3223 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

Spray and pray is a waste of ammo, hence why I never used that tactic with the revenant.

Short controlled bursts does the day....

Hmm... What does that remind me of....

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...Short controlled bursts does the day....

Hmm... What does that remind me of....

I can't see any rational connection to anything. Hmm...maybe a water hose? Dunno.

If you didn't notice, you don't only fire the Avenger in short bursts because it's accuracy is relatively low, but because it's ammo clip is small and the projectiles aren't that powerful.

The Vindicator Rifle has such a RoF that it is not a very good idea to use it in real CQC. But it has great accuracy, even without upgrades, which is why you can stay behind and provide "covering" fire to squadmates, or just take the enemies out on by one, without a frenzy pace.

Want to talk Revenant? Right after you fire the first shot, the accuracy stat goes crazy. Real crazy. Real repressed crazy.

This video should help:

Modifié par Phaedon, 12 juillet 2011 - 04:06 .

[SynheKatze]

Regarding the weapons discussion, I'm surprised none mentioned this:

http://www.gamefaqs....ct-2/faqs/58941

You can see that the weapons are quite a bit different from each other, the clip size, accuracy and rate of fire are something to be considered.

For example, if you're going to go on close ranged terms maybe the locust is not your best option as a SMG, it has higher damage, but the spray are is reduced, and so is its rate of fire, you will find that for example, the Tempest is a better option and so is for another weapons.

The Viper has a huge damage input, it's semi auto, has decent accuracy,and allows you to take 'bosses' like some asari commandos in a matter of seconds.But it requires you to stay a lot of time out of cover, that's a risk you might not want to face when playing on insanity. On the other hand the Mantis and the widow have some really focused damage which is great to take out cannon fodder and focus on special and stronger enemies.

Some ARs with low damage input like the Geth pulse rifle and the Collector might come very in handy to stack altered statuses such as freeze, disabling weapons and electronics ...

Imho weapons have evolved since the first game, the only thing they lack is some customization and we'll be fine.

[Phaedon]

SynheKatze wrote...

Regarding the weapons discussion, I'm surprised none mentioned this:

http://www.gamefaqs....ct-2/faqs/58941

You can see that the weapons are quite a bit different from each other, the clip size, accuracy and rate of fire are something to be considered.

For example, if you're going to go on close ranged terms maybe the locust is not your best option as a SMG, it has higher damage, but the spray are is reduced, and so is its rate of fire, you will find that for example, the Tempest is a better option and so is for another weapons.

The Viper has a huge damage input, it's semi auto, has decent accuracy,and allows you to take 'bosses' like some asari commandos in a matter of seconds.But it requires you to stay a lot of time out of cover, that's a risk you might not want to face when playing on insanity. On the other hand the Mantis and the widow have some really focused damage which is great to take out cannon fodder and focus on special and stronger enemies.

Some ARs with low damage input like the Geth pulse rifle and the Collector might come very in handy to stack altered statuses such as freeze, disabling weapons and electronics ...

Imho weapons have evolved since the first game, the only thing they lack is some customization and we'll be fine.

We don't even have to discuss the amount of stats.

For which game do forumites ask which weapon (which combination of weapons, actually) they should use?

C'mon guys.

ME1 is a really deep game, but not due to it's inventory or loot. Selecting weapons in the inventory was linear, and loot just contributed to that, as well as clogging your inventory.

Modifié par Phaedon, 12 juillet 2011 - 04:22 .

[SalsaDMA]

"This video should help"?

You somehow asume that I haven't used the revenant when I discuss how I used it?

I said short bursts were the way to keep acuracy, as it is with practically any autofire weapon. Your 'counter argument' is that acuracy goes down when sustaining fire...

What can I say....

You're beyond debate.

To keep in line with your 'style', you might want to practice tapping that fire key instead of holding it down if you want to use it as a precision tool at range on moving/covering targets...

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

ME1 is a really deep game, but not due to it's inventory or loot. Selecting weapons in the inventory was linear, and loot just contributed to that, as well as clogging your inventory.

ME2 was really no less linear. Instead of finding version II of a weapon, you just found upgrade +10% damage. Same ****, really.

What really broke ME1 was the spectre weapons. But seeing that my usage of weapons in ME2 is strictly linear as well and DLC weapons breaks the system there, I don't see any big difference in that regard either.

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...

"This video should help"?

You somehow asume that I haven't used the revenant when I discuss how I used it?

