1248 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

PureMethodActor wrote...

I gotta say, I admire the time and energy a lot of you have put into this discussion as well as others, and I'm being serious here as well a complimentary. I cannot possibly imagine how anyone finds the time for such lengthy, second-to-second-posting conversation on a lot of topics here in this thread. Is it the passion for/against DA2? I seriously can't keep up at all, even with posts I want to respond to .


Makes me wish I had more time and energy for it, but all I can manage in a day is one or two posts per thread in about maybe 3-4 threads max.

Thankfully most, if not all, of my opinions are represented here.

Well it is very polarizing.

[ItsTheTruth]

DA2 was a terrible game from the weird beginning (ugly roads in the middle of nowhere) to the silly ending.

[stoicsentry2]

ItsTheTruth wrote...

DA2 was a terrible game from the weird beginning (ugly roads in the middle of nowhere) to the silly ending.

Yeah you summed it up...

[In Exile]

Bejos_ wrote..

I've never played IWD2, so I can't comment on that title.

I think the game is anti-fun, but it has good encounter and dungeon design.

BG1 and 2 both had an overarching narrative. ME1 and DA:O were okay, but ME2 and DA2 really lacked in that aspect. They seem to lack in any kind of cohesiveness to their storytelling, and amount instead to vignettes which are tied together by very little; and the attempt to tie them together is half-hearted. This compounds the problem.

By button pressing, I mean that there is no strategy involved in DA or ME. And sure, you have companions in the other stories, but they don't substitute for the overarching narrative. Sidequests have always been numerous, but there was always at least an attempt to make them interesting, or to have them fit into the rest of the world. DA2 made no effort whatsoever with these sidequests. It devolved a world-expanding bonus into a mere WoW gameplay aspect.

I can understand how someone who just wants to "switch off" and play a game would enjoy DA2; I can even see that under the mess that it is, there is a story that could be really good; but it's not enough to have a decent premise if you don't do anything good with it. "Good premise but bad execution" is a phrase that applies to pretty much all aspects of DA2.

If "innovation" is going to mean "We have a great premise, and we're going to slap some things on top to badly execute it", then I want no part of it.

I'd like to continue this discussion, but some people would have me take my leave of this thread.

It's not that I disagree with you (on this topic). But what you said originally is that you were shocked to find out that the elements you listed were core to a Biowar game. What I'm asking is - why did you ever think they weren't core?

Sure, Bioware's superior games had lots of things that were good, and DA2 not being at that standard, didn't have as many things and didn't do the things it had well.

But Bioware's formula, even with DA2, is still largely the same. So I'm just curious were you see the departure.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
The whole "proper chance" thing is btw rather silly when it comes to complaints about technical matters like quality of textures and animations, reuse of levels etc. Which is what makes it especially annoying when it's used to gloss over such concerns.

Absolutely.

I think the real problem with DA2 is that it essentially burned goodwill pre-release, and Bioware games to a significant degree had a lot of positive word-of-mouth from a fanbase that was willing to forget a lot of mediocre design choices, because there were superficial aspects of presentation included.

A good example is PC VO and switching from the Warden. That caused a lot of ire in itself. So did the art-style change. And the combat animation change.

All of this essentially created the ME2 atmosphere: the game had to show up and deliver. The major issue with DA2 is that it, in a nutshell, didn't.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
The conversation I refer to is not a reference to something I saw on the forums. It was a conversation between Mike and I, with a couple others chiming in. I was told that this camera would be in the game in some form. It was not in the game in any form.

I'm with you on the camera changes, but Mike gave the very political answer that a camera was important in general and that Bioware was 'experimenting' with different cameras and that he 'believes' in a detachable camera.

Now, I'm with Sylvius on what likely happened. But if we're talking about Bioware developers lying.. they didn't come out and say an overhead or detachable camera was included in the game.

[erynnar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

 only wanted DAO2.

Is that not an extremely popular position among many Dragon Age 2 critics?

No, it's an extremely popular argument used against people who don't like DA2 as an excuse for why we're just haters and can't possibly have any meaningful and logical reasons to not like the game. Sort of like using the "fear of change," and "just too dull to get our innovations" arguments too.

Modifié par erynnar, 19 juin 2011 - 05:48 .

[TEWR]

erynnar wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

 only wanted DAO2.

Is that not an extremely popular position among many Dragon Age 2 critics?

No, it's an extremely popular argument used against people who don't like DA2 as an excuse for why we're just haters and can't possibly have any meaningful and logical reasons to not like the game. Sort of like using the "fear of change," and "just too dull to get our innovations" arguments too.

In fairness, I don't think calling it Dragon Age: Origins 2 really helps what they want to express, which I myself have no problem with.

I think "an amazing game complete with choices that matter and a proactive protagonist who does fight like a spartan and think like a general and who I truly think is awesome" works better.


