1248 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Monica83 wrote...
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..

You mean, completely re-vamp the combat so that it works best with a gamepad and 'dumb down' the inventory and crafting, and generally focusing on creating a graphically impressive world that is half the length of the original?

Look, I love TW2, but the devs. went it and took the axe to it to it and removed many features that worked fine. Especially the grid-based inventory (which I loved) and the alchemy system (which now no longer works without formulas, and has a console-first interface).

Modifié par In Exile, 19 juin 2011 - 05:42 .

[LordPaul256]

Y'know, I think I would be a lot less angry at how bad DA2 was if they developers stopped blaming everyone else for it being poorly received.

If it was a success commercially... then, wow, that game was made on the cheap.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
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.

Design a Hawke that is afraid of the colour purple. Just outright terrified, screams in fear of it. 

You can literally have an infinite number of permutations for your reason in DA2 as you can in DA:O.

[Chromie]

In Exile wrote...

Monica83 wrote...
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..

You mean, completely re-vamp the combat so that it works best with a gamepad and 'dumb down' the inventory and crafting, and generally focusing on creating a graphically impressive world that is half the length of the original?

Look, I love TW2, but the devs. went it and took the axe to it to it and removed many features that worked fine. Especially the grid-based inventory (which I loved) and the alchemy system (which now no longer works without formulas, and has a console-first interface).

TW2 is in no way equal to the piece of crap that DA2 was though that is a big enough difference.

[In Exile]

Ringo12 wrote...
TW2 is in no way equal to the piece of crap that DA2 was though that is a big enough difference.

TW2 was much better than DA2. But it really, really bothers me when people let CD Projeckt get away with designing console gameplay and trying to sell it as a PC-first game. It was a game they showed with a gamepad when they previewed the game.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...
TW2 is in no way equal to the piece of crap that DA2 was though that is a big enough difference.

TW2 was much better than DA2. But it really, really bothers me when people let CD Projeckt get away with designing console gameplay and trying to sell it as a PC-first game. It was a game they showed with a gamepad when they previewed the game.

I personally don't really mind, because I loved the heck out of it on PC. More so than the TW1. So overall, I thought it was an improvement.

That said, I am not a fan of the new alchemy system. I miss making Tawny Owl with dominant Rubedo that makes it heal as well.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 juin 2011 - 06:14 .

[Nerevar-as]

In Exile wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...
TW2 is in no way equal to the piece of crap that DA2 was though that is a big enough difference.

TW2 was much better than DA2. But it really, really bothers me when people let CD Projeckt get away with designing console gameplay and trying to sell it as a PC-first game. It was a game they showed with a gamepad when they previewed the game.

I don´t mind console elements as long as they work. The inventory could have been better but is not gamebreaking, and for example I loved the Sign wheel - it didn´t break the pace of combat as pausing and liked it better than keynumber binding. Movements worked perfectly for me with keyboard - mouse.

[Alex Kershaw]

ipgd wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

"Critically it's been successful". No it hasn't. Its metacritic score is by far lower than any other Bioware RPG ever.

"Critically" means "by critics". Trolls bombing metacritic with 1s are not critics.

Yes, I meant by critics. By critics, Dragon Age II has by an absolute mile the lowest critical reception of any bioware rpg

[Xewaka]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...
"Critically it's been successful". No it hasn't. Its metacritic score is by far lower than any other Bioware RPG ever.

"Critically" means "by critics". Trolls bombing metacritic with 1s are not critics.

Yes, I meant by critics. By critics, Dragon Age II has by an absolute mile the lowest critical reception of any bioware rpg.

DA 2, for the critics, places about as high as Jade Empire and higher than Sonic Chronicles. So it's not lowest, but second or thrid lowest. Considering main game only, and not expansions or DLC (which rank very, very low for Bioware regardless of its parent game).

[LobselVith8]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Bioware could probably hand out $20 bills in every game they shipped, and people would still complain about how they were folded.