I said short bursts were the way to keep acuracy, as it is with practically any autofire weapon. Your 'counter argument' is that acuracy goes down when sustaining fire...

What can I say....

You're beyond debate.

To keep in line with your 'style', you might want to practice tapping that fire key instead of holding it down if you want to use it as a precision tool at range on moving/covering targets...

Indeed, I am beyond belief and debate. This kind of attitude will help your arguments in the long run, somehow.

I still don't understand why you are convinced that we think that the accuracy for the Revenant only goes down because of the way we play it.

The accuracy of the Revenant is so bad that if I for some reason didn't want to switch to my sniper rilfe in long ranges, the only way I could hit anything is by short bursts.

Yeah, guess what.
That doesn't solve the issue either. The accuracy modifier is the same.
Firing in short bursts doesn't fix the Revenant's accuracy completely, it just helps to an extent.

Not only do weapons in ME2 have difference than more than in one stat (I am referring to models, not versions of course), but they go as far as having different "firing modes" and have drawbacks towards each other, none of them is clearly superior in all sectors. 

You trying to reduce the effects of a weapon and it's accuracy modifiers and base damage, doesn't stop it from having these features.

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...
ME2 was really no less linear. Instead of finding version II of a weapon, you just found upgrade +10% damage. Same ****, really.

What really broke ME1 was the spectre weapons. But seeing that my usage of weapons in ME2 is strictly linear as well and DLC weapons breaks the system there, I don't see any big difference in that regard either.

Upgrades=/=Inventory (in ME2)

And no. What broke ME1 was the lack of difference between weapons, as well as the amount of weapons and the lack of real sorting method.

EDIT:
The Spectre Weapons were just one of the many factors that made the balance of the entire game terrible.
Along with OP powers, certain upgrade types, the stats of relatively high level weapons (sniping with shotguns!), etc.

Modifié par Phaedon, 12 juillet 2011 - 04:34 .

[JayhartRIC]

If you're trying to use burst fire on a Revenant, you may as well use the Vindicator.

[Someone With Mass]

From what I've seen, ME3 takes the good parts of ME1 and 2 when it comes to weapons and puts them together. And that's really all I've been asking for.

Brenon Holmes said not long ago that he tested a scoped Revenant, which could mean that there will be mods that makes up for the Revenant's spread when used in full auto. Because just slapping a scope on that thing sounds a little inefficient.

[Dexi]

Phaedon, I applaud you. You are ok in my books.

But seriously, it's useless arguing with them...
It's generally useless to argue on the BSN, because only a few listen and admit being wrong, the rest just like to play Einstein and get stuck in a mindset.

[Il Divo]

Dexi wrote...

Phaedon, I applaud you. You are ok in my books.

But seriously, it's useless arguing with them...

It's generally useless to argue on the BSN, because only a few listen and admit being wrong, the rest just like to play Einstein and get stuck in a mindset.

How is anyone here any different? As a general rule, no one likes being wrong, internet or otherwise. Even when someone manages to show that my arguments are invalid, often times I attribute it to my own inability to debate my position effectively, rather than my conclusion being wrong. It's not always easy to change another person's perspective.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 juillet 2011 - 05:14 .

[Dexi]

Il Divo wrote...

Dexi wrote...

Phaedon, I applaud you. You are ok in my books.

But seriously, it's useless arguing with them...

It's generally useless to argue on the BSN, because only a few listen and admit being wrong, the rest just like to play Einstein and get stuck in a mindset.

How is anyone here any different? As a general rule, no one likes being wrong, internet or otherwise. Even when someone manages to show that my arguments are invalid, often times I attribute it to my own inability to debate my position effectively, rather than my conclusion being wrong. It's not always easy to change another person's perspective.

Changing one's perspective is about two things:
1) Whether he is proven wrong or not
2) How willing he is to accept he was wrong

If you are proven wrong, the only thing's left is are you a man enough to admit you're wrong, see what you thought wrong and learn to do better next time, or are you too stuckup,stubborn and/or infatuated to accept that you're not always right.

The measure of willigness to accept being proved wrong differs from person to person. 

But here on BSN everybody thinks their intellectually superior for having an opinion on a history-changer game in the videogame universe... 


What saddens me the most is that you admit my original statement, but try to justify it. 
It's not to be justified, but to be corrected... 

Modifié par Dexi, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:16 .

[darth_lopez]

littlezack wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, I think so. Why?

