738 réponses à ce sujet

[DanaScu]

the_one_54321 wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you here. The ME team heard quite clearly that something needed to change from ME1 to ME2. It so happened that they went the route of making it an all out shooter, possibly because a lot of shooter fans came to play ME1, which hence, was the the reason fans were complaining about the stat driven aiming.

I lost all hope when the dev team/marketing spin said everyone loved planet scanning and ammo as skills insteads of real skills. I'm sorry...I just can't *believe* anymore. Eh no biggie.

I was actually kind of between love and hate on the planet scanning. I enjoyed doing it. Up until I realized how often it had to be done. I'm not sure what you mean about ammo as skills though.

In ME if you want cryo/freeze ammo, find it and equip it as your ammo type. In ME2, if you want cryo/freeze ammo, make sure you have the cryo/freeze ammo skill/ability/whatever you want to call it. You will never find any type of ammo you can equip. Only the "ammo clip"heat sinks that retconned the original.

[DanaScu]

foo man chew wrote...

What innovations if you mean stripping down things like companion armor,game length,a cohesive story,the ability to choose your own race and rpg elements then yeah i suppose somewhere there was innovation going on but i cant think of anything that was innovative about this game.It feels like it was made to make a quick buck thats it.

Don't forget the "innovation" that the class you choose restricts the party you can have.

You have the choice of class, or party. If you want to play a mage, you have no choice but end up with Carver. If you play the other two possible classes, you end up with Bethany.

[LPPrince]

What bothered me about DA2 was that it was(besides all its shortcomings) WAAAAAAY too different from DAO.

DAO was a huge success. Why not make a DAO2 instead of DA2? The art style didn't need to change, the overall style of the game didn't need to change, etc etc.

Gameplay did. But so much else was unwarranted.

Ugh.

[Bejos_]

Elhanan wrote...

Bejos_ wrote...

Some interesting (?) figures for EA.

EA losses:
$454 million FY2008
$1088 million FY2009
$677 million FY2010
$276 million FY2011

Maybe they'll eventually end up in the black next year.

Unless TOR crashes.

Source? Or is the interesting part where you got the figures?

Yawn. Wow are you lazy, huh? It took me all of 1 minute to scrounge those up.

I should actually make an addition:

EA Profit:
$76 million FY2007

EA losses:
$454 million FY2008
$1088 million FY2009
$677 million FY2010
$276 million FY2011

Here's a link to 2007/2008 figures.
Here's a link to 2009 figures.
Here's a link to 2010 figures.
Here's a link to 2011 figures.

That's a $2 billion loss over four years.

They can bounce back from this, if they survive long enough.

Edit: Like, crazy long, if 2007 is anything to go by.

Modifié par Bejos_, 16 juin 2011 - 02:17 .

[Elhanan]

DanaScu wrote...

foo man chew wrote...

What innovations if you mean stripping down things like companion armor,game length,a cohesive story,the ability to choose your own race and rpg elements then yeah i suppose somewhere there was innovation going on but i cant think of anything that was innovative about this game.It feels like it was made to make a quick buck thats it.

Don't forget the "innovation" that the class you choose restricts the party you can have.

You have the choice of class, or party. If you want to play a mage, you have no choice but end up with Carver. If you play the other two possible classes, you end up with Bethany.

Actually, one may not end up with siblings at all if played in a certain manner, so that choice remains intact. And just because they exist does not force party composition past entry into Kirkwall.

Companion armor is upgradable, and not every game has to offer a variety of race.

The remaining innovative complaints are subjective opinions; seemingly served with whine.

[Luvinn]

LPPrince wrote...

What bothered me about DA2 was that it was(besides all its shortcomings) WAAAAAAY too different from DAO.

DAO was a huge success. Why not make a DAO2 instead of DA2? The art style didn't need to change, the overall style of the game didn't need to change, etc etc.

Gameplay did. But so much else was unwarranted.

Ugh.

