect" suspect giving you extra options
of finding Quentin during "All That Remains" and impacting how the
confrontation with him can go, etc
[/quote]

Of course, but my point is... are this objectively good design choices? Bioware loves to congratulate themselves on the kind of branching stories they write, on the character development, etc. None of this is to be found in DA2, nothing important changes, sometimes there is no difference between YES & NO. And it is all made worse by their decisions to ignore the previous game: killed Leilana? she shows up anywyas, didn't pick Sebastian? he shows up! These are flaws in design augmented by the minuscule dev time. A sensible developer would've taken a step back, look closely at all of this and decide to push back the game to make it goo, not "OK".

[quote]There were some very minor changes... Having a place truly change due to your actions is something that Bioware has never done quite right, imo.[/quote]

So you agree with me that this is still badly done...

[quote]I felt the storyline was quite solid during the first two acts, ct 3 experienced a rapid decrease in quality of the plot and failed to
impart a true sense of purpose or even make your acion relevant. [/quote]

Exactly why I called it disjointed. The climax comes in ACT 2, there is no overarching story and ACT 3 is the consequence of a rushed product. I mean, I thought you were going to disprove my points as being subjective but you are agreeing with most of them! That is cause even if you like the game you notice design flaws a mile away.

[quote]I don't, but I also don't think it's the worst ever or even objectively bad.[/quote]

It was never my point to prove the game was bad to people that liked it. I can understand if people like it, even if they think it is good. My point was always around the "objective" design flaws this game has and that you have been agreeing with me so far. People might overlook them if they feel the game is OK for them, that doesn't magically make them objectively bad design choices not worthy of a suppossedly AAA developer.

[quote]
I play on the PC ad certainly didn't find the combat to be "mashy", at least no more than in Origins.[/quote]

Really? I played on PC as well, and you can beat every fight by using a single char, the action bar skills you currently have and pressing RRRRRRRRRRRRR during cooldowns to take care of the rest. Theres little if any party interaction and waves make strategy impossible. OK, i give it to you if you really felt Origins was no better. but, was DA2 really an improvement then?

[quote]Yes, the game has it's flaws and, yes, it didn't achieve the same number
of sales as Origins did. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who
enjoyed it despite it's shortcomings and enjoyment is what should truly
be important to any player, not sales.
[/quote]

To whom are you directing these words, to me or to Bioware? Because I said that I don't mind if people enjoy the game, that doesn't mean it isn't a worse product. And it is laughable that you mention sales, when Bioware had only sales in mind when doing this game and pushing it to fit the Q4 FY2011 release and not a day after regardless of quality. They knew and launched it anyway, and still act "surprised by the backlash.

[quote]If you're asking them to proclaim that DA2 was a "mistake" or "
inferior", that's not going to happen.
[/quote]

I want them to be honest like they haven't been. They did one of the most indignating game launches ever, cutting preorders before any thorough preview was out (not even reviews) and snubbing people out of already done content with their sig edition (for PC precisely, and for Steam specifically). They claim it wasn't so, that there was no conflict with steam and guess what? Crysis 2 was pulled today from Steam. Get it everywhere else and in Origin of course, but no Steam. DA·, ME·, etc will be the same. They were lying then and continue to do so.

I want them to stop the PR talk for a second and stop saying that it was all because we didn't get their innovative design and more due to all of these flaws you and I agree the game has.

Were they a better company- they could do something about it NOW. Not on future paid DLC or on DA3, but NOW. Want to show you care for your fanbase and the guys who bought your product? Why not a re-release of a revised edition? Why not drop the $5 costume packs bs for once and throw the DA fans a bone, not ME (another marketing ploy), but free upcoming DLC for DA2 for example. Other companies do this even when they don't owe anything to their customers they do this because they are respectful of their audience in a way EA isn't.

[quote]Besides, all the words in the world won't make a damn difference if they don't reflect on design of DA3[/quote]

I used to like Bioware, heck I am even looking forward to ME3 so I don't see why my complaints again are to be moot or sileneced by a few DA fanfic writers and cheerleaders in these forums. I have taken upon myself to bash this awful game any chance I get and I will continue to do so until I think they don't deserve it. I don't mind if they don't care, I do and others do as well, and I don't think it is too much to ask for a little respect towards the customer.

Modifié par ink07, 15 juin 2011 - 02:26 .

[Monica83]

csfteeeer wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ink07 wrote...
whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes

This link may be helpful to you. 

No. This is not clever or applicable in this case.

This is not a matter of "I don't like it." 
This is a matter of copy-paste areas that aren't even re-skinned, and enemy mobs that spawn out of thin air right in front of you in an "RPG" is just plain lazy shoddy design work.