I allways have high respect to you, because most the time you make well thinked posts what are usually every constructive. Only problem is this bitterness agaist Biowars design direction, what you carry over in every post.

It was more the "girl" part I was referring to. I'm not female. Perhaps I need to stop using Femshep as an avatar.

And sorry, but it's hard not to be bitter at BioWare after Dragon Age 2. It was a god-damned betrayal

You take things too seriously. It's not a 'betrayal', they just made a game you didn't like. One game, I might add. They don't owe you anything, you don't owe them anything, they're not under any obligation to make games you like, and the fact that they didn't doesn't constitute them stabbing you in the back. They make games. You buy them or don't buy them. That is the extent of your relationship with Bioware.

No imma have to side with Terror here BWs Main line is "We make good Stories" What was DA 2?  it wasn't that the mechanics were too dumbed down (i'm sure it didn't help it's case though) it's not that it's combat couldn't be exillerating. What killed it for me, and my compadres at least, was that the story that was advertised "How Hawke Becomes the most important person in Thedas neh the DA universe" was not there. From Day 1 hawke was Portrayed as awesome the most important guy in the lore etc. What did we get? some slum dog climbing his way to the top, not that it wasn't interesting it just wasn't a good story we have countless moments where hawke just does stuff for no good apparent reason. we have even more moments where what he does makes little to no sense with the end result. We have even more moments where no matter what option you picked to help mages they continuosly betrayed your trust  we have a story that should've been 5 acts long but got cut at 3 and had a nonsense ending that didn't explain maybe 90% of what we wanted to know going into the game. We Had Qunari who literally only served the purpose of Random Unecessary antagonist #2 because BW couldn't think of anything to compliment the Idol section of story. We have literally a game, which unlike it's predecessor, was driven entirely off sex and violence (sigmund freuds favorite game ever = DA2) Hawkes personal story while interesting and entertaining for some on the story telling level was a massive let down. The Series would've been better off if it stopped at Awakenings or Just kept getting DLC. Because that's about what DA 2 was worth the Cost of Lelianas song. For the story that was presented It should have been no more than 10 dollars. Bioware literally did a 180 on a series that had great mechanics good story and was so close to perfect RPG and killed it.they flaunted important characters from the original yet did nothing with them. Flemmeth's role?  morrigans story?  where were the continuations?  why thorugh out the entire of a game whos predecessor was built on choice and options did this game make players feel like their choices bore no weight. we we promised mountains story wise and we got 2 inch mounds of shifty sand.

DA 2 was a betrayal out right. Bioware Failed the community by releasing it and the DA 2 team should be fired. What's worse is not only did they make a ****ty story and a rather ****ty game but one person at least had the gull to go to metacritc and try boosting the games stats. DA 2 was the worst game in Bioware history.

It's one bad game. Some companies make them all the time. Some companies make nothing but them. It's not cause to fire people, and it's doesn't equal to Bioware 'failing' the community. It's not that serious. Hell, people treat DA2 like it's the worst RPG ever made, but there are far - FAR - worse ones out even in this generation alone.

It's one Bad game that went against BW's pledge to fans and favorite line. The only "Far worse" game i can think of is Alhpa protocol and those are mostly technical issues. that is the only RPG i can think of off the top of my head worse than DA2.  i mean DA2 is still better than AP by 2k+ miles but it doesn't change that bioware went against their very principles in releasing DA2 and trying to boost it's ratings. That game to AAA series and reduced it to C- How is that not worth firing people? especially the guy who went rating boosting? (need i find the articles this was an amazingly big deal when the internet found out). DA 2 deserves the treatment it gets and anyone who thinks it has a decent to good story structure or execution needs to go and read some books and maybe take a basic english class.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:47 .

[darth_lopez]

Phaedon wrote...

Avenger:
"A common, versatile, military-grade assault rifle. Accurate when fired in burst shots, and deadly when fired on full auto. The Avenger is effective at penetrating shields, armor and biotic barriers. The modular design and inexpensive components of the Avenger make it a favorite of military groups and mercenaries alike. The Avenger has a reputation for being tough, reliable, easy to use, and easy to upgrade."

Revenant:
"Unleashes a storm of deadly high velocity slugs. Less accurate than an assault rifle, but has a high ammo capacity and deals much more damage. Effective against armor, shields and biotic barriers. Upgrades the Vindicator Battle Rifle.
This custom-made machine gun features technology not widely available. Protected against replication by sophisticated Fabrication Rights Management (FRM) technology, only the richest and most powerful warlords can afford this weapon."