Pretty much how i feel. I hate the new art style in general, the new elf model (although i give them credit for trying something different), horrific, 8-bit looking random npc's throughout the city, so many pointless filler quests (give so-and-so's remains to someone, "i never thought i'd see this again, you have my thanks), and random other garbage thats been discussed to death. The only improvement DA:O needed was a slight tweak in combat, not a complete overhaul for the worse.

[Bejos_]

mrcrusty wrote...

Then read his Origins review for good measure.

The reviews themselves are mostly fine. Almost all are incredibly detailed and well written, if snarky. It's the forums which really draw out all the crap.

I couldn't remember having read the DA:O review. When I loaded it up again just now, I realised why. I didn't have that kind of patience then, and I don't have it now.

When I installed DA:O the first time, I really disliked the game. After playing halfway through Ostagar, I quit and didn't touch it again for an entire year. (It's noteworthy that it didn't fill me with the outright horror that DA2 did. I just realised DA:O's story was banal. The rest was well executed.)
Curious as to what other people's reactions were, I went online and somehow ended up at that RPGCodex review. I didn't get through even a bit of it, but it did remind me I had a BG 1 and 2 on my shelves, which I promptly reinstalled and enjoyed.
A year later, fixing for an RPG that I hadn't yet played to death, I finally managed to get through DA:O and enjoy it. Unimaginative premise aside, everything else was good.

Contrast this with my reaction to DA2.

8|
;(
8|
>;(
8*D

That last smiley, because it was just so hilariously bad. I must have cracked a little by the time I played through the last Act, because I couldn't stop laughing at all the BAD everything.

Now it's ;,,,(

It's been a long time coming: I thought Bioware might eventually come around to the idea of having one, small in-house team that bothered with RPGs, while they focused on whatever direction it is they'd originally always wanted to go in, but I'm finally disabused of that notion.

Modifié par Bejos_, 16 juin 2011 - 02:40 .

[Elhanan]

@ Bejos - Thanks for the links; will let the economists sort our tht intel.

But I lack the patience to quote your biased opinions on the game, and will trust Bioware to strive for better each time.

[Bejos_]

Elhanan wrote...

@ Bejos - Thanks for the links; will let the economists sort our tht intel.

But I lack the patience to quote your biased opinions on the game, and will trust Bioware to strive for better each time.

Are you a troll?

[Fast Jimmy]

ink07 wrote...

Oh I've been listening alright. I've been listening to them when they said tactical camera would be there, or when they said the asset reuse was to provide more variety in mission content (as if the 18 months dev cycle was inexsitent) I also heard them when they said they "couldn't do anything about not offering the Signature Edition on Steam and that it wasn't a plan to target that specific store", and lo and behold Origin comes along, and I've been listening to Gaider and his "I don't care what you choose in-game when we gave you the option to choose, your decisions don't matter," and I've been listening to Laidlaw when he says "wave based combat is going to be there in DA3" and I am listening now when they say that their game "was full of innovations, it is just that fans didn't get them."

I'm going to be a grammar **** here and say you shouldn't use the syntax of "blah blah said" and then use quotation marks to paraphrase something that they didn't actually say, or even come close to saying in those exact words. While I think interviews with BW devs could be construed to mean what you are implying, there is nowhere that I've seen that Gaider would ever say "your decisions don't matter."

It may very well be an EA/BW policy now to make any and all choices more streamlined for sequal continuity, or something else, but no one is going to come out and say the things you are implying.

Again... being a grammar ****. Not taking sides on the issue, just pointing out something that was bothering me.

I'll go back under my bridge now.

[csfteeeer]

Bejos_ wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

@ Bejos - Thanks for the links; will let the economists sort our tht intel.

But I lack the patience to quote your biased opinions on the game, and will trust Bioware to strive for better each time.

Are you a troll?

i think he is.

[Bejos_]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ink07 wrote...

