1248 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonRageGT]

MorrigansLove wrote...

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.

I thought very highly of you until you wrote that.

People forget that when they point a finger at someone... there's another three of their own fingers pointed at themselves!

Modifié par RageGT, 19 juin 2011 - 01:19 .

[Zeevico]

I've thought about it and the only thing that really distinguishes this game from its predecessors is the fixation on cinematics and a greater emphasis on so-called "reactive" combat. To which I say: eh.
Everything else wasn't so much "innovation" as "taking out all the mechanics that made it fun."
I like trading one weapon for another. I like reading about them and I like customisation. DA2 has less of that. And the whole item pack thing? Way uncool. The whole "no companion armour"? Way, way, way uncool. Lazily designed weapons and armour choices? Way, way, way uncool. Meeting the same bandits, shadows, spiders, rage demons, and skeleton archers throughout the game? WAY uncool.

Reactive combat isn't the bee's knees. Turn or round based combat is, frankly, fine by me. DAO's combat wasn't bad because it wasn't reactive. It was actually quite fun; its flaws were (a) lack of a manual detailing the benefits of each ability; ( to some extent, balancing issues; © to some extent, abandoning round-based combat led to understandable criticism about lack of reactivity. Is DA2's combat an improvement? It's different. It had its interesting moments but it was designed for a boring, wave-based combat experience. There's no getting away from that, really. I also disliked the much stronger gameplay/storyline segregation apparent in the gameplay in DA2. Bandits inexplicably immune to cold? Nonsense. People jumping metres into the air? Nope.

The animations, visuals and graphics in this game generally reminded me of a childish anime, not a dark heroic fantasy.

The paraphrase wheel, or the wheel of vague possibilities, is not what I play for. The cinematics that come with it may as well be replaced with text boxes as far I as I care. Maybe voice the companions only along with major dialogue. Don't voice every tom dick and harry and add cinematics to it as if this were a movie. It isn't and it doesn't become more fun because of cinematics. Cinematics are for cinema and a few cut scenes over the entire game, not for every dialogue in the game. Otherwise they're just giant holes in which money is thrown down the drain, along with voicing. More than that, they're irritating in-game distractions. They don't meld with the rest of the appearance of the game; overruse makes every cut scene a jarring interruption, not a continuation of the gaming experience.

Lastly, from a cost-benefit perspective, I simply can't understand why people wouldn't want a game that was twice as long, with twice the enemies, dialogue and gameplay, with way less voicing and cinematics. It's like saying "yes please--more fun!"

That's my two cents.

Modifié par Zeevico, 19 juin 2011 - 01:27 .

[Monica83]

I just loved DAO i felt like da2 was a fake sequel.. In fact is a total different game...

Afraid to change? no..
When i puchase a sequel i expect to be a sequel and not another game..DAO was an awesome rpg.. Da2 is not..Why i bring here the witcher 2?... Because is a fine example to how a sequel should be..

[Get Magna Carter]

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.

I think part of it is the difficulty of understanding why the haters hate - even on the constructive criticism thread there are many haters refusing to say why they disliked it and instead just trolling.

and of course some criticisms like wanting the Warden back or objecting to the changes in art style could fall in the "Wanting DAO2" type of criticism.

Of course, games are highly subjective and everybody has different tastes, standards and priorities.
While I consider the reuse of maps to be an imperfection, I consider story, quests, killing and looting to be more important and don't understand why so many people seem to feel otherwise.

[Herr Uhl]

RageGT wrote...

People forget that when they point a finger at someone... there's another three of their own fingers pointed at themselves!

Which is why you point with your whole hand. Rhetorical 101.

[Sidney]

Monica83 wrote...

I just loved DAO i felt like da2 was a fake sequel.. In fact is a total different game...

Except it isn't. What I found so refreshing about DA2 was how much the same it was with DAO. Other than the VA there wasn't anything I'd call a major change. Yes the skill trees changed but not in some way that made you unable to see how it related to the first. Combat remained exactly the same - point and click target, pick a power.  There is no "action game" thing going on. The promised "trash looting" didn't live up to billing because while there are some "trash" items you are still looting a ton of corpses and playing around way, WAY too much in inventory because instead of Darkspawn Dagger you now have Ring +3% physical damage as your trash loot. So in other words it was just like DAO's lousy inventory system. I'm sure the fundies will come on and talk about not making potions but dear god that was hardly core to the first game and there's still a crafting element to the second game the only thing missing is one mouse click.

