738 réponses à ce sujet

[Bejos_]

Elhanan 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?

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.

Did you think I was talking about the game, DA:O? I was talking about VD's DA:O review.

Am I missing something here? I feel like I've entered a parallel universe where my face is plastered on noticeboards with the words "Dead Or Alive" stamped on my forehead.

Modifié par Bejos_, 16 juin 2011 - 04:37 .

[Elhanan]

erynnar wrote...

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' ****.

I chose to try and romance Aveline, so I already know about not being able to have the results one may desire. But that choice still existed, and sometimes the response may be negative.

Choices did have impact. One could gather companions or not; use them or not if gathered. One seemed to have more replies in DA2 than in DAO, as I often had to go around the dial to procur info.

What was not granted was being able to decide the fate of the major event. Sometimes history decides who are great men, and not mankind themselves. Heroes appear in the midst of war, catastrophe, and turmoil, but not because they choose the results of those events, but how they choose to deal with (and in) them. Smaller choices perhaps, but these are what are gifted to us; not always the major selections of what will occur.

[Bejos_]

No apology, then? Stay classy, Elhanan.

If English is not your first language, you really should think twice before flying off the handle at people who've apparently insulted your "preciousssss".

[Darth Executor]

erynnar wrote...

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' ****.

But there are choices in DA2. For example, you chose to put money in EA's pockets for a grossly substandard product. This ensures that another choice in DA2(Mike Laidlaw's, not yours) gets to play out in DA3. So don' t worry. While it may seem that your only choices are between getting crabs and gay elf sex, more far reaching choices like whether to bother grabbing all 20 release day DLCs undoubtedly await you in the future.

[Darth Executor]

Bejos_ wrote...

No apology, then? Stay classy, Elhanan.

If English is not your first language, you really should think twice before flying off the handle at people who've apparently insulted your "preciousssss".

No need to get upset, this Elhanan chap strikes me as the sort who would scream "what a magnificent feast!" from the top of his lungs if Gaider took a dump on his plate.

[Bejos_]

Darth Executor wrote...

erynnar wrote...

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' ****.

But there are choices in DA2. For example, you chose to put money in EA's pockets for a grossly substandard product. This ensures that another choice in DA2(Mike Laidlaw's, not yours) gets to play out in DA3. So don' t worry. While it may seem that your only choices are between getting crabs and gay elf sex, more far reaching choices like whether to bother grabbing all 20 release day DLCs undoubtedly await you in the future.

Don't forget the choice between SE and RE games, and pre-release day DLC.

[snfonseka]

In my Oxford dictionary, the word "innovation" means a different thing. This is weird.....

[astreqwerty]

henkez3 wrote...

What DA2 suffered from mostly was a lack of developing time. I think that most of these "innovations" to the game would have been alot better if they'd had say, another year or so to actually make a complete game. I think the combat is a huge improvement from DAO (not the waves though). Also, BioWare needs to look over their procedure when they create a character. Isabela is the worse character in an RPG (J or W) that I've ever come across, she is just an unfunny token ****, and in every playthrough it gets worse and worse hearing her speak.

And imo, no matter what anyone says, having a voice character is much, much, much better than having a silent character mindlessly staring out in the distance when someone proclaims their undying love for your character. both male and female hawke's voice actors are terrific.

funny,i find isabela to be one of the best characters in a game

more devlopment time is the solution..EA should have known by now that they only insult our intelligence with hypocretic iterviews such as these (and laidlaws stuff)

[astreqwerty]

Persephone wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

I don't think anyone is expecting Bioware to bash their own game. I certainly don't. I just go grizzly over EA and some Bioware devs talking about innovation as a reason as to why people don't like the game.

There's one feature in Dragon Age 2 that I find innovative and that's the dialog changing according to personality and most people like that. The other "innovations" aren't innovative at all, they are elements and mechanics adapted, or taken wholesale from other games, which do them better.

Even the innovation in DA 2's dialog based on personality is an adaptation of Alpha Protocol's dominant personality mechanic.

So tl;dr - Stop using innovation as an excuse for the game's negative reception EA/Bioware. It ain't that innovative.

Only that wasn't the point of the article. This is marketing talk, they have to be careful in interviews. But no matter what they say re: DAII, it will be twisted into a reason to toss more vitriol their way.

At times being honest is appreciated the most  by costumers and certainly by the fanbase...big companies however have egos bigger than their revenues

[Bejos_]

astreqwerty wrote...

At times being honest is appreciated the most  by costumers and certainly by the fanbase...big companies however have egos bigger than their revenues

I think it's the correct move not to apologise. It just leaves way too many people with way too much ammo. Also, nobody likes a loser.