Oh I've been listening alright. I've been listening to them when they said tactical camera would be there, or when they said the asset reuse was to provide more variety in mission content (as if the 18 months dev cycle was inexsitent) I also heard them when they said they "couldn't do anything about not offering the Signature Edition on Steam and that it wasn't a plan to target that specific store", and lo and behold Origin comes along, and I've been listening to Gaider and his "I don't care what you choose in-game when we gave you the option to choose, your decisions don't matter," and I've been listening to Laidlaw when he says "wave based combat is going to be there in DA3" and I am listening now when they say that their game "was full of innovations, it is just that fans didn't get them."

I'm going to be a grammar **** here and say you shouldn't use the syntax of "blah blah said" and then use quotation marks to paraphrase something that they didn't actually say, or even come close to saying in those exact words. While I think interviews with BW devs could be construed to mean what you are implying, there is nowhere that I've seen that Gaider would ever say "your decisions don't matter."

It may very well be an EA/BW policy now to make any and all choices more streamlined for sequal continuity, or something else, but no one is going to come out and say the things you are implying.

Again... being a grammar ****. Not taking sides on the issue, just pointing out something that was bothering me.

I'll go back under my bridge now.

Technicalities aside, that's pretty much what Gaider said. There was some argument a while back between him and forumites who asked him why Leliana was back in DA2 when you could kill her in DA:O. Yes, it was during the Urn of Ashes quest (or whatever it is that the Holy Grail is called in DA:O), and you might be able to argue that she could have been resurrected with those ashes-- except that you only kill her if you desecrate the ashes.
What does Gaider say? (I'm paraphrasing:) "It doesn't matter what you did in the game. The story will be told the way we want to tell it." Which is fine; it is their game after all. Except when you go about trumpeting Choice & Consequence.
And really, what was insulting was the way in which he said it. Some people might say he's a number of expletives, and I'd be of the same opinion. He never comes off well in interviews.

[DanaScu]

Elhanan wrote...

DanaScu wrote...

foo man chew wrote...

What innovations if you mean stripping down things like companion armor,game length,a cohesive story,the ability to choose your own race and rpg elements then yeah i suppose somewhere there was innovation going on but i cant think of anything that was innovative about this game.It feels like it was made to make a quick buck thats it.

Don't forget the "innovation" that the class you choose restricts the party you can have.

You have the choice of class, or party. If you want to play a mage, you have no choice but end up with Carver. If you play the other two possible classes, you end up with Bethany.

Actually, one may not end up with siblings at all if played in a certain manner, so that choice remains intact. And just because they exist does not force party composition past entry into Kirkwall.

Companion armor is upgradable, and not every game has to offer a variety of race.

The remaining innovative complaints are subjective opinions; seemingly served with whine.

Really? You can manage to get both your siblings killed in the opening of the game? I'm not talking about later in the game. If you, Hawke, are a mage, the ogre takes care of Bethany. I really didn't think there was a way to kill off Carver at the same time. Likewise if you are a rogue or warrior, the ogre gets rid of Carver; I don't remember seeing any way to kill off Bethany too. Likewise there is no way to prevent the death.

If I want to choose a class and build my party and the game doesn't allow that, then that is an issue for me, not an innovation.There is no choice. If you are a mage, you get the warrior; if you are a rogue or warrior, you get the mage. How does any form of "choice" remain intact? If I want to play with my "sister" in my party, I can't be a mage. If I want to be a rogue or fighter with my two handed weapon wielding brother in my party, I can't. There is no choice of party if you pick your class; there is no choice of class if you pick your party.

Modifié par DanaScu, 16 juin 2011 - 03:15 .

[Bejos_]

csfteeeer wrote...

Bejos_ wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

@ Bejos - Thanks for the links; will let the economists sort our tht intel.

But I lack the patience to quote your biased opinions on the game, and will trust Bioware to strive for better each time.

Are you a troll?

i think he is.

Hahah. Well, damn, you're good. Hugs?

[Corto81]

Bejos_ wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Lol NeoGAF is having a field day with this article

http://www.neogaf.co...ad.php?t=433894

Edit: Favorite quote "Has a franchise ever been destroyed as quickly as Dragon Age?"

Yes That's where I got the theory. Visanideth posted it. He might be on to something.