People did purchase a game that didn't live up to the expectations that were advertised and discussed by the creators. Even Mike Laidlaw admitted there are issues with the significance of choice and the narrative.

I never put much stock in advertisement. I also don't get upset over trailers for movies making certain things out to be more important than they are. Perhaps that's where we differ. I preordered the game because my friend told me that I had to preorder to get the DLC stuff, so I said 'k, why not?'. I hadn't watched any of the preview stuff. I wasn't a part of the community, nor did I read much about it. I pretty much was completely dark about any of the promotional material.

And I liked the game. Most of my friends and acquaintances who played the game enjoyed it. None of them disliked it. All of them said "I liked it, but I think there were some things that could be improved", but that's pretty common for post-game discussions. This is one of the main reasons why I don't put much stock in the people here who swear that the majority of the players hated the game... probably because they didn't. None of my friends or acquaintances did. I'm sorry if that wasn't your case.

Except it wasn't only advertisements, but the developers of the game saying that Hawke was going to be proactive, from Michael Hamilton to Mike Laidlaw. That's not the protagonist that we received in Dragon Age 2, so I can see why there are people who aren't pleased with a product that was something entirely different than what they were told they were purchasing. You make it seem like people are complaining simply to complain, and that isn't the case. There are issues that people had with the narrative, the story, the protagonist, and the characters.

I didn't hate the game, but I have a problem with its many flaws. And I don't think anyone knows for certain whether the majority of people loved or hated the game, but clearly there have been a sufficient amount of people giving criticism that different developers have addressed it in interviews and in the forums here.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Design a Hawke that is afraid of the colour purple. Just outright terrified, screams in fear of it. 

You can literally have an infinite number of permutations for your reason in DA2 as you can in DA:O.

That really doesn't change the fact that contrary to what the person i was replying to claimed, the ability to choose the species of your character could have significant impact on the player's experience.

And yes, designing a character who is afraid of the colour purple also can have such impact. But it's possible to give the DAO character this exact trait as well. While it's not possible to make a Hawke that isn't a human. Meaning overall the number of available permutations in DAO was greater.

[mesmerizedish]

tmp7704 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Design a Hawke that is afraid of the colour purple. Just outright terrified, screams in fear of it. 

You can literally have an infinite number of permutations for your reason in DA2 as you can in DA:O.

That really doesn't change the fact that contrary to what the person i was replying to claimed, the ability to choose the species of your character could have significant impact on the player's experience.

And yes, designing a character who is afraid of the colour purple also can have such impact. But it's possible to give the DAO character this exact trait as well. While it's not possible to make a Hawke that isn't a human. Meaning overall the number of available permutations in DAO was greater.

That's true, but in practice, you're pretty much saying that three times infinity is more than infinity.

HAVING SAID THAT: the roleplaying distinctions involved with playing a non-human are likely to be vastly more interesting than 99% of the infinity possibilities you have when limited to human. So, I totally support racial selection, because BEING AN ELF IS MORE FUN THAN BEING AFRAID OF PURPLE.

[ipgd]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

HAVING SAID THAT: the roleplaying distinctions involved with playing a non-human are likely to be vastly more interesting than 99% of the infinity possibilities you have when limited to human. So, I totally support racial selection, because BEING AN ELF IS MORE FUN THAN BEING AFRAID OF PURPLE.

I think humans are more interesting than elves.

[spam image removed]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 20 juin 2011 - 07:59 .

[tmp7704]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

BEING AN ELF IS MORE FUN THAN BEING AFRAID OF PURPLE.

needs to be said again.

(i'd include the picture of Merrill doing blood rainbows but to lazy to look it up)

[Morroian]

LordPaul256 wrote...

Y'know, I think I would be a lot less angry at how bad DA2 was if they developers stopped blaming everyone else for it being poorly received.