People get very hung up on visuals - art styles and combat animations but that is really a badly secondary issue.

[Siven80]

/checks the calender.

Huh....saw this thread and thought it was March all over again.

[Bostur]

Get Magna Carter wrote...
I think part of it is the difficulty of understanding why the haters hate - even on the constructive criticism thread there are many haters refusing to say why they disliked it and instead just trolling.

and of course some criticisms like wanting the Warden back or objecting to the changes in art style could fall in the "Wanting DAO2" type of criticism.

Of course, games are highly subjective and everybody has different tastes, standards and priorities.
While I consider the reuse of maps to be an imperfection, I consider story, quests, killing and looting to be more important and don't understand why so many people seem to feel otherwise.

There is also a lot of constructive criticism in those threads, the presence of unconstructive hate doesn't make the constructive criticism less valid. And not everyone wants the Warden back, but it has been used as an excuse for ignoring more concrete feedback.

A lot of the feedback focuses on poor execution, not whether change is good or bad. But Bioware keep making the strawman argument in these interviews that the critique is mostly based on inability to accept change or 'innovation'. Thats pretty insulting when they keep doing it.

[TMZuk]

Sidney wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

I just loved DAO i felt like da2 was a fake sequel.. In fact is a total different game...

Except it isn't. What I found so refreshing about DA2 was how much the same it was with DAO. Other than the VA there wasn't anything I'd call a major change. Yes the skill trees changed but not in some way that made you unable to see how it related to the first. Combat remained exactly the same - point and click target, pick a power.  There is no "action game" thing going on. The promised "trash looting" didn't live up to billing because while there are some "trash" items you are still looting a ton of corpses and playing around way, WAY too much in inventory because instead of Darkspawn Dagger you now have Ring +3% physical damage as your trash loot. So in other words it was just like DAO's lousy inventory system. I'm sure the fundies will come on and talk about not making potions but dear god that was hardly core to the first game and there's still a crafting element to the second game the only thing missing is one mouse click.



People get very hung up on visuals - art styles and combat animations but that is really a badly secondary issue.

It is all in the eye of the beholder.

I found it an entirely different game. Combat was totally different. Stupid, over the top moves, and enemies appearing out of nowhere. I did not particularly enjoy the combat in DA:O, but in DA2 they took all that was bad about DA:Os combat and made it worse, IMO.

The restricted classes were even more restricted, choking all creativity out of character designs.

The limited amount of areas, the gaping plotholes, ( I'm a blood-mage siding with the templars  <_<  ) and the total lack of reason why my character should stick around this ****-hole of a city.

And finally, the visuals are very much a primary issue. Artstyle and combat-animations have everything to do with immersion as far as I am concerned, and DA2 just sucked in that department. There was nothing refreshing about DA2, IMO. Rather it left a taste of bile in my mouth.

Modifié par TMZuk, 19 juin 2011 - 04:29 .

[Nerevar-as]

Sidney wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

I just loved DAO i felt like da2 was a fake sequel.. In fact is a total different game...

Except it isn't. What I found so refreshing about DA2 was how much the same it was with DAO. Other than the VA there wasn't anything I'd call a major change. Yes the skill trees changed but not in some way that made you unable to see how it related to the first. Combat remained exactly the same - point and click target, pick a power.  There is no "action game" thing going on. The promised "trash looting" didn't live up to billing because while there are some "trash" items you are still looting a ton of corpses and playing around way, WAY too much in inventory because instead of Darkspawn Dagger you now have Ring +3% physical damage as your trash loot. So in other words it was just like DAO's lousy inventory system. I'm sure the fundies will come on and talk about not making potions but dear god that was hardly core to the first game and there's still a crafting element to the second game the only thing missing is one mouse click.

People get very hung up on visuals - art styles and combat animations but that is really a badly secondary issue.