And that is a statement of objective assessment, not opinion.

Words like "inferior", "lazy", and "shoddy" are rarely objective. If you think that they aren't opinionated, I think you could probably learn a thing or two from Arthur and his friends. 

i'll give you a little segment:

"Theres like 30.000 books in the circle tower, so when you go to the circle tower, theres always books all over the floor, were you paying any attention to that ? did you even know before a said that? No!
so the designers went through all that detail for no reason"

sure, a detailed world.... God Forbid!

Tell me this doesn't Scream laziness.

THe example of the library make me so smile...

If i remember that tower and i see how is...heerm detailed kirkwall..
This thing is almost demential....

After the shock to see kirkwall i installed the witcher 2 and then....

WOW...that's detail...

See nice fornished locations or awesome exterior full of things for me add immersion... Kirkwall is so empty and suffear a great lack of detail..

In fact from how is complex kirkwall im able to reproduce it in minecraft.....

[the_one_54321]

Monica83 wrote...
THe example of the library make me so smile...

It didn't make me smile. It almost made me throw something at the screen.

[ink07]

the_one_54321 wrote...

No. This is not clever or applicable in this case.

This is not a matter of "I don't like it." 
This is a matter of copy-paste areas that aren't even re-skinned, and enemy mobs that spawn out of thin air right in front of you in an "RPG" is just plain lazy shoddy design work.

And that is a statement of objective assessment, not opinion.

One who understands my point of "objectively" bad, lazy design choices driven by target audiences and financial statements!

Much appreciated. I guess people can't be confronted with these kind of truths so they have to level it to personal taste and try to argue through that.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ink07 wrote...
whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes

This link may be helpful to you. 

No. This is not clever or applicable in this case.

This is not a matter of "I don't like it." 
This is a matter of copy-paste areas that aren't even re-skinned, and enemy mobs that spawn out of thin air right in front of you in an "RPG" is just plain lazy shoddy design work.

And that is a statement of objective assessment, not opinion.

Words like "inferior", "lazy", and "shoddy" are rarely objective. If you think that they aren't opinionated, I think you could probably learn a thing or two from Arthur and his friends. 

No, you need to learn a little something about applying objectivity to your assessments.
DAII vs DA:O in terms of the the details, the sense in the combat situations, and the availability of options for defusing situations shows incredibly clearly how DAII is inferior to DA:O.

And it has nothing at all to do with "I just don't like this." People have pointed out what is wrong over and over. Enemy spawning that is just... inexcusably badly designed. Areas that are re-used multiple times without even getting new skins. The complete lack of any way to deal with almost all the situations by avoiding some kind of combat. These are not issues of opinion. These are issues of your game is not polished and it shows.

You seem to have me confused with someone who actually gave an assessment of the game. I don't think I ever did that, at least not in this thread. I simply pointed out that ink07's use of "objective truth" was actually not.

Was the game rushed? Compared to an average game's development cycle, yes.

Did the game lack polish? Yes, one of the most common side effects of a short development cycle is lack of polish time.

Was it lazy, shoddy, and/or inferior? Whatever my answer to this question is, it sure seems a lot more like an opinion than the first two questions, due to the rather subjective nature of those words.

Personally, I don't think it was lazy, shoddy, or inferior. There are aspects of it that are inferior to other games, but there are also aspects of it I found superior. In my opinion, that makes it different. But that's my opinion, just like calling it lazy or shoddy is yours.

I know what it's like to work on a really short development cycle. I am a game developer, and have been one for several years. I've done my time on AAA titles too. Game developers, especially AAA budget game developers like Bioware, do not work normal 9-5 jobs, 40 hours a week and go home to count their piles of money, cackling all the way. Game developers, especially AAA budget game developers, often have to crunch for 60-100 hours a week during the last six months to a year or so of game development in order to get the entire thing done on time and sufficiently bug-free that the certification teams at Sony and Microsoft will pass them and allow them to sell the game. During those times, game developers usually don't get to see their families, lose most sense of social life, tend to gain weight (due to eating at the catered overtime buffet and not having any chance to exercise), and generally spend all of their waking hours at the office trying to get the project finished on time.

But hey, feel free to call them lazy. You're entitled to your opinion.

[csfteeeer]

Monica83 wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ink07 wrote...
whatever, the objective truth here is that DA2 is an inferior product, plagued with design mistakes

This link may be helpful to you. 

No. This is not clever or applicable in this case.

This is not a matter of "I don't like it." 
This is a matter of copy-paste areas that aren't even re-skinned, and enemy mobs that spawn out of thin air right in front of you in an "RPG" is just plain lazy shoddy design work.