But if all they can do in lieu of that is insult their customers, they should really just shut up.

What did our primary school teach us? "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." It makes great business sense; not great customer sense.

Which reminds me of this exchange:

"A regular customer came into my store last night and I asked him how he was liking Dragon Age 2. What resulted was a nonsensical and babbling approval laden with underlying tones of regret. It was as if there were a sniper on the Hooters rooftop across the street with orders to kill him if he didn't champion the game to everyone he knew."
"He was trying to justify a $60 purchase. I've been trying to do the same. It's hard."

Modifié par Bejos_, 16 juin 2011 - 05:48 .

[Elhanan]

Bejos_ wrote...

No apology, then? Stay classy, Elhanan.

If English is not your first language, you really should think twice before flying off the handle at people who've apparently insulted your "preciousssss".

No apology; just the thanks I already posted. But seeing as you want more, that seems to say more about you than me, precious.

If you meant this:

Did you think I was talking about the game, DA:O? I was talking about VD's DA:O review.

... then I already knew that; just chose to reply in the same wording and tone. Mirror; meet self.

Modifié par Elhanan, 16 juin 2011 - 06:17 .

[Elhanan]

Darth Executor wrote...

No need to get upset, this Elhanan chap strikes me as the sort who would scream "what a magnificent feast!" from the top of his lungs if Gaider took a dump on his plate.

I guess I could see how some like this might get struck by the potty training habits of others....

[Bejos_]

Elhanan wrote...

Darth Executor wrote...

No need to get upset, this Elhanan chap strikes me as the sort who would scream "what a magnificent feast!" from the top of his lungs if Gaider took a dump on his plate.

I guess I could see how some like this might get struck by the potty training habits of others....

Wow, you're from the USA? English is your first language ...

I would be very embarrassed right now if I were American.

Comprehension level of a 2nd-grader.

SMH. Your ineptitude is all I need to feel better about wasting 5 minutes on you.

Carry on.

[Elhanan]

Bejos_ wrote...

Wow, you're from the USA? English is your first language ...

I would be very embarrassed right now if I were American.

Comprehension level of a 2nd-grader.

SMH. Your ineptitude is all I need to feel better about wasting 5 minutes on you.

Carry on.

Well, I live to impress....

As for the topic, still recommend going for direct interviews.

Example here:  http://www.gamespot....final-thoughts/

Modifié par Elhanan, 16 juin 2011 - 06:52 .

[Zeevico]

As our lead writer said, we want to kick over the sand castle we just built to change something and to show that this is a dynamic space. But we don't want to do it in a way that's just a heavy-handed, "And then a war started!"

Wow. This is what it felt like to me.

In fact it's exactly what happened. Dragon Age II doesn't tell the story of a war. It tells the story of an [Act III spoilers] brief, one-off skirmish in Kirkwall. It's not a battle that started the war; it just happened. 

We're not told why (and are never shown why), for example, everyone understood this event to constitute the beginning of a war, as opposed to a brief-one off skirmish. Right at the end of it, Varric says, in effec, "and then a war started!"

Now that's storyelling at it's best.

That's what makes this quote so rich.

Modifié par Zeevico, 16 juin 2011 - 08:07 .

[Firky]

^ Really? I thought there were heaps of unanswered questions, and lots of build up. But I did think that Act 2 might be more closely related to war to come, not the end of Act 3. (But, in DA world terms, that was probably a pretty significant event. I'm not sure I'd call it a "brief, one-off skirmish.")

[uknowitbeb]

I appreciate the fact that they realize that they have disappointed quite a few people with DA2, and I'm glad that they are listening to fans' opinions for DA3.

[Zeevico]

Firky wrote...

^ Really? I thought there were heaps of unanswered questions, and lots of build up. But I did think that Act 2 might be more closely related to war to come, not the end of Act 3. (But, in DA world terms, that was probably a pretty significant event. I'm not sure I'd call it a "brief, one-off skirmish.")

The same thing could have happened a year before in Ferelden without anyone losing any sleep over it. What makes this [spoiler event] different from all the [spoiler events] that happened in the past?

[AAHook2]

This article response is not exactly an a-ha moment anymore. Not since Laidlaw basically stated that the game was rushed and admitted that it needs work.
It's a known fact that many fans were disappointed and turned off by Dragon Age 2. I see no point in furthering the argument that Bioware hesitates to admit culpability. Of course they're hesitant.

