725 réponses à ce sujet

[Genly]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

What's sad is that there are going to be those that rate DA3 poorly because they didn't like DA2.

Maybe. But I'm optimistic enough to think that most people will rate DA3 for what it is. That also depends how much they dislike DA2, obviuosly.

Like I said in other similar threads, I just wish they acknowledge the fact that there are more than 2 "polarizing"  groups here: one that absolutely loved DA2, while the other hated it. They may be just the vocal minorities.

[csfteeeer]

Kinkaku wrote...

Travie wrote...

"DA2 was critically and commercially successful"

Lol, no.

It is when they sold a couple million copies.

you mean the constantly plummiting sales?
if that's the case, then yes.

even though i'm sure they made their money thanks to the short dev time.

[ItsTheTruth]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I think BW is still in a denial phase or maybe this is what marketing advised him to say to reduce the damage done to the IP.

If it is the same marketing that came up with "Button - awesome" and "Think like a general, fight like a spartan"... maybe hire new team.

Although marketing was the least of DA2 problems.

Modifié par ItsTheTruth, 29 juin 2011 - 03:41 .

[ImoenBaby]

shantisands wrote...

Me too.  I loved the Dragon Age world and would love to see more of it.  

Less awesome, more grit; less one path, more multiple endings.  These are my hopes (in short) .  

I guess I don't want a huge flashy story.  I would prefer a dark, gritty, realistic and consequence filled tale that truly changes as I live and act within the world. 

Totally with you on the reactive world; not so much on the "dark, gritty" part. Every other fantasy story is supposed to be dark and gritty, and I don't even know what gritty means. I see those words and I see marketing.

Not that marketing's a completely empty thing, just mostly.

[Slayer299]

@Kinkaku - And exactly how many "couple million copies" is that?

[Kinkaku]

Slayer299 wrote...

@Kinkaku - And exactly how many "couple million copies" is that?

A million and above, read above post

[Monica83]

Ah..... dear ray .... just a nice suggestion do a favour to yourself change work....

Seriously bioware is acting like a clown they loose all the credibility
I'm sorry bioware but at this time i don't see how i can continue to see you as a professional company..At this point it's hard trust bioware again... Im sorry because in past they maded awesome title but as Brent says: Bioware is not the same company...

And all i can say is: you have right Brent

[erynnar]

csfteeeer wrote...

Kinkaku wrote...

Travie wrote...

"DA2 was critically and commercially successful"

Lol, no.

It is when they sold a couple million copies.

you mean the constantly plummiting sales?
if that's the case, then yes.

even though i'm sure they made their money thanks to the short dev time.

Or the huge bump towards the first mil due to pre-orders? :innocent: Obviously successful enough to get us DA3, for which I am grateful. So, commercial success for BioWare and EA. 

[DragonRageGT]

Daydreams and Illusions chapter 5.1

[Monica83]

Of course if you look any forum any youtube video game related you see always 3 words.. and a number..

Dragon Age 2 Sucks

[erynnar]

Genly wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

What's sad is that there are going to be those that rate DA3 poorly because they didn't like DA2.

Maybe. But I'm optimistic enough to think that most people will rate DA3 for what it is. That also depends how much they dislike DA2, obviuosly.

Like I said in other similar threads, I just wish they acknowledge the fact that there are more than 2 "polarizing"  groups here: one that absolutely loved DA2, while the other hated it. They may be just the vocal minorities.

 People compare and contrast, it's a human being thing, our schtick. ROFL!

I will be glad to rate DA3 on it's own merits.

And whose the minoriy? I don't think we'll know until DA3. So I would hold off on that old saw..."oh the haters/lovers are the minority.":lol:  

[adlocutio]

ImoenBaby wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Me too.  I loved the Dragon Age world and would love to see more of it.  

Less awesome, more grit; less one path, more multiple endings.  These are my hopes (in short) .  

I guess I don't want a huge flashy story.  I would prefer a dark, gritty, realistic and consequence filled tale that truly changes as I live and act within the world. 

