1248 réponses à ce sujet

[Iwasdrunkbro]

In Exile wrote...

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
As unlikely as it may seem, TOR actually has the opportunity to do this... eventually. WOW is losing alot of subscriptions right now because they keep playing the same old stupid game of FoTM and they refuse to fire the people that are literally destroying the game. Instead they praise 'him'. Regardless of that TOR will likely not come out the gate and be the top mmo, but with enough advertising (which a new game in this genre needs more than any other), it can get a nice start. This all however requires Bioware to have actually made a damn good game under EA leadership which, as of yet, hasnt happend. Though I do suspect that EA understands what both companies have riding on TOR and it wont be some rushed garbage... then again its EA so really, who knows?

ME2 was an excellent game under EA leadership. Certainly better than ME1. Say what you want about it as an RPG, but it was well designed.

What does FoTM mean?

ME2 did to Mass Effect what Dragon Age 2 did to Origins. It took the game in a completely different direction and the fans, atleast at the time, mostly hated it. I personally didnt really see a big problem with ME2, but comparing it to the original is like apples and oranges. They are 2 totally different games.

FoTM = Flavor of the month. The devs decide which classes are to be OP for that patch and decide who is going to completely suck. This of course wouldnt be a problem if you had multiple characters, but 85 levels isnt exactly something that can be done in a weekend.

[Aaleel]

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
As unlikely as it may seem, TOR actually has the opportunity to do this... eventually. WOW is losing alot of subscriptions right now because they keep playing the same old stupid game of FoTM and they refuse to fire the people that are literally destroying the game. Instead they praise 'him'. Regardless of that TOR will likely not come out the gate and be the top mmo, but with enough advertising (which a new game in this genre needs more than any other), it can get a nice start. This all however requires Bioware to have actually made a damn good game under EA leadership which, as of yet, hasnt happend. Though I do suspect that EA understands what both companies have riding on TOR and it wont be some rushed garbage... then again its EA so really, who knows?

ME2 was an excellent game under EA leadership. Certainly better than ME1. Say what you want about it as an RPG, but it was well designed.

What does FoTM mean?

ME2 did to Mass Effect what Dragon Age 2 did to Origins. It took the game in a completely different direction and the fans, atleast at the time, mostly hated it. I personally didnt really see a big problem with ME2, but comparing it to the original is like apples and oranges. They are 2 totally different games.

FoTM = Flavor of the month. The devs decide which classes are to be OP for that patch and decide who is going to completely suck. This of course wouldnt be a problem if you had multiple characters, but 85 levels isnt exactly something that can be done in a weekend.

I don't know if it was as much of a 180 from ME1 to ME2 (I prefer ME1 for the record) as from DA:O to DA2.  You carried over the same story, same main character, and some of the same squadmates which connects the games much better just on the surface alone.  Both games were hybrid shooter/RPG, just that ME1 was more on the RPG side of the fence, ME2 was on the shooter side.  But I don't think the turnaround was a big for the ME series.

[Nerevar-as]

ME2 is a carbon copy (is that the expression?) of ME1 compared to what DA2 is to DA:O. Also, unlike DA2 (to me) it was good enough overall that I could enjoy it despite several gameplay and story flaws (most of the game is filler, good, but filler anyway).

[Il Divo]

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...

ME2 did to Mass Effect what Dragon Age 2 did to Origins. It took the game in a completely different direction and the fans, atleast at the time, mostly hated it. I personally didnt really see a big problem with ME2, but comparing it to the original is like apples and oranges. They are 2 totally different games.

Unlike DA2 which flopped in terms of user reviews, ME2 has been met with critical acclaim from fans and critics alike (based off Metacritic). Why exactly do you think all the fans hated it?

The reason why ME2's changes were met with less resistance is because the series was intended as an rpg/tps hybrid, from the start. To that end, Mass Effect possessed more than a few gameplay issues (awkward aiming mechanics, exploration, the oversized inventory). ME2 certainly took it in a more tps focused direction, but overall imo it improved gameplay.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 juin 2011 - 04:19 .