Yeah, DA2 did pretty well at keeping Origins flaws and few of the good things. Now there´s even more trash as 2/3 armor parts are as good as junk, but that wasn´t such a big deal.

My problems was how boring I found combat waves (even with 1.03 removing knockdown lock by even critters), and the lack of a proper story. Almost 70 hours for a plot that took around 15 at best. There are some good moments and characters, but they are too few to make up for the overall feeling of how pointless hawke and the story itself is to the game and setting. Yes, the world changes by the end game, but writing didn´t make me believe that would happen because of the events of the game, badly written themselves (IMHO). Extra dissapointment because none of my doubts before game release included writing, in fact boght the game despite my misgivings because I was expecting
a good story and characters.

[Aaleel]

Sidney wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

I just loved DAO i felt like da2 was a fake sequel.. In fact is a total different game...

Except it isn't. What I found so refreshing about DA2 was how much the same it was with DAO. Other than the VA there wasn't anything I'd call a major change. Yes the skill trees changed but not in some way that made you unable to see how it related to the first. Combat remained exactly the same - point and click target, pick a power.  There is no "action game" thing going on. The promised "trash looting" didn't live up to billing because while there are some "trash" items you are still looting a ton of corpses and playing around way, WAY too much in inventory because instead of Darkspawn Dagger you now have Ring +3% physical damage as your trash loot. So in other words it was just like DAO's lousy inventory system. I'm sure the fundies will come on and talk about not making potions but dear god that was hardly core to the first game and there's still a crafting element to the second game the only thing missing is one mouse click.

People get very hung up on visuals - art styles and combat animations but that is really a badly secondary issue.

1) Open world traveling game in DA:O to a hub system in DA2, set in one city where you go out and come back.
2) Playing as many different races vs being only able to play as a human
3) Being able to customize your companions' armor to not being able to customize your companions' armor
4) Adding a framed narrative where DA:O did not have one
5) Adding the enemy wave system to the combat
6) Dialogue wheel and paraphrasing replacing written out text responses

That's just off the top of my head,  I don't see how you can say there were no major changes aside from a voiced character.

[ItsTheTruth]

7) No tactical camera
8) Ugly hands
9) Lifeless world (city really) and horrific NPCs

Modifié par ItsTheTruth, 19 juin 2011 - 02:19 .

[Sidney]

Aaleel wrote...

1) Open world traveling game in DA:O to a hub system in DA2, set in one city where you go out and come back.
2) Playing as many different races vs being only able to play as a human
3) Being able to customize your companions' armor to not being able to customize your companions' armor
4) Adding a framed narrative where DA:O did not have one
5) Adding the enemy wave system to the combat
6) Dialogue wheel and paraphrasing replacing written out text responses

That's just off the top of my head,  I don't see how you can say there were no major changes aside from a voiced character.

1) Wrong. DAO wasn't open world. You went hub to hub just like in DA2. Bioware doesn't do open world designs since BG1.
2) Meaningless. Race selection didn't matter in DAO. I guess being "short" was a major aspect of your character.
3) Meaningless. Seriously, this isn't a major change, it barely rates as a minor one. Much like race selection people are way, way, way too into meaningless customization options.
4) Meaningless. The framed narrative didn't matter as much as it should have. For 95% of the game you never noticed it.
5) Change. Annoying and bad change but, again, DAO already used waves (shades and points in the deep roads) but the wide use was wannoying.
6. What I already mentioned.

This is the root of the problem. The Fundies can't see past incredibly minor changes or chnages that don't affect the overall game. I've never see such nitpickng worthless gripes about a game as I have with DA2. The game has horrible hideous flaws but people still bleat about companion armor.

[Aaleel]

Sidney wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

1) Open world traveling game in DA:O to a hub system in DA2, set in one city where you go out and come back.
2) Playing as many different races vs being only able to play as a human
3) Being able to customize your companions' armor to not being able to customize your companions' armor
4) Adding a framed narrative where DA:O did not have one
5) Adding the enemy wave system to the combat
6) Dialogue wheel and paraphrasing replacing written out text responses

That's just off the top of my head,  I don't see how you can say there were no major changes aside from a voiced character.