Totally with you on the reactive world; not so much on the "dark, gritty" part. Every other fantasy story is supposed to be dark and gritty, and I don't even know what gritty means. I see those words and I see marketing.

Not that marketing's a completely empty thing, just mostly.

I think what shantisands means, or at least what I would have meant had I said it, is that she would want any future Dragon Age game to be adult in in presentation and substance, not gratuitously exaggerated, over-the-top, or involving super-powers, and for god's sake no exploding bodies.  Unless it's appropriate. 

You know, a game that wants to be taken seriously.

[FieryDove]

Filament wrote...

It was a critical and commercial success,

Which goes along with Mike's comment on they are happy with the direction DA moved to.

DA3 will feel like Jade Master mode to my mouse I'm guessing. Poor mouse.

[Jon Jern_]

FieryDove wrote...
Which goes along with Mike's comment on they are happy with the direction DA moved to.

...Really? He said that?

RIP Dragon Age 2009-2009 

[Firky]

You guys know you are talking about Dr Ray Muzyka, right? Like, you know who he is?

Personally, only in my wildest daydreams could I feel smart or confident enough to tell someone like Ray Muzyka that he's clueless or needs to find a new line of work. Yeah, no. Not even in my wildest daydreams.

(Sigh. This forum sails further away from reality every day.)

[syllogi]

Listening to the devs interviews when they're marketing DA3 and actually start to criticize DA2 will be hilarious.

[OdanUrr]

Concerning this new interview...

They said nothing that hasn't been said before. They tried to appeal to a wider market and, officially, they were successful. It's still a business, so if it wasn't, they aren't likely to come out and say it.

I don't agree, however, with the comment that negative feedback stems from people "wanting more of the same, more Dragon Age: Origins." What is that supposed to mean? My particular beef with DA2 concerns, mainly, story (or lack thereof) and locations (dull and repetitive). I do not believe that a good story and wonderful settings is a quality that should be restricted to DAO alone. Indeed, those have been two of Bioware's strongest areas for years. In my opinion, a lot of the blame is being shifted from these two elements to the "changes" that were implemented, since the latter can be easily explained away by saying "there are people who like it and people who don't" (which, by the way, is true).

Having said that, DA3 will be more successful than DA2, no question about it. Why? The paradigm shift has been carried out with DA2. In that respect it was a complete success, it put a 180-spin on the franchise so that fans won't be surprised when DA3 retains some (or all) of the elements of DA2. All you need to do now is incorporate some of the elements from DAO that fans have been most vocal about (without going back to DAO), tweak some of the elements from DA2 (dialogue wheel, inventory, etc.), and you got yourself a promising title in the form of DA3. This is what's happening with ME3, it's combining elements from both previous games and it's one of the most anticipated games of 2012.

There might be some inertia at first, some silent battle of wills to say no to DA3. But then footage will come out, trailers, details of what's in and what's out, and you might just wonder, "it looks rather promising." Hope springs eternal, guys. Once we let it into our heads that it can be good, all the game has to do is prove to us it's great.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 29 juin 2011 - 04:29 .

[Mordaedil]

Sorry Bioware. Sorry you shat on your own work. Sorry I didn't buy it because it didn't look like a game I would enjoy. No, I like change when it is good. I can handle change.

I can't handle another action game. And I think a lot of people know where that is coming from. They want real RPG's. That's the only thing you've got going for you and you broke from formulae and yes it hurts.

It'll keep hurting.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Filament wrote...
He said he's happy with how they've taken the story from a "Blight defeated, Thedas lives happily ever after" point to a "war was beginning" point. Which, old memes aside, does have more "potential," as he said, going forward.

If he honestly thought they did a good job with starting the conflict, then I'll know to avoid their games from now on.

[Genly]

erynnar wrote...

 People compare and contrast, it's a human being thing, our schtick. ROFL!

I will be glad to rate DA3 on it's own merits.