Though that is a mouthful.


But like I said I don't think calling what they wanted Origins 2.0 helps

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 19 juin 2011 - 05:54 .

[erynnar]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Merilsell wrote...

"But also there were a lot of fans of the original Dragon Age: Origins who weren't as happy with it. Maybe they were looking for more of the same, and it was different and innovative in ways they weren't expecting.

Because obviously that was the problem with DA2. The fans.

Sigh. Just sigh.

That's so NOT what he is saying.

But keep twisting his words if it makes you feel better.<_<

Sorry, but that's exactly what they're doing.  "Some people just can't handle our brilliance" is no way to acknowledge an angry fanbase.

I never saw it as them talking about their own "brilliance". There were quite a few features new to DA2 that polarized the player base that weren't primary complaints, such as:

- Dialogue wheel
- Voiced protagonist, including personality type
- Companions unable to wear other armors
- No longer able to talk to companions whenever
- Friendship/Rivalry system
- Crafting system overhaul
- All primary love interests are bisexual (poor Sebastian)

It's easy to put on blinders and try to focus only on the stuff you personally didn't like... but that's not what they're talking about. They are talking about the game as a whole.

And just as easy to put those same blinders on because of stuff people personally liked. Two sides of the same coin.

[erynnar]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

 only wanted DAO2.

Is that not an extremely popular position among many Dragon Age 2 critics?

No, it's an extremely popular argument used against people who don't like DA2 as an excuse for why we're just haters and can't possibly have any meaningful and logical reasons to not like the game. Sort of like using the "fear of change," and "just too dull to get our innovations" arguments too.

In fairness, I don't think calling it Dragon Age: Origins 2 really helps what they want to express, which I myself have no problem with.

I think "an amazing game complete with choices that matter and a proactive protagonist who does fight like a spartan and think like a general and who I truly think is awesome" works better.


Though that is a mouthful.


But like I said I don't think calling what they wanted Origins 2.0 helps

ROFL!!! No, it certainly doesn't!:lol:

[erynnar]

Filament wrote...

Wanting DAO2 is a perfectly meaningful and logical reason not to like DA2. DAO was a good game.

Well I agree about DAO, but I am sick and tired of the just wanted a DAO2 copy as the reason to negate what people found wrong with DA2 and made it unplayable for them.

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

Wanting DAO2 is a perfectly meaningful and logical reason not to like DA2. DAO was a good game.

I agree. I've played Origins 31 times in the past. DA2 isn't a horrible game, but it wasn't what I was expecting it to be. I was expecting a game I could play many many times for more than just the reason of Merrill and Athenril.


There are things I like and many things I dislike about the game.


I think people should just say "I want DA2: Hawke's Real Rise to Power!!" instead of asking for DAO2. They mean the same thing really, and people wouldn't get confused and we could avoid some of the unpleasantness (in theory).


Which I shall give them in fanfic form at some point in time

[KnightofPhoenix]

erynnar wrote...

Filament wrote...

Wanting DAO2 is a perfectly meaningful and logical reason not to like DA2. DAO was a good game.

Well I agree about DAO, but I am sick and tired of the just wanted a DAO2 copy as the reason to negate what people found wrong with DA2 and made it unplayable for them.

After my discussion with Exile refined my views, I think a big part of the problem is that DA2 is still sticking to the DA:O formula (shared by all Bioware games), while claiming that it's new when it's not, and in the process, not delivering in the same way in the eyes of many people, in large part due to poor quality in a lot of areas.

And I personally would still stress on the poor writing (which could be due to any number of reasons). Bioware games in general end up having not so solid plots (possible exception for me is ME1), and they especially fail when it comes to political intrigue and complexity, as well as warfare imo.  But for me, DA2 was by far the poorest. While certain improvements were made in regards to personal interactions, they did not go far enough for it to offset all the negatives I saw in the plot (if we can even say that the game had a plot throughout) and the story in general (the mage / templar issue especially).

In short, I want Dragon Age to go beyond Origins vis-a-vis the fundamental design. But to do it well in the process and not just in rethoric.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 juin 2011 - 07:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I think people should just say "I want DA2: Hawke's Real Rise to Power!!" instead of asking for DAO2. They mean the same thing really, and people wouldn't get confused and we could avoid some of the unpleasantness (in theory).

No, I don't want to see Hawke again.

But a real rise to power that the PC gets to actually determine is certainly a good way to build a plot taht is different and interesting. And there are of course other possibilities. Seeing Bioware's history of not being that good with politics, maybe a rise to power is not  up their alley, so they'd be better off focusing on something else. 

And I'll just be standing here waiting for that game that hopefully someone else will do. I know one company that can probably pull it off, but likely won't do something like that anytime soon.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 juin 2011 - 07:44 .

