260 réponses à ce sujet

[erynnar]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Theagg wrote...

erynnar wrote...

OP there are plenty who love DA2 more than DAO. Sadly, I am not one of them.

I did find it interesting that you said you are not one who likes RPG elements. Yep, DA2 was made for you and other players like you. That new shiny audience BioWare and EA were going for.

It will be interesting to see with DLC and DA3 if they won enough of your crowd to make up for the loss of the old crowd like me.

And OP, don't let anyone chase you off, okay? Liking DA2 better is not the crime that some would have you believe it is on these forums (vice versa for those of us who didn't). I like visiting with both groups. So, please, keep posting!

If only it were this simple, old crowd versus new. But it isn't. I have been playing RPG's and various other fantasy gaming formats on and off since the 1970's. That makes me 'old crowd' and yet I cannot be as 'knee jerk' dismissive of DA2 as many who like to think of themselves as the old guard here have been,

It has its faults to be sure but in many other ways it excels and betters Origins. Overall I'm not going to say one is better than the other, that depends on my mood but needless to say, they both were enjoyable.

I am with you Theagg. I have been playing since the early 70's. I like DA2 and I have played many of the AAA list CRPGs of old.  And I have watched other genres take on some CRPG aspects, titles such as Dragonshard, Spellforce and Age of Mythology. Even FPS are adopting aspects of CRPG.
The genres are cross pollinating. CRPGs will keep changing and evolving. Just like the old CRPgs changed.

We could go back to drawing our own maps (do not need a mini-map), resting to memorize spells, saving only at inns or camps, food and water rquirements, weight requirements, only turn based combat. No tactics screen would be necessary with turn based combat. Restrictions on the weapons and armor a character could use.

I like those good old days, but I aslo appreciate some of the new games and what they do.

Oh, drawing our own maps...*looks at graph paper and shudders*  Um, yeah, let's not (it's such a silly place...and who wins the knows what movie erynnar is referencing?) ROFL!

I am all fo RPG, but yeah, lets not get silly.

[Travie]

That makes me think of the Gothic map system.
You didn't even have a map until you found/bought/stole one. I love that old game

[txgoldrush]

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Not only do I like DAII for actually take risks and not being afraid to fail...I find DAO HIGHLY OVERRATED.

What risks?

Personally, the biggest risks I saw were in the art direction and shortened development time. Nothing else stands out as a big risk or "innovation" to me. At best, they are refinements and improvements on existing mechanics and elements present in other games. At worst, they are blatant rip offs of mechanics and elements that are in other games.

lets see, the frame narrative, the lack of a main antagonist as a character, the three act structure very similiar to Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing, the use of a localized setting, and the emphasis of the personal over the epic.

Its one of bioware's most risky titles, more risky than filling out the Bioware Cliche Chart again.

[ADelusiveMan]

I thought DAO was terrible. DA2 really improved on just about everything.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Not only do I like DAII for actually take risks and not being afraid to fail...I find DAO HIGHLY OVERRATED.

What risks?

Personally, the biggest risks I saw were in the art direction and shortened development time. Nothing else stands out as a big risk or "innovation" to me. At best, they are refinements and improvements on existing mechanics and elements present in other games. At worst, they are blatant rip offs of mechanics and elements that are in other games.

lets see, the frame narrative, the lack of a main antagonist as a character, the three act structure very similiar to Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing, the use of a localized setting, and the emphasis of the personal over the epic.

Its one of bioware's most risky titles, more risky than filling out the Bioware Cliche Chart again.

Oh, for a BioWare game I'd somewhat agree. But it's nothing new or risky as far as the genre goes.

Though I'd argue that the mechanics and style of gameplay they've decided to emphasis (as opposed to narrative structure) is much closer to the rest of the market than what Origins was. Hence, being more cookie cutter and less risky. Origins was basically fantasy cRPG 101, but simply for the fact that fantasy cRPGs don't get made anymore, it's riskier than Pseudo-Action RPG 101, which has plenty of contestants.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 juin 2011 - 05:57 .

[erynnar]

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Not only do I like DAII for actually take risks and not being afraid to fail...I find DAO HIGHLY OVERRATED.

What risks?