[MorrigansLove]

Dragon Age 2 is weak in almost every area. Plain and simple.

Modifié par MorrigansLove, 22 juin 2011 - 04:27 .

[Jaldaric]

I agree wil Il Divo and MorrigansLove.

It goes to show that in the SP game market, BW is more focused on Mass Effect than Dragon Age. DA2 shows that from its rushed messed state, and the dev time extention for ME3.

DA3 is probably the last chance for the DA universe, if it does as well or worse than DA2, kiss this franchise goodbye.

[erynnar]

alex90c wrote...

Barbarossa2010 wrote...

I know full well the gaming demographic that I came from, and they are not, by and large, going to play a "gay" fantasy game.  Casual gamers won't even look at it unless it is watered-down to the point that it virtually plays itself, so I'm still not sure who they are really targeting for DA.  Accessibilty?  For who...specifically? 

This. So much this. I've been playing shooting games and strategy games since I was like, 8 and DA:O was my first RPG and I just fell in love with it. I wish Bioware would just realise that if someone wants to play an actiony, exciting game they're going to pick up a damn shooter, not think "lets play an RPG!".

Seconded. I know nothing on how games are made...are shooters less costly to make, maybe?

[erynnar]

Jaldaric wrote...

I agree wil Il Divo and MorrigansLove.

It goes to show that in the SP game market, BW is more focused on Mass Effect than Dragon Age. DA2 shows that from its rushed messed state, and the dev time extention for ME3.

DA3 is probably the last chance for the DA universe, if it does as well or worse than DA2, kiss this franchise goodbye.

Yeah, that is what I fear. I hope DA3 just rocks the house, please oh please. I don't want DA to die.

[In Exile]

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
ME2 did to Mass Effect what Dragon Age 2 did to Origins. It took the game in a completely different direction and the fans, atleast at the time, mostly hated it. I personally didnt really see a big problem with ME2, but comparing it to the original is like apples and oranges. They are 2 totally different games.

ME2 is Bioware's highest rated game on metacritic, and only sold 300,000 more copies than ME1. It isn't at all comparable to DA2. There was a group that disliked it, but that was it.

Thanks for the FoTM explanation. 

[Travie]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Dragon Age 2 is weak in almost every area. Plain and simple.

I agree with this strongly. I took a hard look at the game in comparison to DA:O and I could not find one feature (crafting, inventory, skill system, ability system, environment, graphics, etc.) where it had MORE to it, not less. 

Not always does less = worse, but in this case it does. 

There are also areas where it was very obvious that the job done was at least lackluster. The face work for example: I looked at every face that was 'imported' from DA:O (alistar, leiana, zevran, etc) and every single one was worse and shabby looking. The NEW work was quite good--at times--, but the old faces ... eh.

I could include all the pictures, but frankly it would surprise me to see anyone disagree. 

[In Exile]

Travie wrote...
I agree with this strongly. I took a hard look at the game in comparison to DA:O and I could not find one feature (crafting, inventory, skill system, ability system, environment, graphics, etc.) where it had MORE to it, not less.

The tooltips were better in DA2. I would argue the ability trees in DA2 were better designed too. Friendship/rivalry was certainly better than the DA:O approval system.

There are also areas where it was very obvious that the job done was at least lackluster. The face work for example: I looked at every face that was 'imported' from DA:O (alistar, leiana, zevran, etc) and every single one was worse and shabby looking. The NEW work was quite good--at times--, but the old faces ... eh.

I could include all the pictures, but frankly it would surprise me to see anyone disagree.

There was a thread that showed that DA2 Alistiar looked very close to DA:O Alistair, but the DA2 light messed it up and made him look chubby.

[daemon1129]

Travie wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

Dragon Age 2 is weak in almost every area. Plain and simple.

I agree with this strongly. I took a hard look at the game in comparison to DA:O and I could not find one feature (crafting, inventory, skill system, ability system, environment, graphics, etc.) where it had MORE to it, not less. 