[Bejos_]

In Exile wrote...

It's not that I disagree with you (on this topic). But what you said originally is that you were shocked to find out that the elements you listed were core to a Biowar game. What I'm asking is - why did you ever think they weren't core?

Sure, Bioware's superior games had lots of things that were good, and DA2 not being at that standard, didn't have as many things and didn't do the things it had well.

But Bioware's formula, even with DA2, is still largely the same. So I'm just curious were you see the departure.

Might as well finish this discussion while I'm waiting for my account deletion.

What I mean by "core", is that the game has certain elements as the fulcrum of its design. While Bioware may have a certain formula, I don't think I can remember a game in which they've focused so heavily on the peripheral experience to the detriment of the main experience. That is, ME2 and DA2 are dating sims with a certain style of gameplay thrown in; they aren't RPGs/FPSs/Arcaders with extra characterisation.

It's not about what features are there: It's about what focus they are given. Did I manage to make sense?

What is it you disagree with me on?

[Kastagir]

Stanley Woo wrote...
Having absolutely no knowledge of Dragon Age II's budget, sales projections, or specific sales numbers, I doubt you can make that claim, let alone force us to announce them to you to prove anything. Insisting that we do so to justify or rationalize your negative perception of the game is a little silly. Four or five different developers have already acknowledged that the game isn't 100% awesomesauce, have confirmed that feedback has been listened to and will be considered, and announced an intention to try and make future games better for everyone.

Telling us that we can't/shouldn't be proud of what we have accomplished, whether you agree with it or not, makes it sound like your're throwing a tantrum. We have acknowledged our lack of 100% awesomeness. Can you be just as big and admit there are things about Dragon Age II that BioWare can and should be proud of?

Personally, I'd feel a lot more confident in Bioware's ability to listen intently to the concerns of players and make a reasonable effort to make a respectable third offering in the Dragon Age franchise if they stopped using words like "awesomesauce."

In all seriousness, I was a critic of Bioware's treatment of the DA franchise well before DA2's release.  Their abandonment of DAO in a very poor state was the primary reason for this.  I had initially refused to purchase DA2 on principle, regardless of its quality, but I realize that most people don't posess this level of self-control (and this is clear from Bioware/EA's pre-order media blitz efforts).  One look at the demo, however, made DA2 an easy title to pass on.  In my opinion, Bioware has many areas to improve upon - making DA3 a great game is not the only hurdle that this developer has to overcome if they want to restore confidence among their fans in their ability to produce quality titles.

[Dormiglione]

Kastagir wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
Having absolutely no knowledge of Dragon Age II's budget, sales projections, or specific sales numbers, I doubt you can make that claim, let alone force us to announce them to you to prove anything. Insisting that we do so to justify or rationalize your negative perception of the game is a little silly. Four or five different developers have already acknowledged that the game isn't 100% awesomesauce, have confirmed that feedback has been listened to and will be considered, and announced an intention to try and make future games better for everyone.

Telling us that we can't/shouldn't be proud of what we have accomplished, whether you agree with it or not, makes it sound like your're throwing a tantrum. We have acknowledged our lack of 100% awesomeness. Can you be just as big and admit there are things about Dragon Age II that BioWare can and should be proud of?

Personally, I'd feel a lot more confident in Bioware's ability to listen intently to the concerns of players and make a reasonable effort to make a respectable third offering in the Dragon Age franchise if they stopped using words like "awesomesauce."

In all seriousness, I was a critic of Bioware's treatment of the DA franchise well before DA2's release.  Their abandonment of DAO in a very poor state was the primary reason for this.  I had initially refused to purchase DA2 on principle, regardless of its quality, but I realize that most people don't posess this level of self-control (and this is clear from Bioware/EA's pre-order media blitz efforts).  One look at the demo, however, made DA2 an easy title to pass on.  In my opinion, Bioware has many areas to improve upon - making DA3 a great game is not the only hurdle that this developer has to overcome if they want to restore confidence among their fans in their ability to produce quality titles.

I preordered DA2 a while before the demo was out. I played the demo, the demo itself showed no flaws. What did we see in the Demo?
We saw the initial sequence of DA2 how Hawke's family fled from Lothering. (I thought we would see more of Lothering, i didnt imagine that would also be real beginning of DA2). A scene with Flemeth where she saved Hawke and the other survivors ( i really thought we would see more of Flemeth ). Cut and you were in Kirkwall, wearing the champions armor and helping Isabela in her duel quest.
In the demo we saw combat and unique environments, dialogues, but nothing that revealed how the final product would be.

Sure, lesson learned, the upcoming DLC, Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 3 will be for me not a day one buy. I lean back, wait for user reviews (not critics) and youtube user gameplay videos. Then i decide if i will buy it or not.