Personally, the biggest risks I saw were in the art direction and shortened development time. Nothing else stands out as a big risk or "innovation" to me. At best, they are refinements and improvements on existing mechanics and elements present in other games. At worst, they are blatant rip offs of mechanics and elements that are in other games.

lets see, the frame narrative, the lack of a main antagonist as a character, the three act structure very similiar to Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing, the use of a localized setting, and the emphasis of the personal over the epic.

Its one of bioware's most risky titles, more risky than filling out the Bioware Cliche Chart again.

Question...for clarification only (and really, not trolling or being aggressive) You mean risks for BioWare, right? All the things you mentioned have been done by others. I am asking, only because there seems to be the general confusion on this point in the forums. What was innovative (or risk taking) for BioWare, was already risked or innovated by someone else (and sometimes done better, or so I've read).

[txgoldrush]

erynnar wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Not only do I like DAII for actually take risks and not being afraid to fail...I find DAO HIGHLY OVERRATED.

What risks?

Personally, the biggest risks I saw were in the art direction and shortened development time. Nothing else stands out as a big risk or "innovation" to me. At best, they are refinements and improvements on existing mechanics and elements present in other games. At worst, they are blatant rip offs of mechanics and elements that are in other games.

lets see, the frame narrative, the lack of a main antagonist as a character, the three act structure very similiar to Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing, the use of a localized setting, and the emphasis of the personal over the epic.

Its one of bioware's most risky titles, more risky than filling out the Bioware Cliche Chart again.

Question...for clarification only (and really, not trolling or being aggressive) You mean risks for BioWare, right? All the things you mentioned have been done by others. I am asking, only because there seems to be the general confusion on this point in the forums. What was innovative (or risk taking) for BioWare, was already risked or innovated by someone else (and sometimes done better, or so I've read).

never seen a full game frame story before in a WRPG, or the friendship/rivalry system (which while can be improved, does open up new character development threads for characters unlike what I have seen in th epast).

[csfteeeer]

txgoldrush wrote...

erynnar wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Not only do I like DAII for actually take risks and not being afraid to fail...I find DAO HIGHLY OVERRATED.

What risks?

Personally, the biggest risks I saw were in the art direction and shortened development time. Nothing else stands out as a big risk or "innovation" to me. At best, they are refinements and improvements on existing mechanics and elements present in other games. At worst, they are blatant rip offs of mechanics and elements that are in other games.

lets see, the frame narrative, the lack of a main antagonist as a character, the three act structure very similiar to Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing, the use of a localized setting, and the emphasis of the personal over the epic.

Its one of bioware's most risky titles, more risky than filling out the Bioware Cliche Chart again.

Question...for clarification only (and really, not trolling or being aggressive) You mean risks for BioWare, right? All the things you mentioned have been done by others. I am asking, only because there seems to be the general confusion on this point in the forums. What was innovative (or risk taking) for BioWare, was already risked or innovated by someone else (and sometimes done better, or so I've read).

never seen a full game frame story before in a WRPG, or the friendship/rivalry system (which while can be improved, does open up new character development threads for characters unlike what I have seen in th epast).

Alpha Protocol had fram narrative
FriendShip/Rivalry was a flawed evolution from DAO's System.

Modifié par csfteeeer, 25 juin 2011 - 06:21 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I think Friendship/Rivalry while still deeply flawed, was better than the system we had in Origins. It was just too prone to gift abusing.

Though, I'd also argue that the reputation system in Alpha Protocol is similar to what Friendship/Rivalry was. Getting either loved or hated from your handles gave you different bonuses and I've heard that (though not done) that you can still recruit handlers for the final mission if they hate you. There's this one clip I remember seeing of Mike taunting Albatross over killing Sis and gloating that the only way he'll be able to kill Mike is if he helps him get into Graybox.

Alpha Protocol flaws flat on gameplay and level design, but I enjoyed it's writing, story, characters and RPG elements much more. Objectively, I'd rate both 6/10, though.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 juin 2011 - 06:34 .

[txgoldrush]

csfteeeer wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

erynnar wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Not only do I like DAII for actually take risks and not being afraid to fail...I find DAO HIGHLY OVERRATED.

What risks?

Personally, the biggest risks I saw were in the art direction and shortened development time. Nothing else stands out as a big risk or "innovation" to me. At best, they are refinements and improvements on existing mechanics and elements present in other games. At worst, they are blatant rip offs of mechanics and elements that are in other games.

lets see, the frame narrative, the lack of a main antagonist as a character, the three act structure very similiar to Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing, the use of a localized setting, and the emphasis of the personal over the epic.