Seems like they do, now and then.
Not in comparison, though. But yeah, that's being fixed in ME3, apparently.

the revanant is also a special gun . Anywho  more descriptions

vindicator:
A battle rifle favored by assassins and elite mercenaries that fires in highly accurate five-round
bursts and can be pulsed for rapid fire. Deadly at range, very
accurate, and effective against armor, shields and biotic barriers.
Upgrades the Avenger Assault Rifle.Manufactured by Elanus Risk Control Services for the Blue Suns mercenary group, the Vindicator is quickly gaining popularity in the Terminus Systems.

The biggest diffrences in descrption involve range and firing rate and background information. the words "Higher Damage" are always relative in comparrison to another gun. In theory because you get the revanent from the collector ship mission (and onyl from that) you can always guess it probably has the highest damage of the rifles but we see here this isn't the case with the Vindicator Assault Rifle boasting the highest base damage of the default rifles in the game. It's also More accurate than the Avenger and likely most other not burst fire weapons (burst fire is alwas more accurate than automatic) it's only draw back is ammo capacity and the fact it firs 5 round bursts (effective burning through it's clip in 5 shots

Mattock:
Medium-range, semi-automatic rifle effective against armor, shields, and barriers. Upgrades the Avenger assault rifle.The Mattock is a semi-automatic hybrid weapon with an assault
rifle's low heat production and a sniper rifle's punch. Though it does
not have a sniper rifle's precision scope, marksmen favor its increased
power over that of an assault rifle to bring down hardened targets. Its
lack of a full-auto setting is advertised as a feature rather than a
shortcoming since it curbs a soldier's tendency to spray inaccurate fire
under stress.

Again biggest note here is Range and Accuracy. as far as damage goes the description claims "Increased Power over that of an Assault Rifle" But i doubt anyone would guess increased power means base damage of the Revanent + 30.   not only that but it boasts the same multipliers to shields and barriers with -.1 mulitplyer to armor from the revenant while offering higher single fire accuracy. and still being able to fire those 16 rounds off super fsat if you have to.

What we get out of these discriptions is Each Assault Rifle is Pretty powerful after the Avenger, but they are all effective against Armor First then shields and barriers second. We get the general firing mode/rate and a bit of range for the rifle to(not liek this matters because most targets in ME are confronted at medium range not long)

We don't have the information we need about the rifle(in game) to make a truly educated decision about the rifles.

EDIT:
In regards to firing rates affecting play style, it's a silly notion. I play ME 2 on hardcore (i dare not try insane) i can run and gun rush through a stage with just about any gun in the game regardless of the firing rate. This Includes sniper rifles in CQC. in any case what i'm getting at here is the weapons only affect your playstyle as much as the player imagines it or as much as the player  think they'll need to alter it to get the appropriate results the player wants.

For me at least this means i charge through the map gunning enemies down willy nilly like. This is not to say i never take cover or try to engage at range just to say at the very least my fast moving play style is relatively unaffected by ROF or what gun i'm using It's more dependent on class than weapon. FOr example if i'm a Sentinel I do typically say "F You Cover I have TECHNO ARMO! FOR THE GOD EMPORER!" as my space marine shep charges into battle killing thousands of enemies. If i'm an adept i try to utilize cover more because i don't have the same physical abilites as the sentinel and if i'm an infiltrator I use cover enough but i still melee my fair share of enemies.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 12 juillet 2011 - 07:19 .

[littlezack]

darth_lopez wrote...

littlezack wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, I think so. Why?

I allways have high respect to you, because most the time you make well thinked posts what are usually every constructive. Only problem is this bitterness agaist Biowars design direction, what you carry over in every post.

It was more the "girl" part I was referring to. I'm not female. Perhaps I need to stop using Femshep as an avatar.

And sorry, but it's hard not to be bitter at BioWare after Dragon Age 2. It was a god-damned betrayal

You take things too seriously. It's not a 'betrayal', they just made a game you didn't like. One game, I might add. They don't owe you anything, you don't owe them anything, they're not under any obligation to make games you like, and the fact that they didn't doesn't constitute them stabbing you in the back. They make games. You buy them or don't buy them. That is the extent of your relationship with Bioware.