[Get Magna Carter]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ray Muzyka wrote...
"... there were a lot of fans of the original Dragon Age: Origins  who weren't as happy with it. ..
We also think there's  an opportunity to listen to the core fans who loved Dragon Age: Origins  to make sure they're with us on the journey going forward.

All of the above is a serious porblem  and one of the main reasons I expect I won't be buying BioWare games anymore. ...

So you don't want Bioware to listen to fans of Origins?
(I know I'm selectively quoting...but "all of the above" means all) 

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 19 juin 2011 - 01:15 .

[Morroian]

Monica83 wrote...
The witcher 2 paraphrasing are very accurate and i had not problem to them.. DA2 paraphrase most of the time don't fit with want i mean and this is a issue..

Yet according to you before DA2 was released the very fact of paraphrasing and the fixed protagonist was enough to kill the immersion for you. You wrote screeds on it. Basically it looks like you went into the game with pre-conceived notions or confirmation bias and didn't give it a chance.

Monica83 wrote...
The witcher 2 have an action oriented combat but dinamyc and with nice animation that don't kill my immersion like the manga style of dragon age 2.. The witcher 2 have choice that have an huge impact on the plot DA2 have only the illusion of choice..

Wrong DA2 dispensed with that illusion which is 1 reason why people dislike it. DAO had the illusion of choice. 

Monica83 wrote...
Then add: Recycling areas-- Ennemy that comes out from nowhere in wawes..Templar that don't recognize you even if you use the blood magic in front of them only meredith recognise you..Ennemy that explode in pieces with a little stab or an arrow..A SUPER linear plot where choice are useless..Character that resurrect (Leliana) even if in the first game you kill her 

The exploding enemies has already been stated to be a bug and has been fixed in a patch. As for Leliana the fact is the writers have said there is an explanation.

Monica83 wrote...
Sorry but i find this game just childish and stupid and don't deserve the rate M 

I would have thought that would appeal to you.

[Funkjoker]

"We think it was innovative. We're proud of the risks the team took. We  think it's the right direction for the franchise. We also think there's  an opportunity to listen to the core fans who loved Dragon Age: Origins  to make sure they're with us on the journey going forward.

LOL.

For every mainstreamgamer you get, you'll loose two of your "old [and apparently unimportant]" old crowd.

But this is a chance for other companies, so I hope we'll get real games someday again not butchered for the mainstream.

[Herr Uhl]

Dormiglione wrote...

In the demo we saw combat and unique environments, dialogues, but nothing that revealed how the final product would be.

I thought the point of the demo was to showcase the combat and dialouges, as well as general look. Isn't that what demos are supposed to do? (well, spar dialouge in certain genres)

Morroian wrote...

Monica83 wrote...
Sorry but i find this game just childish and stupid and don't deserve the rate M 

I would have thought that would appeal to you.

That was uncalled for.

[Monica83]

Awww im tired to talk with doctor morroiam i just ignore him as always XD

Anyways i ever sayd i don't mind if the witcher 2 have paraphrasing in fact the witcher 2 have a fixed protagonist.. My issues with paraphrasing is many time they don't fit with what i mean.. i had not this problem with the witcher 2 but i had this problem with Da2

Modifié par Monica83, 19 juin 2011 - 12:48 .

[MorrigansLove]

Double Post.

Modifié par MorrigansLove, 19 juin 2011 - 12:59 .

[MorrigansLove]

Morroian wrote...

Monica83 wrote...
The witcher 2 paraphrasing are very accurate and i had not problem to them.. DA2 paraphrase most of the time don't fit with want i mean and this is a issue..

Yet according to you before DA2 was released the very fact of paraphrasing and the fixed protagonist was enough to kill the immersion for you. You wrote screeds on it. Basically it looks like you went into the game with pre-conceived notions or confirmation bias and didn't give it a chance.

Monica83 wrote...
The witcher 2 have an action oriented combat but dinamyc and with nice animation that don't kill my immersion like the manga style of dragon age 2.. The witcher 2 have choice that have an huge impact on the plot DA2 have only the illusion of choice..

Wrong DA2 dispensed with that illusion which is 1 reason why people dislike it. DAO had the illusion of choice. 

Monica83 wrote...
Then add: Recycling areas-- Ennemy that comes out from nowhere in wawes..Templar that don't recognize you even if you use the blood magic in front of them only meredith recognise you..Ennemy that explode in pieces with a little stab or an arrow..A SUPER linear plot where choice are useless..Character that resurrect (Leliana) even if in the first game you kill her 

The exploding enemies has already been stated to be a bug and has been fixed in a patch. As for Leliana the fact is the writers have said there is an explanation.

Monica83 wrote...
Sorry but i find this game just childish and stupid and don't deserve the rate M 

I would have thought that would appeal to you.

I thought very highly of you until you wrote that.