Its one of bioware's most risky titles, more risky than filling out the Bioware Cliche Chart again.

Question...for clarification only (and really, not trolling or being aggressive) You mean risks for BioWare, right? All the things you mentioned have been done by others. I am asking, only because there seems to be the general confusion on this point in the forums. What was innovative (or risk taking) for BioWare, was already risked or innovated by someone else (and sometimes done better, or so I've read).

never seen a full game frame story before in a WRPG, or the friendship/rivalry system (which while can be improved, does open up new character development threads for characters unlike what I have seen in th epast).

Alpha Protocol had fram narrative
FriendShip/Rivalry was a flawed evolution from DAO's System.

however, it wasn't the whole story, just part of it...same with The Witcher 2.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The framed narrative was about 9/10ths of the story. You only get out of it in the end game.

I'd say though that framed narrative is a gimmick unless you use it. Dragon Age 2 barely used it. Alpha Protocol used it a lot. The endgame changes significantly depending on how you interact with Leland (I mean you get a different set of endings and a different final boss).

Really, you could take out the framed narrative of Dragon Age 2 and how different would it be? Take out the framed narrative of AP and you have to a change a lot of the story.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 juin 2011 - 06:42 .

[erynnar]

txgoldrush wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

erynnar wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Not only do I like DAII for actually take risks and not being afraid to fail...I find DAO HIGHLY OVERRATED.

What risks?

Personally, the biggest risks I saw were in the art direction and shortened development time. Nothing else stands out as a big risk or "innovation" to me. At best, they are refinements and improvements on existing mechanics and elements present in other games. At worst, they are blatant rip offs of mechanics and elements that are in other games.

lets see, the frame narrative, the lack of a main antagonist as a character, the three act structure very similiar to Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing, the use of a localized setting, and the emphasis of the personal over the epic.

Its one of bioware's most risky titles, more risky than filling out the Bioware Cliche Chart again.

Question...for clarification only (and really, not trolling or being aggressive) You mean risks for BioWare, right? All the things you mentioned have been done by others. I am asking, only because there seems to be the general confusion on this point in the forums. What was innovative (or risk taking) for BioWare, was already risked or innovated by someone else (and sometimes done better, or so I've read).

never seen a full game frame story before in a WRPG, or the friendship/rivalry system (which while can be improved, does open up new character development threads for characters unlike what I have seen in th epast).

Alpha Protocol had fram narrative
FriendShip/Rivalry was a flawed evolution from DAO's System.

however, it wasn't the whole story, just part of it...same with The Witcher 2.

Then again, not innovative or risk taking for anyone but BioWare. It's been done before.

[csfteeeer]

mrcrusty wrote...

The framed narrative was about 9/10ths of the story. You only get out of it in the end game.

I'd say though that framed narrative is a gimmick unless you use it. Dragon Age 2 barely used it. Alpha Protocol used it a lot. The endgame changes significantly depending on how you interact with Leland (I mean you get a different set of endings and a different final boss).

Really, you could take out the framed narrative of Dragon Age 2 and how different would it be? Take out the framed narrative of AP and you have to a change a lot of the story.

Exactly.
a GOOD use of Frame Narrative would be if at the end of the game, you get to play a few hours more and you see your final decision making an effect, that would be good use there, but in DA2, it was barely necessary.

[ADelusiveMan]

My biggest problem with DAO is the combat. I don't like the one tap of a button thing, I like to smash some buttons.

[themonty72]

ADelusiveMan wrote...

My biggest problem with DAO is the combat. I don't like the one tap of a button thing, I like to smash some buttons.

  Same here . The combat in Da2 can get additive. Didnt like the graphics in Dao either but I got pass it.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

ADelusiveMan wrote...

My biggest problem with DAO is the combat. I don't like the one tap of a button thing, I like to smash some buttons.

you should be playing a action or fighting game then

[Melca36]

DinoSteve wrote...

ADelusiveMan wrote...

My biggest problem with DAO is the combat. I don't like the one tap of a button thing, I like to smash some buttons.

you should be playing a action or fighting game then

Amen. Sadly, Some gamers just want things handed to them.

[Theagg]

mrcrusty wrote...