Not always does less = worse, but in this case it does. 

There are also areas where it was very obvious that the job done was at least lackluster. The face work for example: I looked at every face that was 'imported' from DA:O (alistar, leiana, zevran, etc) and every single one was worse and shabby looking. The NEW work was quite good--at times--, but the old faces ... eh.

I could include all the pictures, but frankly it would surprise me to see anyone disagree. 

I agree with you.  I thought DAO was very weak in many areas but at least it had amazing moments that allow us to overlook the flaws. DA2 don't have any of that.  I really like to see a list of "innovations" the dev or EA thinks the game has.  No matter how I look at it, its a step down from any good games I have played.  The dialouge wheel was worst than ME with its silly icons, might as well take the the words next to it out when people are picking choices base on the icons.  I think so far the best dialouge wheel was done in Alpha Protocol. It didn't had misleading moments where your character say something completely different to what you want to say.  There are no icons so you don't feel like being treated like an idiot.  The main choices are consistly there, so you can always stay in character in every situation.  It is timed so it feels much more immersive.

Combat looks silly when compared to any games that has the flashy action direction.  It doesn't look cool, it looks a B movie trying to be Hollywood. 

The new art style is definetly distictive, but in a bad way.  Different
races have a lot less creativty and detail than Bioware's own Mass
Effect. Simply put, it is not aesthetically pleasing. 

The departure from the first game feels disjointed.  The lore is still there, but when what the first game managed to offer couldn't be found in a direct sequel because of "innovations", then by the marker, please make that a sin.

[Herrence]

Stanley Woo wrote...

magicwins wrote...
They could easily characterize what was received well and what wasn't right now. And even if they're unwilling to go that far, acknowledging that their choices led to poor sales

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?

Joining the discussion a bit late I know, but I find this interesting Stanley. What areas would you personally say DA2 wasn't 100% awesomeness?
I'm asking, since all I've read so far is general comments about, "well maybe it wasn't all we intended" in post interview, but not much specifics in what areas you as developers thought on reflection "you know what, maybe this was a good idea, but failed in execution etc."

If you really want a good discussion, then to move it forward, both you in bioware should be a bit more concrete on that point, and then it could be compared to some of the positive and negative points people have noted about the game.

For now I'm still using my informed costumer discretion and waiting for it to fall a bit more in price bfore buying it, since I love the lore of Dragon age, but wasn't to sold on the demo.

(feel free to slap me with links, if I've missed places where you have gone into specifics about what areas of the game you didn't feel was 100% awsomness  )

[Sidney]

Travie wrote...

I agree with this strongly. I took a hard look at the game in comparison to DA:O and I could not find one feature (crafting, inventory, skill system, ability system, environment, graphics, etc.) where it had MORE to it, not less.

Except for me crafting, inventory, skills and grpahics are better - and better > more. The idea that having to click more stuff is better is where you go off the rails.

Crafting in DAO was tedium defined. Lousy. DA2 shaves ther tedium out and leaves you with the ability to "build" potions but without having to run back to the one guy who sells elfroot and then buy beakers and flasks from some other guy. All that, not good, not challenging, not deep or any of the other stuff people will claim.

Inventory was moderately better. The promise of less vendor trash wasn't realized because of the tidal wave of marginal magic items but at least the core trash (Darkspawn Dagger, Duster Leather Armor) was gone. It is still not good but all inventory systems are just degrees of bad anyways.

The skills both in the web format as opposed to ladders and the actual implementation of the skills were better. There seemed to be a lot less nerfed skills (mana clash, cone of cold) than in DAO. The addition of the CCC also added a nice element ot the game play.

The graphics were better. There were art design issues (darkspawn, weapons and armor being the top 3 for me) but the game did look better in most shots.

[daemon1129]

Herrence wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

magicwins wrote...
They could easily characterize what was received well and what wasn't right now. And even if they're unwilling to go that far, acknowledging that their choices led to poor sales

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?