And whose the minoriy? I don't think we'll know until DA3. So I would hold off on that old saw..."oh the haters/lovers are the minority.":lol:  

yeah, that's why I said "may be minority". But I should probably have phrased better: Just because the vocal reactions are polarized in hate/love, does not mean necessarily they are the majority.

But, for another hand, the interviews do mention how they intend to find the right balance between DAO and DA2, which makes me happy for DA3: it won't be DA:O2 but not DA2 with some more new areas either.

EDIT: Basically, OdanUrr said better than I could have, agreed with everything.

Modifié par Genly, 29 juin 2011 - 04:42 .

[Gunderic]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Melca36 wrote...
Well it was done to Origins. But maybe that won't happen again.   One can hope.

Oh, I've played the witcher 2. I didn't like it very much, and I didn't like being told by its fans that I was just bad at the game for disliking it.

The game had beautiful environments, and it had (some) choices that matter. It also had unresponsive controls, a terrible difficulty curve, bad voice acting, lousy character development for some of its main characters, an equally short and disappointing third act, a bad UI, an awful tutorial system, and was plagued with bugs. The game made me work for my fun, and I don't like that. So I didn't like it that much.

The thing is that a lot of the witcher fans agree with me about the problems the game has. Like I said earlier though, different things are dealbreakers for different folks. I put a lot more stock in things like difficulty curve, control responsiveness, and character development. As I played through the game, I chose every possible Triss-oriented romantic element, and I tried my absolute best to like her, but she came across as flat, boring and had all the charm and emotional range of a wooden block. 

Some folks are willing to look past that, and find all the awesome fun in the game. I can appreciate the design elements that they did that turned out well. I just weigh them differently against all the things that they did poorly. Your mileage may vary. Mine certainly does.

Though I'd prefer not to use the term, I find that associating a game with the phrase "working for your fun", indicates a higher degree of challenge or depth, things typically sought after in a roleplaying game by me -- there are part of the fans who praised the idea behind the tutorial ( the lack of "hand-holding" ), for example -- as opposed to the "instant gratification" element a few people may say BioWare ( tries ) to be guilty of as of late, though, to be fair, I also expect a higher lack of polish/or proper implementation of some elements, as imo was the case with older games like Arcanum, perhaps even Vampire: Bloodlines, and possibly, The Witcher series


I still have to see the game through before I can confirm/deny some of the criticisms. The combat, for instance, while I didn't find to have an unreasonable learning curve ( or, at the very least, one that wasn't fun in the process for me ), could have proven to be clunky at times ( off-screen leaping, lack of proper targeting; things which imo shouldn't be defended ) -- understandable complaints, imo. The voice-acting so far, I found to be a significant improvement over the first game and didn't bother me for the most part. I haven't played the game in a while, but I suspect a lot of bugs were crushed between the patches too.

I still think it's a great game from what I've played, though I don't believe disregarding/ignoring common points of criticisms is ideal. Yet, I found Dragon Age 2 to be, in comparison, one of the poorest roleplaying experiences ever delivered from BioWare, and a very poor game in its own right. Beneath the thin ( or thick, I guess ) layer of gameplay shallowness, rarely was there a single moment of storytelling/character development -- things BioWare are probably most famous for -- to stand out and 'wow' me. Maybe because I go to BioWare carrying higher expectations and specifically looking for these things, I don't know. As it stands, The Witcher 2 delivered something I didn't get from BioWare -- and something I suspect I still won't get from this studio for a very long time.

Modifié par Gunderic, 29 juin 2011 - 05:06 .

[FieryDove]

Jon Jern wrote...

FieryDove wrote...
Which goes along with Mike's comment on they are happy with the direction DA moved to.

...Really? He said that?

RIP Dragon Age 2009-2009 

Yes in interviews before damage control kicked in and here in the forums in his thank you post.

"Finally, let me conclude by saying that while we are all aware of your concerns, I am very proud of what the team accomplished with Dragon Age II. I know many are advocating a "it wasn't broke, why did you try to fix it?" stance, and I absolutely understand why. From my perspective, as someone looking to the future and the DA franchise, I think that DA II moved us into a space that has more potential."