Nope, there're are valid critics and there are hate-filled trolls.

That dude is a definition of  a hater who spouts false information as facts to support his lame theories.

Origins was marketed as BG spiritual successor.
At no point was it suppose to appeal to the "awesome" crowd.
And it sold so well because it got great word-of-mouth reviews and because it was an awesome RPG
(that's the genereal opinion and perception of it anyway, mine included).

DA2, on the other hand, was just a bad, streamlined, dumbed-down, recycled, RPG-stripped game.

[Bejos_]

Corto81 wrote...

Bejos_ wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Lol NeoGAF is having a field day with this article

http://www.neogaf.co...ad.php?t=433894

Edit: Favorite quote "Has a franchise ever been destroyed as quickly as Dragon Age?"

Yes That's where I got the theory. Visanideth posted it. He might be on to something.

Nope, there're are valid critics and there are hate-filled trolls.

That dude is a definition of  a hater who spouts false information as facts to support his lame theories.

Origins was marketed as BG spiritual successor.
At no point was it suppose to appeal to the "awesome" crowd.
And it sold so well because it got great word-of-mouth reviews and because it was an awesome RPG
(that's the genereal opinion and perception of it anyway, mine included).

DA2, on the other hand, was just a bad, streamlined, dumbed-down, recycled, RPG-stripped game.

Hm. Okay. Regardless of reasons, yes ^

[SkittlesKat96]

 The companion system and voiced protagonist system is something people might not like but I reckon its moving to the future and is necessary...

The fact that the game was rushed among other small features they've changed and taken out is what made the game bad I reckon.

Also EA rushed it 'to capitalize on DAO's success' apparently

EDIT: I reckon the companion system could have been done a bit better though

Modifié par SkittlesKat96, 16 juin 2011 - 03:42 .

[Elhanan]

DanaScu wrote...

Really? You can manage to get both your siblings killed in the opening of the game? I'm not talking about later in the game. If you, Hawke, are a mage,..... I really didn't think there was a way to kill off Carver at the same time. Likewise if you are a rogue or warrior, ....; I don't remember seeing any way to kill off Bethany too. Likewise there is no way to prevent the death.

If I want to choose a class and build my party and the game doesn't allow that, then that is an issue for me, not an innovation.There is no choice. If you are a mage, you get the warrior; if you are a rogue or warrior, you get the mage. How does any form of "choice" remain intact? If I want to play with my "sister" in my party, I can't be a mage. If I want to be a rogue or fighter with my two handed weapon wielding brother in my party, I can't. There is no choice of party if you pick your class; there is no choice of class if you pick your party.

One may be forced into a specific party build for two encounters, I believe; the second of those may be optional. Huge inconvenience....

Plus all this may be altered on the PC via mods, I believe; uncertain as I have not needed to do this. Of course, some may not wish to give credit to Bioware for the work, though they did give the community the DA Toolkit.

RE: No Spoilers Pls

[ink07]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ink07 wrote...

Oh I've been listening alright. I've been listening to them when they said tactical camera would be there, or when they said the asset reuse was to provide more variety in mission content (as if the 18 months dev cycle was inexsitent) I also heard them when they said they "couldn't do anything about not offering the Signature Edition on Steam and that it wasn't a plan to target that specific store", and lo and behold Origin comes along, and I've been listening to Gaider and his "I don't care what you choose in-game when we gave you the option to choose, your decisions don't matter," and I've been listening to Laidlaw when he says "wave based combat is going to be there in DA3" and I am listening now when they say that their game "was full of innovations, it is just that fans didn't get them."

I'm going to be a grammar **** here and say you shouldn't use the syntax of "blah blah said" and then use quotation marks to paraphrase something that they didn't actually say, or even come close to saying in those exact words. While I think interviews with BW devs could be construed to mean what you are implying, there is nowhere that I've seen that Gaider would ever say "your decisions don't matter."

Well, be amazed, because he did:



I don't have a problem that they have a canon story and they stick to it. I have a problem when they give you a choice and then they override it without warning and the only answer they can come up with it is in that condescending tone.