Joining the discussion a bit late I know, but I find this interesting Stanley. What areas would you personally say DA2 wasn't 100% awesomeness?
I'm asking, since all I've read so far is general comments about, "well maybe it wasn't all we intended" in post interview, but not much specifics in what areas you as developers thought on reflection "you know what, maybe this was a good idea, but failed in execution etc."

If you really want a good discussion, then to move it forward, both you in bioware should be a bit more concrete on that point, and then it could be compared to some of the positive and negative points people have noted about the game.

For now I'm still using my informed costumer discretion and waiting for it to fall a bit more in price bfore buying it, since I love the lore of Dragon age, but wasn't to sold on the demo.

(feel free to slap me with links, if I've missed places where you have gone into specifics about what areas of the game you didn't feel was 100% awsomness  )

It would be nice if devs are allowed to openly discuss with people what they think did right and what they think did wrong.  But that is not possible.  They can say it is not 100%awesomesauce, well no game is perfect, its a no brainer.  So it is a meaningless thing to say.  They cannot admit limited time or resouces forces them to recycle areas, and they certainly cannot admit the game was poor compare to any Bioware games.  Whatever comments they can make are limited.  Mike Laidlaw can't come up and say "Sorry we F-ed up", regardless of how he actually feels, I'm just making an example. 

[Nerevar-as]

Sidney wrote...


Except for me crafting, inventory, skills and grpahics are better - and better > more. The idea that having to click more stuff is better is where you go off the rails.

The skills both in the web format as opposed to ladders and the actual implementation of the skills were better. There seemed to be a lot less nerfed skills (mana clash, cone of cold) than in DAO. The addition of the CCC also added a nice element ot the game play.

The graphics were better. There were art design issues (darkspawn, weapons and armor being the top 3 for me) but the game did look better in most shots.

I liked more the oldest crafting system, but to me crafting is the more complicated the better, and if you need workbanks perfect.

I liked the skill system more here too, but again I needed to take skills I wasn´t interested in to get the ones I wanted. Not a big problem, but they´d said that would no longer be necessary.

At least in my PC DA2 doesn´t have better graphics, either that or the poor scenario design doesn´t allow the graphics to shine at all.

[Aaleel]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Sidney wrote...


Except for me crafting, inventory, skills and grpahics are better - and better > more. The idea that having to click more stuff is better is where you go off the rails.

The skills both in the web format as opposed to ladders and the actual implementation of the skills were better. There seemed to be a lot less nerfed skills (mana clash, cone of cold) than in DAO. The addition of the CCC also added a nice element ot the game play.

The graphics were better. There were art design issues (darkspawn, weapons and armor being the top 3 for me) but the game did look better in most shots.

I liked more the oldest crafting system, but to me crafting is the more complicated the better, and if you need workbanks perfect.

I liked the skill system more here too, but again I needed to take skills I wasn´t interested in to get the ones I wanted. Not a big problem, but they´d said that would no longer be necessary.

At least in my PC DA2 doesn´t have better graphics, either that or the poor scenario design doesn´t allow the graphics to shine at all.

I liked the DA:O system just due to the fact that you could make items in the field.  But honestly DA2 has no crafting system.  All you're doing is buying items just like you would from a street merchant, it just allows you to shop at home.  But you aren't actually crafting anything yourself.  You're finding all the ingredients yourself and paying someone to get back the stuff you found.

[Willybot]

Aaleel wrote...

I liked the DA:O system just due to the fact that you could make items in the field.  But honestly DA2 has no crafting system.  All you're doing is buying items just like you would from a street merchant, it just allows you to shop at home.  But you aren't actually crafting anything yourself.  You're finding all the ingredients yourself and paying someone to get back the stuff you found.

Even more odd when you consider that the herb frond or mushroom patch you find supplies you with an infinite source for 7+ years. Shame we can't find a similar source of wheat and solve hunger throughout Thedas.