They haven't blamed everyone else they've acknowledged changes need to be made. Once again they need to be careful with public statements they make being representatives of a public company.

[sphinxess]

ipgd wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

HAVING SAID THAT: the roleplaying distinctions involved with playing a non-human are likely to be vastly more interesting than 99% of the infinity possibilities you have when limited to human. So, I totally support racial selection, because BEING AN ELF IS MORE FUN THAN BEING AFRAID OF PURPLE.

I think humans are more interesting than elves.

And a good 60% agree with you - and thats why we are going to be stuck playing humans from now on...

[Theagg]

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.

Much of what you say.

And I would add to the numerous people bleating about the inability to customise their party members armour. I actually prefer that I can't do this to any great degree as it adds more 'realism'. They are their own characters, not mutiple facets of my main character. So in essence they choose to wear what they like, not what you, the PC tell them to. They are not life size dolls 'in game'.

Now perhaps the game designers could have added a little something by which the characters change their armour as the years advance, so long as it continued to give the feeling these people were 'doing it for themselves'. A missed trick that one but still what was presented was an advance over 'mindless' drones who let you undress them on a regular basis.

[Nerevar-as]

Theagg wrote...

Much of what you say.

And I would add to the numerous people bleating about the inability to customise their party members armour. I actually prefer that I can't do this to any great degree as it adds more 'realism'. They are their own characters, not mutiple facets of my main character. So in essence they choose to wear what they like, not what you, the PC tell them to. They are not life size dolls 'in game'.

Now perhaps the game designers could have added a little something by which the characters change their armour as the years advance, so long as it continued to give the feeling these people were 'doing it for themselves'. A missed trick that one but still what was presented was an advance over 'mindless' drones who let you undress them on a regular basis.

Having armor/clothing that looks like it offers protection (I just can´thave Isabella in the party, which had obvious consequences end Act 2), branching upgrades and the upgrades changing the armor aspect if the description implies it, and I would have no problem. Saying they don´t change armor because it makes them more unique had the opposite effect. If their personalities don´t define them, close combat in a shirt won´t either, at least not in a positive way.

[tmp7704]

Theagg wrote...

They are their own characters, not mutiple facets of my main character. So in essence they choose to wear what they like, not what you, the PC tell them to. They are not life size dolls 'in game'.

You're making mistake of treating the gear change of the characters as result of the PC "telling them to" as opposed to something that's handled by the player outside of the realm of the game. When there's nothing really that indicates it'd actually be a result of in-game interactions between the characters.

Not to mention it's pretty silly to disallow control over the gear "because they're their own characters" yet still allow it for the accessories, weapons and even combat skills/talents and attributes.

[sphinxess]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Much of what you say.

And I would add to the numerous people bleating about the inability to customise their party members armour. I actually prefer that I can't do this to any great degree as it adds more 'realism'. They are their own characters, not mutiple facets of my main character. So in essence they choose to wear what they like, not what you, the PC tell them to. They are not life size dolls 'in game'.

Now perhaps the game designers could have added a little something by which the characters change their armour as the years advance, so long as it continued to give the feeling these people were 'doing it for themselves'. A missed trick that one but still what was presented was an advance over 'mindless' drones who let you undress them on a regular basis.

Having armor/clothing that looks like it offers protection (I just can´thave Isabella in the party, which had obvious consequences end Act 2), branching upgrades and the upgrades changing the armor aspect if the description implies it, and I would have no problem. Saying they don´t change armor because it makes them more unique had the opposite effect. If their personalities don´t define them, close combat in a shirt won´t either, at least not in a positive way.

I've never cared for the doll argument when it comes to armor. I mean thats fine if you want to RP they are their own characters but do you also go with auto-leveling - let them cast their own spells etc? If you do good for you but that isnt how traditional RPGs have ever functioned.

[Wulfram]

Though in ME3 I wish Shepard could, in character, shout at people until they put some bloody clothes on.