1) Wrong. DAO wasn't open world. You went hub to hub just like in DA2. Bioware doesn't do open world designs since BG1.
2) Meaningless. Race selection didn't matter in DAO. I guess being "short" was a major aspect of your character.
3) Meaningless. Seriously, this isn't a major change, it barely rates as a minor one. Much like race selection people are way, way, way too into meaningless customization options.
4) Meaningless. The framed narrative didn't matter as much as it should have. For 95% of the game you never noticed it.
5) Change. Annoying and bad change but, again, DAO already used waves (shades and points in the deep roads) but the wide use was wannoying.
6. What I already mentioned.

This is the root of the problem. The Fundies can't see past incredibly minor changes or chnages that don't affect the overall game. I've never see such nitpickng worthless gripes about a game as I have with DA2. The game has horrible hideous flaws but people still bleat about companion armor.

What one city did you spend all of DA:O in?  I'm sorry to say going to many different locations and exploring a land to being stuck in one city is not a major change in nonsense.  That is not an incredibly minor change, and it does effect the game.

And incredibly minor changes?  Mike Laidlaw said the game was not doing another 180 in DA3, which means he feels it did a 180 to DA2.  Gaider said that a lot of big changes were made and he hoped people looked at them with an open mind.  So meaningless is a word that it seems only you apply to these changes.  Unless Laidlaw and Gaider are Fundies.

[Nerevar-as]

Aaleel wrote...


What one city did you spend all of DA:O in?  I'm sorry to say going to many different locations and exploring a land to being stuck in one city is not a major change in nonsense.  That is not an incredibly minor change, and it does effect the game.

And incredibly minor changes?  Mike Laidlaw said the game was not doing another 180 in DA3, which means he feels it did a 180 to DA2.  Gaider said that a lot of big changes were made and he hoped people looked at them with an open mind.  So meaningless is a word that it seems only you apply to these changes.  Unless Laidlaw and Gaider are Fundies.

Pointless, unasked and above all badly implemented changes for the sake of change don´t get any better with an open mind. If anything, elements that could have worked if enough time and care had gone into them (proper paraphrasing for the wheel, the framed narrative, ...) will now be considered in a worse light if (when) they are used again.

[tmp7704]

Sidney wrote...

2) Meaningless. Race selection didn't matter in DAO. I guess being "short" was a major aspect of your character.

You guess wrong; on the other hand being an elf or a human played major role in the decision process of the characters, leading to different selections and outcomes.

[Dormiglione]

Thing is: Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2 are complete different games. They share only the fictive World of Thedas and the Characters nothing else.
Its like Mike Laidlaw said: they made a 180 degree turn and when you make such a turn, the outcome is another genre of game.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Sidney wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

1) Open world traveling game in DA:O to a hub system in DA2, set in one city where you go out and come back.
2) Playing as many different races vs being only able to play as a human
3) Being able to customize your companions' armor to not being able to customize your companions' armor
4) Adding a framed narrative where DA:O did not have one
5) Adding the enemy wave system to the combat
6) Dialogue wheel and paraphrasing replacing written out text responses

That's just off the top of my head,  I don't see how you can say there were no major changes aside from a voiced character.

1) Wrong. DAO wasn't open world. You went hub to hub just like in DA2. Bioware doesn't do open world designs since BG1.
2) Meaningless. Race selection didn't matter in DAO. I guess being "short" was a major aspect of your character.
3) Meaningless. Seriously, this isn't a major change, it barely rates as a minor one. Much like race selection people are way, way, way too into meaningless customization options.
4) Meaningless. The framed narrative didn't matter as much as it should have. For 95% of the game you never noticed it.
5) Change. Annoying and bad change but, again, DAO already used waves (shades and points in the deep roads) but the wide use was wannoying.
6. What I already mentioned.

This is the root of the problem. The Fundies can't see past incredibly minor changes or chnages that don't affect the overall game. I've never see such nitpickng worthless gripes about a game as I have with DA2. The game has horrible hideous flaws but people still bleat about companion armor.

dude you are wrong everything that made DAO great was in Aaleel 6 points, bioware is doing excatly what square did, they are taking out all the best parts of the games and replacing it with, well nothing

[ink07]

Siven80 wrote...