[Sidney]

Aaleel wrote...

 But honestly DA2 has no crafting system.  All you're doing is buying items just like you would from a street merchant, it just allows you to shop at home.  But you aren't actually crafting anything yourself.  You're finding all the ingredients yourself and paying someone to get back the stuff you found.

DAO crafting processing: find/buy ingredients. Push button. Item added to inventory.
DA2 crafting process: find/buy ingredients. Push button. Item added to inventory.

Yes techincally in DAO you are making it but really the process is the same thing. By and large you are "paying" for the potion by buying ingredients or at least flasks in DAO. No reason the merchants couldn't be "workbenches" and get you the same effect. Frankly the idea of making potions in a dungeon is amazingly silly since I'm not sure where you stahsed those flasks which also are apparently poly-carbonate and unbreakable.

[Aaleel]

Sidney wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

 But honestly DA2 has no crafting system.  All you're doing is buying items just like you would from a street merchant, it just allows you to shop at home.  But you aren't actually crafting anything yourself.  You're finding all the ingredients yourself and paying someone to get back the stuff you found.

DAO crafting processing: find/buy ingredients. Push button. Item added to inventory.
DA2 crafting process: find/buy ingredients. Push button. Item added to inventory.

Yes techincally in DAO you are making it but really the process is the same thing. By and large you are "paying" for the potion by buying ingredients or at least flasks in DAO. No reason the merchants couldn't be "workbenches" and get you the same effect. Frankly the idea of making potions in a dungeon is amazingly silly since I'm not sure where you stahsed those flasks which also are apparently poly-carbonate and unbreakable.

But you're using the ingredients you find in DA:O, you're not paying someone to get back things you found, with no compensation.  If you had made some deal with merchants where you find ingredients and get some sort of discount or something in exchange it would have made more sense.  But buying stuff at home is not crafting.  The whole Idea of crafting is that you craft something.  You yourself.  Give me a workbench in my house that way I can craft with things I find for free.

DA2's system is like growing or raising your own ingredients, giving them to someone and paying them to get a meal back, then calling that cooking.

Edit: And as far as where you keep the flasks.  Probably the same place you keep the 5 extra swords, the extra armor sets, the traps. etc.  Is realness really the counterargument.

Modifié par Aaleel, 22 juin 2011 - 10:23 .

[Morroian]

Aaleel wrote...

I don't know if it was as much of a 180 from ME1 to ME2 (I prefer ME1 for the record) as from DA:O to DA2.  You carried over the same story, same main character, and some of the same squadmates which connects the games much better just on the surface alone.  Both games were hybrid shooter/RPG, just that ME1 was more on the RPG side of the fence, ME2 was on the shooter side.  But I don't think the turnaround was a big for the ME series.

I think it was, while I liked playing ME2 almost every aspect was shallow except for characterisation. The rpg aspects were about as shallow as they could be and still call the game an rpg; the shooter aspects were one dimensional, shoot from cover all the time. The only aspect that improved was the characterisation of the companions.

In contrast I could role play better in DA2 than I could in DAO and combat was better.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Friendship/rivalry was certainly better than the DA:O approval system.

I don't know actually; while i liked the new model in theory, in practice the execution made so little sense it felt quite more artificial than the previous approach. As such, i can't really agree with that, and would prefer they tried something else in next game

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
I don't know actually; while i liked the new model in theory, in practice the execution made so little sense it felt quite more artificial than the previous approach. As such, i can't really agree with that, and would prefer they tried something else in next game

It's more artificial than murdering babies and making it better bribing an NPC with books?

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

It's more artificial than murdering babies and making it better bribing an NPC with books?

Yes; considering in the new system you don't even have to bribe the NPCs after you're done murdering babies.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Yes; considering in the new system you don't even have to bribe the NPCs after you're done murdering babies.

The problem with the new system is that it doesn't allow you to reject the relationship entirely. But DA:O doesn't allow you to challenge beliefs. You don't have to interact with your party members in DA2, either.