And that is a statement of objective assessment, not opinion.

Words like "inferior", "lazy", and "shoddy" are rarely objective. If you think that they aren't opinionated, I think you could probably learn a thing or two from Arthur and his friends. 

i'll give you a little segment:

"Theres like 30.000 books in the circle tower, so when you go to the circle tower, theres always books all over the floor, were you paying any attention to that ? did you even know before a said that? No!
so the designers went through all that detail for no reason"

sure, a detailed world.... God Forbid!

Tell me this doesn't Scream laziness.

THe example of the library make me so smile...

If i remember that tower and i see how is...heerm detailed kirkwall..
This thing is almost demential....

After the shock to see kirkwall i installed the witcher 2 and then....

WOW...that's detail...

See nice fornished locations or awesome exterior full of things for me add immersion... Kirkwall is so empty and suffear a great lack of detail..

In fact from how is complex kirkwall im able to reproduce it in minecraft.....

 about the Minecraft thing, i might actually try that...
agreed, The Witcher 2's attention to Detail is awe-inspiring.
that is why think BioWare should get inspirations (in terms of mechanics and gameplay) from The Witcher 2 for DA3, making a detailed city is a work of care and love, and i hope doesn't feel like being arrogant and that they don't want to take anything from other games, IF that's the case (i reapeat, IF that's the case), then that's incredibly silly, a world like TW2's is a technological advancement, no one is gonna be like "you ripped off The Witcher 2!!!".

Modifié par csfteeeer, 15 juin 2011 - 02:42 .

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Personally, I don't think it was lazy, shoddy, or inferior. There are aspects of it that are inferior to other games, but there are also aspects of it I found superior. In my opinion, that makes it different. But that's my opinion, just like calling it lazy or shoddy is yours.

I know what it's like to work on a really short development cycle. I am a game developer, and have been one for several years. I've done my time on AAA titles too. Game developers, especially AAA budget game developers like Bioware, do not work normal 9-5 jobs, 40 hours a week and go home to count their piles of money, cackling all the way. Game developers, especially AAA budget game developers, often have to crunch for 60-100 hours a week during the last six months to a year or so of game development in order to get the entire thing done on time and sufficiently bug-free that the certification teams at Sony and Microsoft will pass them and allow them to sell the game. During those times, game developers usually don't get to see their families, lose most sense of social life, tend to gain weight (due to eating at the catered overtime buffet and not having any chance to exercise), and generally spend all of their waking hours at the office trying to get the project finished on time.

1. An objective comparison is not an opinion. "Game A is [insert observations here] and Game B is [insert observations here], therefore Game B is inferior." This is not an issue of differeing opinions. If you were to say "but I liked it anyway" then that part would be an opinion.

2. Lazy development != lazy workers/developers. The development was lazy because it was satisfied with inferior quality. The workers/developers worked their butts off to achieve this. Both statements can be true at the same time.

[ink07]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

But hey, feel free to call them lazy. You're entitled to your opinion.

Objectively bad & lazy design =/= Lazy people

But hey, feel free to continue to bring your up to now unknown insider dev insight. You are entitled to whatever it is you are trying to prove.


Edit: and again I am beaten by a like minded individual with much better communication skills. Hope people get it this time.

Modifié par ink07, 15 juin 2011 - 02:52 .

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

1. An objective comparison is not an opinion. "Game A is [insert observations here] and Game B is [insert observations here], therefore Game B is inferior." This is not an issue of differeing opinions. If you were to say "but I liked it anyway" then that part would be an opinion.

Not true. The objective part here is dispassionately listing the observations. The conclusion that one is inferior is the opinion, because you are applying subjective criteria to determine what is and isn't inferior.

2. Lazy development != lazy workers/developers. The development was lazy because it was satisfied with inferior quality. The workers/developers worked their butts off to achieve this. Both statements can be true at the same time.

You might call it lazy, I would call it pragmatic. Most people seem to think that the choice was "release it now, or hold it back and release it later". The actual choice in these kinds of cases is most often one of the following:

1. release it by the date, or release it later and not get paid for the intervening time.
2. release it by the date, or find a new job.

Almost every game developer I've met loves making games. They just tend to be more fond of things like paying their mortgages, clothing their kids, and putting food on the table. I can't really fault them for this; I have similar priorities myself.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

can someone explain to me what was so wrong with dragon age origins that they had to make the next game like dragon age 2, it had the most boring combat system I can ever remember playing and the majority of characters were awful the only one I liked really was varric and the best bit is of the entire game is were you kill anders, god dammit I hate that character and for a game called dragon age the high dragons was awful, it lacked the awe of the high dragon from origins.