[Theagg]

tmp7704 wrote...

Theagg wrote...

They are their own characters, not mutiple facets of my main character. So in essence they choose to wear what they like, not what you, the PC tell them to. They are not life size dolls 'in game'.

You're making mistake of treating the gear change of the characters as result of the PC "telling them to" as opposed to something that's handled by the player outside of the realm of the game. When there's nothing really that indicates it'd actually be a result of in-game interactions between the characters.

Not to mention it's pretty silly to disallow control over the gear "because they're their own characters" yet still allow it for the accessories, weapons and even combat skills/talents and attributes.

Not really, clothes maketh the man and all that stuff, the distinct (though debatable, eg Isabela) outfits for each character help define them as that character. Its a small point though, because as Sidney indicates and I agree with him, the inability to change companions armour does not result in a broken game. Its a minor issue and not one that I consider an important part of 'role playing' and the fact some are elevating this inability to a catastophe in game design ofnear crisis levels is an overreaction.

This though is a symptom of the process of more complex inventory management. A process which some see as one of the major requirments of their RPG experience

[Theagg]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Much of what you say.

And I would add to the numerous people bleating about the inability to customise their party members armour. I actually prefer that I can't do this to any great degree as it adds more 'realism'. They are their own characters, not mutiple facets of my main character. So in essence they choose to wear what they like, not what you, the PC tell them to. They are not life size dolls 'in game'.

Now perhaps the game designers could have added a little something by which the characters change their armour as the years advance, so long as it continued to give the feeling these people were 'doing it for themselves'. A missed trick that one but still what was presented was an advance over 'mindless' drones who let you undress them on a regular basis.

Having armor/clothing that looks like it offers protection (I just can´thave Isabella in the party, which had obvious consequences end Act 2), branching upgrades and the upgrades changing the armor aspect if the description implies it, and I would have no problem. Saying they don´t change armor because it makes them more unique had the opposite effect. If their personalities don´t define them, close combat in a shirt won´t either, at least not in a positive way.

I certainly agree with you re Isabela's outfit. It was more **** than pirate (was this deliberate on the pat of the designers ?) so having her wear something closer to real pirate clothing would have been much better.

(And by real pirate clothing I don't mean a la Hollywood "Pirates of the Caribbean" style either)

[Realmzmaster]

In the original campaign of NWN you had very little control over what your henchman wore or equipped (your henchmen had a preset level up) which to me made sense, but upset a great many gamers. It makes far more sense that I offer something to a companion that they can accept or reject it.
NWN was based on D & D rules which limited what your character or henchmen could wear or equip depending on class.
Much like my P & P experiences, I could offer a weapon or piece of armor to a party mate which could be accepted or rejected. I knew that offering a cleric a sword was a no go, because it violated the class rule. The closest DA2 came to this was when Aveline was offered the shield and Fenris the Blade of Mercy.
It would make no sense for me to have control over Aveline's armor because she was a guardswomen. She wore the uniform of the guard. It made sense for me to have control over rings, amulets, (maybe not belts and shields).
Also what the companions wore basically fit their personalities. For example you would not find Isabella wearing leather armor or a helmet. She was a pirate. Very few pirates wore armor basically because it was not affordable. It was also a liability at sea.

The reason DAO allowed companion gear customization is because that is what gamers have come to expect. The expansions to NWN1 allowed gear customization because of feedback and upset from gamers.

What DA2 could have done is showed changes in the companion's attire over the seven year span.

[tmp7704]

Theagg wrote...

Its a small point though, because as Sidney indicates and I agree with him, the inability to change companions armour does not result in a broken game. Its a minor issue and not one that I consider an important part of 'role playing' and the fact some are elevating this inability to a catastophe in game design ofnear crisis levels is an overreaction.

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

(granted, this applies to both sides, but the catch is your finding it a minor issue or "meaningless" does nothing to make it any lesser issue for those who don't)