The framed narrative was about 9/10ths of the story. You only get out of it in the end game.

I'd say though that framed narrative is a gimmick unless you use it. Dragon Age 2 barely used it. Alpha Protocol used it a lot. The endgame changes significantly depending on how you interact with Leland (I mean you get a different set of endings and a different final boss).

Really, you could take out the framed narrative of Dragon Age 2 and how different would it be? Take out the framed narrative of AP and you have to a change a lot of the story.

This is one of the greater criticisms of DA2, that player choices had no real effect on the end game. It may be a valid criticism but also, in the context of how the story unfolded in DA2, it may not actually be that an important of an issue. A debatable point.

However, I would be interested to know how people who felt they were denied seeing the consequences of their actions and choices how they felt, in that story context, the ending should have perhaps evolved for them.

There is no case to be made, in my opinion, that choices could have prevented the mage/templar war. Its obvious that is a key plot line to the larger Thedan story, so the player characters role in that is peripheral. It, like many things in real life, is just one of those things that is going to happen. Ander's terrorist activity sees to that. Sometimes characters get carried along with the current, such that no matter what their activities or choices, they cannot change the world. I have no problem with a story in which you as a player are unable to stop the crash. Hawke was that character here for the purposes of that story.

So what does that leave that can change at the end, based on your choices ?

[bEVEsthda]

Theagg wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

The framed narrative was about 9/10ths of the story. You only get out of it in the end game.

I'd say though that framed narrative is a gimmick unless you use it. Dragon Age 2 barely used it. Alpha Protocol used it a lot. The endgame changes significantly depending on how you interact with Leland (I mean you get a different set of endings and a different final boss).

Really, you could take out the framed narrative of Dragon Age 2 and how different would it be? Take out the framed narrative of AP and you have to a change a lot of the story.

This is one of the greater criticisms of DA2, that player choices had no real effect on the end game. It may be a valid criticism but also, in the context of how the story unfolded in DA2, it may not actually be that an important of an issue. A debatable point.

However, I would be interested to know how people who felt they were denied seeing the consequences of their actions and choices how they felt, in that story context, the ending should have perhaps evolved for them.

There is no case to be made, in my opinion, that choices could have prevented the mage/templar war. Its obvious that is a key plot line to the larger Thedan story, so the player characters role in that is peripheral. It, like many things in real life, is just one of those things that is going to happen. Ander's terrorist activity sees to that. Sometimes characters get carried along with the current, such that no matter what their activities or choices, they cannot change the world. I have no problem with a story in which you as a player are unable to stop the crash. Hawke was that character here for the purposes of that story.

So what does that leave that can change at the end, based on your choices ?

Correct. While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that, as a story element. It's like almost all there is in DA2 (and the rest is sort of similar in nature), so DA2 is not really a story we 'play'. We just play the repeated combat events and witness this, not particularly interesting or deep, story unfold, as witnesses.

I think there is an acute difference in feel, even to other very linear games like IWD (featuring very imaginative and varied dungeons and battles, as well as rich and compelling story elements). Even if we don't have much choice in the story in IWD, it's still a coherent story and part of that story is that we drive things towards the final resolution. It's not so in DA2. We just go about our everyday business of random combat in the usual places, then we are suddenly dragged off to the final battle, where we have to fight both sides, none of which is "our" side.

The lack of choice may not be the critical flaw (or a flaw at all). I think DA2 is just such a total failure in connecting the player to a story and destiny. I never really cared, all through my playthrough.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 25 juin 2011 - 11:38 .

[Theagg]

bEVEsthda wrote...

It's not so in DA2. We just go about our everyday business of random combat in the usual places, then we are suddenly dragged off to the final battle, where we have to fight both sides, none of which is "our" side.

Ahh yes, random combat, I remember that well from Origins. How often our progress was rudely interrupted by crossed swords on the map. Often occuring in places that looked remarkably similar to previous random tussle locations.

The lack of choice may not be the critical flaw (or a flaw at all). I think DA2 is just such a total failure in connecting the player to a story and destiny. I never really cared, all through my playthrough.

Thankfully though that's just a subjective opinion you have there.

Modifié par Theagg, 25 juin 2011 - 12:12 .

[ItsTheTruth]

Theagg wrote...