/checks the calender.

Huh....saw this thread and thought it was March all over again.

Indeed. Pretty dumb that Bioware is still under the same discourse of innovative design instead of owning up to their obvious mistakes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Aaleel wrote...
What one city did you spend all of DA:O in?  I'm sorry to say going to many different locations and exploring a land to being stuck in one city is not a major change in nonsense.  That is not an incredibly minor change, and it does effect the game.

I personally don't really mind being stuck in one city (and surrounding areas) throughout a game. In fact, I think there are some benefits in focusing on that one city, in order to make it look and feel epic. As well as making it meaningfully change across a decade.

But of course Kirkwall was just....bad. 

[Dormiglione]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
What one city did you spend all of DA:O in?  I'm sorry to say going to many different locations and exploring a land to being stuck in one city is not a major change in nonsense.  That is not an incredibly minor change, and it does effect the game.

I personally don't really mind being stuck in one city (and surrounding areas) throughout a game. In fact, I think there are some benefits in focusing on that one city, in order to make it look and feel epic. As well as making it meaningfully change across a decade.

But of course Kirkwall was just....bad. 

Agree on that. It doesnt matter if we have different location or just "one city" as long that the location provides a lot of different/unique places to discover. When there is life and NPC and People on the street reacts based on your actions. When the location changes over time.

But Kirkwall had nothing of them.

Modifié par Dormiglione, 19 juin 2011 - 03:49 .

[Sir Caradoc]

"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.

Well thats certainly a one way to look at it. Maybe I'm just too old fashioned to understand their innovative new design. In any case bioware games aren't any longer in my "must buy category".

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
We were told it was in the game, but that it didn't work the way we might expect.

But it was not in the game at all.

It isn't in the game now.  That tells us nothing at all about whether it was in the game then.

They conspicuously stopped talking about the camera as soon as the game went gold.  I noticed.  I pointed it out at the time.  I asked pointed questions when the feature was missing from the demo.

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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. 

Thanks for the shout-out. The thing is, I really like Bioware games. It's why I'm here. But I really don't like the Bioware formula. It was so weird seeing DA2's reception, because a lot of things it gets criticized for are just things Bioware's never executed well (in whatever game you want to pick).

But people have somehow always given Bioware a pass.

And I personally would still stress on the poor writing (which could be due to any number of reasons).

Oh, we could play this game with Origins, too. It's just that more people missed it.

If you want inconsistencies, Loghain knowing you survived Ostagar and having men on the lookout for you is a good one.

The big one, though (the fact that Act I, II and III were entirely disconnected) is exactly Bioware's design.

Look at DA:O - every major quest area has no connection to the other, and they can be done in any other. Ditto KoTOR. Ditto ME. Ditto ME2.

What Bioware does is design standalone modules that are generally static except for a few changes.

What Bioware did wrong in DA2 is pick a narrative structure that makes these faults really blindingly apparent.

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).

I think the plot in ME1 wasn't very good. Try writing out the timeline of how Tali recorded Benezia and Saren post-Eden prime, or why the Council would let a single audio-casset offered by one of the most powerful governments in the universe be sufficient to remove their best agent.

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.

I agree. But what I think will happen is the opposite. The reception had so much vitrol that I think Bioware will hug their formula tightly for all future releases. ME might have improvements, but I'd wager even ME3 will go back to the old structure instead of the episodic TV content.

[In Exile]

Bejos_ wrote...
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 depends on what you consider the peripheral experience. ME2 focused more strongly on the gameplay than ME1, social sim aspects aside.

DA:O's entire design was the peripheral experience: for a game centered around a Grey Warden fighting the blight, you only actually fought against the blight at Ostagar and Denerim for maybe 4 hours total in a 64 hour game.

Everything else, essentially, were world-building side experiences and social-relationship SIMS.

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?

That you didn't find this focus in past Bioware games. I think it's always been there, but you have to look at their games relative to their competition versus their future titles (that just have them go all in on the features they hold dear).