Bioware keep insinsting that choices matter, they market their games as such, and they effectively removed all from DA2. If they market the game as the linear FFX like experience that this is people can set their expectations accordingly, but when they push it as DA "2" and fail to do what they do with their other series (ME), I can't help but feel disheartened both by the game and by their response to criticism.

Anything else?

Modifié par ink07, 16 juin 2011 - 04:03 .

[Elhanan]

Bejos_ wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

@ Bejos - Thanks for the links; will let the economists sort our tht intel.

But I lack the patience to quote your biased opinions on the game, and will trust Bioware to strive for better each time.

Are you a troll?

Am I? Getting my leads from you....

I couldn't remember having read the DA:O review. When I loaded it up again just now, I realised why. I didn't have that kind of patience then, and I don't have it now.

[Addai]

Filament wrote...

Let's not pretend any of us even begin to understand the math that makes up "everything."

(husband)

I think he's refering to something like this....

[Zanallen]

You had the choice to defile the ashes. You did. The response was you fighting Leliana and possibly Wynne. You did so. Leliana is back and Gaider has said that there is a reason for that. Either she was feigning death or being within the vicinity of the ashes was somehow magical or perhaps the lyrium lining the cave walls had some effect. Your Warden attacked Leliana. That decision stands. The fact that she is still alive is in no way a retcon or a negation of your choices. Her survival is just behind the scenes and not yet fully explained.

[Elhanan]

ink07 wrote...

... I don't have a problem that they have a canon story and they stick to it. I have a problem when they give you a choice and then they override it without warning and the only answer they can come up with it is in that condescending tone.

Bioware keep insinsting that choices matter, they market their games as such, and they effectively removed all from DA2. If they market the game as the linear FFX like experience that this is people can set their expectations accordingly, but when they push it as DA "2" and fail to do what they do with their other series ME, I can't help but feel disheartened both by the game and by their response to criticism.

Anything else?

The explanations given seems warranted, though I have yet to ever battle Leliana in my games. And there are choices in DA2; just not the ones some wish to have included. 

As for the tone: Pot; meet kettle.

[ink07]

Well, sorry if I missed the in-game explanation for surviving decapitation. My fault then for thinking that was I choice I made and not a crafty trick by the developers much more deep than "a wizard did it". Surely the answer is so intriguing they had to save it for DA3. It is clear to me that DA2's development was heavily disjointed and many things, while acknowledged, were not even considered for the sequel.

In any case, my criticism was to the manner and tone of the responses by Bioware/EA employees, of course, I have been now quoted like 5 times by different people in different contexts who expect I explain my case every single time and raise every time a different argument within my posts.

As for the tone of my posts... well, what can I say Elhanan other that I have learned much from you. Pot meet kettle indeed. Have you somehow missed your own responses above?

Modifié par ink07, 16 juin 2011 - 04:28 .

[erynnar]

Elhanan wrote...

ink07 wrote...

... I don't have a problem that they have a canon story and they stick to it. I have a problem when they give you a choice and then they override it without warning and the only answer they can come up with it is in that condescending tone.

Bioware keep insinsting that choices matter, they market their games as such, and they effectively removed all from DA2. If they market the game as the linear FFX like experience that this is people can set their expectations accordingly, but when they push it as DA "2" and fail to do what they do with their other series ME, I can't help but feel disheartened both by the game and by their response to criticism.

Anything else?

The explanations given seems warranted, though I have yet to ever battle Leliana in my games. And there are choices in DA2; just not the ones some wish to have included. 

As for the tone: Pot; meet kettle.

Sorry El, choices of who I shag are weak sauce indeed. Choices should have an impact on the world, in more than the minutest of ways, otherwise they cease being choices, even the illusion, becomes nothing more than a cinematic movie with Fed ex comercials. And no, choosing whether my Hawke is Happy, Sneezy, or Douchey isn't enough for me. Guess that makes me a hatin' ****.

Modifié par erynnar, 16 juin 2011 - 04:32 .