Ahh yes, random combat, I remember that well from Origins. How often our progress was rudely interrupted by crossed swords on the map. Often occuring in places that looked remarkably similar to previous random tussle locations.

I don't think anyone claiming that DA2 is even in the same league as DA:O would want to bring up the topics of random combat or reused locations. DA:O combat scenes actually worked very well because each felt relatively consequential and unique. Even some of those "crossed swords" were actually triggered by quests or companion storyline (like Leliana or Wynne). The only really random and repetitive combat was on the Denerim map...

Or all of DA2.

Modifié par ItsTheTruth, 25 juin 2011 - 12:17 .

[Theagg]

See below

Modifié par Theagg, 25 juin 2011 - 12:41 .

[Theagg]

ItsTheTruth wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Ahh yes, random combat, I remember that well from Origins. How often our progress was rudely interrupted by crossed swords on the map. Often occuring in places that looked remarkably similar to previous random tussle locations.

I don't think anyone claiming that DA2 is even in the same league as DA:O would want to bring up the topics of random combat or reused locations. DA:O combat scenes actually worked very well because each felt relatively consequential and unique. Even some of those "crossed swords" were actually triggered by quests or companion storyline (like Leliana or Wynne). The only really random and repetitive combat was on the Denerim map...

Or all of DA2.

Sure some of them were. But numerous random encounters had little to do with the plot and had no consequences whatsoever.  Wolf attack, Ogre attack, Darkspawn random encounters a plenty in the same field, same crossroads, same gulley, same bit of forest. I'm replaying Origins at the moment so should perhaps begin a count of how many times it "looked the same" in Origins.

Yes, some were pulled off the Chanter board but again, were stand alone incidents of no other relevance than to garner the player some XP.  So the argument that DA2 was somehow a failure in this respect compared to Origins doesn't really hold up in my opinion.

And for me, every encounter doesn't have to be in a different place (some people just can't tolerate this aspect of DA2). Change isn't always good and just like life. When you live in an area that is active, (ie Kirkwall for this game) you will see the same streets again but different events unfolding therein. Do I have a problem with that no, though its fair to say that they were not as successful as they should have been in presenting a changing face of Kirkwall given the 10 year span.

But I don't need 100 different locations for 100 different encounters.

But then again, over how long did the events in Origins unfold. (I seem to recall its about a year or just over) and nothing changed there either. Denerim remained unchanged, as did Redcliffe and so on. So Origins failed to reflect temporal changes as well.

People have short memories it seems.

Modifié par Theagg, 25 juin 2011 - 12:40 .

[xkg]

ItsTheTruth wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Ahh yes, random combat, I remember that well from Origins. How often our progress was rudely interrupted by crossed swords on the map. Often occuring in places that looked remarkably similar to previous random tussle locations.

I don't think anyone claiming that DA2 is even in the same league as DA:O would want to bring up the topics of random combat or reused locations. DA:O combat scenes actually worked very well because each felt relatively consequential and unique. Even some of those "crossed swords" were actually triggered by quests or companion storyline (like Leliana or Wynne). The only really random and repetitive combat was on the Denerim map...

Or all of DA2.

Yeah but tbh - all those "random" encounters inside of Kirkwall aren't all that random.
They are all quests - you kill few groups of thugs, then you discover hidden base and after that no more of them.
There are 3 such quests per act. 

[ItsTheTruth]

Theagg wrote...
But then again, over how long did the events in Origins unfold. (I seem to recall its about a year or just over) and nothing changed there either. Denerim remained unchanged, as did Redcliffe and so on. So Origins failed to reflect temporal changes as well.

Yeah, except that in DA:O you moved on to the next act. In DA:2 you are stuck in Kirkwall for the whole game. There was no need to change environments in DA:O, first because it only lasted one year or so, but mostly because you had no reason to revisit previous locations during your journey. (except Denerim at the end, but then there was a big change)

On the other hand, DA2 takes place only in Kirkwall. From Act I to Act III it is Kirkwall, Kirkwall, and more Kirkwall. Now, if you had to design such a game, you would make sure that Kirkwall either looks really great (like the AC games) or that the areas of Kirkwall you can explore change/expand a lot during the game so that you're not stuck in the same streets the whole game (like GTA games for examples - although GTA4 also looks a lot better than DA2).

Or you could just keep the same boring few street corners for 10 years, if you want to make a terrible game just for a quick buck.