The feeling at this point is that they are on shaky ground with the Dragon Age series and have to be quite careful about how they proceed in future.
At this point I don't feel that any statement or apology will suffice anyway for what was done in the form of Dragon Age 2 to set back the title.
The only real amends that can be made to the fans who favored Origins, is to make a better game, with attention to the craft and detail that was seen in that title. Then go one step beyond.

Can they do it? Well, we'll see. It is the hole they've dug for themselves. They can either go on and possibly hit pay dirt or they can go ahead and lie down at the bottom for a proper burial.

[Firky]

Zeevico wrote...
The same thing could have happened a year before in Ferelden without anyone losing any sleep over it. What makes this [spoiler event] different from all the [spoiler events] that happened in the past?

Mmmm. I'm failing to figure out how to discuss this without spoilers but, assuming I know what you mean when you say "spoiler events" I thought that was pretty significant in Origins. It certainly could be important in the context of war.

Still, I just think DAII had lots of moments which made me wonder what was coming, so it worked for me, based on that quote.

PS. On the apology issue. If they apologised, where would that leave those people who thought it was a great game? (Sure, alienate the last of us.) I think the fact that they are treating response as "mixed" is appropriate.

Modifié par Firky, 16 juin 2011 - 08:50 .

[Xewaka]

SkittlesKat96 wrote...
The companion system and voiced protagonist system is something people might not like but I reckon its moving to the future and is necessary...

Back in the time when voice acting wasn't tainting everything, small details such as your character's attributes and skills opened up extra content. Character creation (gameplay) was seamlessly integrated into dialogue (story). Now, due to the fact that voice acting is expensive, that flexibility, that gameplay-story integration, no longer exists.
Back in the time, companions were true characters, with their own character sheet, their own attributes and skills, and their own equipement and grow, which you could direct. Each companion was as capable as the main character, with his/her own quirks of nature, and despite being very defined and having a very fleshed out character, we were still allowed to play with them, to game with them, and they remained flexible so that the player was never forced an specific companion for an specific role. It allowed for much higher variation and replay value.
Apparently, going to the future means reduce the player agency at every turn, reduce gameplay value, and segregate the story and the gameplay. Maybe the route to the future should be repathed, lest we hit the chasm that caused graphic adventures to disappear for ten years. Just a hint: Sometimes rushing to the next new thing is counterproductive.

Modifié par Xewaka, 16 juin 2011 - 09:20 .

[Corto81]

Elhanan wrote...

I chose to try and romance Aveline, so I already know about not being able to have the results one may desire. But that choice still existed, and sometimes the response may be negative.

Are you trolling?

Or are you just that bad at logic??

I chose to romance Sully in Uncharted 2 but it failed...
I chose that my Ezio in AC2/AC:B side with the Templars... But it failed....
By that line of reasoning.

...

If there is no alternative event in the game, based on the choice you make, then NO, there is no choice to make and no consequences for it.

...

But seriously though, at this point, I have to think you're a troll, noone's logic can be THAT flawed.

[Nic-V]

People are really reacting strongly to DA2 it seems. Personally I think it did so many things better than DAO. I liked the story, some of the companions, artstyle and combat better, but I suppose that's a matter of personal taste. The only things I found downright annoying about DA2 were the extreme reuse of locations as well as the "waves" of enemies that made it hard to plan strategically.

[Elhanan]

Corto81 wrote...

Are you trolling?

Or are you just that bad at logic??

I chose to romance Sully in Uncharted 2 but it failed...
I chose that my Ezio in AC2/AC:B side with the Templars... But it failed....
By that line of reasoning.

If there is no alternative event in the game, based on the choice you make, then NO, there is no choice to make and no consequences for it.

But seriously though, at this point, I have to think you're a troll, noone's logic can be THAT flawed.

Some folks appear to have no sense of humor. By stating that I know what it is like to have loved and lost IG makes me more aware of the importance of choices was my poor attempt at a smile in my reply. Oh dopey me!

But I shall stand by the idea that it was an important choice as I personally have not seen a purposely failed LI implemented before, and it was done with spot on accuaracy and feeling. All those flirtatious lines of dialogue cast aside so easily were as aggravating as RL experience, and the pain of seeing them go into the arms of another with your aid was reflected well. Enough so that I would not do it again, but am glad to see it implemented this well at least once, and with humor.

The Choice is whether or not to explore this line of the game, as opposed to simply hitting on the drunken Duelist, or brooding Healer like so many are choosing to do for an instant 'win'.

And just because the answer is 'No' does not mean that we should have the choice of asking to be removed. If that were the case, it is doubtful the Chantry would have much of a following at all.