No imma have to side with Terror here BWs Main line is "We make good Stories" What was DA 2?  it wasn't that the mechanics were too dumbed down (i'm sure it didn't help it's case though) it's not that it's combat couldn't be exillerating. What killed it for me, and my compadres at least, was that the story that was advertised "How Hawke Becomes the most important person in Thedas neh the DA universe" was not there. From Day 1 hawke was Portrayed as awesome the most important guy in the lore etc. What did we get? some slum dog climbing his way to the top, not that it wasn't interesting it just wasn't a good story we have countless moments where hawke just does stuff for no good apparent reason. we have even more moments where what he does makes little to no sense with the end result. We have even more moments where no matter what option you picked to help mages they continuosly betrayed your trust  we have a story that should've been 5 acts long but got cut at 3 and had a nonsense ending that didn't explain maybe 90% of what we wanted to know going into the game. We Had Qunari who literally only served the purpose of Random Unecessary antagonist #2 because BW couldn't think of anything to compliment the Idol section of story. We have literally a game, which unlike it's predecessor, was driven entirely off sex and violence (sigmund freuds favorite game ever = DA2) Hawkes personal story while interesting and entertaining for some on the story telling level was a massive let down. The Series would've been better off if it stopped at Awakenings or Just kept getting DLC. Because that's about what DA 2 was worth the Cost of Lelianas song. For the story that was presented It should have been no more than 10 dollars. Bioware literally did a 180 on a series that had great mechanics good story and was so close to perfect RPG and killed it.they flaunted important characters from the original yet did nothing with them. Flemmeth's role?  morrigans story?  where were the continuations?  why thorugh out the entire of a game whos predecessor was built on choice and options did this game make players feel like their choices bore no weight. we we promised mountains story wise and we got 2 inch mounds of shifty sand.

DA 2 was a betrayal out right. Bioware Failed the community by releasing it and the DA 2 team should be fired. What's worse is not only did they make a ****ty story and a rather ****ty game but one person at least had the gull to go to metacritc and try boosting the games stats. DA 2 was the worst game in Bioware history.

It's one bad game. Some companies make them all the time. Some companies make nothing but them. It's not cause to fire people, and it's doesn't equal to Bioware 'failing' the community. It's not that serious. Hell, people treat DA2 like it's the worst RPG ever made, but there are far - FAR - worse ones out even in this generation alone.

It's one Bad game that went against BW's pledge to fans and favorite line. The only "Far worse" game i can think of is Alhpa protocol and those are mostly technical issues. that is the only RPG i can think of off the top of my head worse than DA2.  i mean DA2 is still better than AP by 2k+ miles but it doesn't change that bioware went against their very principles in releasing DA2 and trying to boost it's ratings. That game to AAA series and reduced it to C- How is that not worth firing people? especially the guy who went rating boosting? (need i find the articles this was an amazingly big deal when the internet found out). DA 2 deserves the treatment it gets and anyone who thinks it has a decent to good story structure or execution needs to go and read some books and maybe take a basic english class.

First off, I don't recall Bioware ever making any 'pledge' to anybody. And as for RPGs that are worse than DA2, just off the top of my head...

Eternal Sonata 
Infinite Undiscovery
Final Fantasy 12 (in my opinion, anyway)
The Last Remnant

Especially Eternal Sonata. I'll take DA2 all day long over that crap.

[Il Divo]

Dexi wrote...

Changing one's perspective is about two things:
1) Whether he is proven wrong or not
2) How willing he is to accept he was wrong

Your belief that the poster is wrong does not equate to the poster being wrong. Everytime I argue with someone on this board, excluding devil's advocate, it is with the belief that my position is correct, while theirs is flawed. Based on that, I do not tell people that they need to accept that they're wrong.

In other words, arguing that posters should "admit to being wrong" doesn't work, because rarely does anyone believe they are wrong. And this works against your position as well.

If you are proven wrong, the only thing's left is are you a man enough to admit you're wrong, see what you thought wrong and learn to do better next time, or are you too stuckup,stubborn and/or infatuated to accept that you're not always right.

And you are no different, in your belief. I could say that you should simply admit to being wrong. But you're probably no different, because you believe your position is correct. And as long as that's the case, rare is the poster who will willingly admit to being wrong.

What saddens me the most is that you admit my original statement, but try to justify it. 
It's not to be justified, but to be corrected... 

What is there to correct? If I do not believe your position is right, I'm never going to admit to being wrong. All that means is that I will go back to the drawing board and understand why I believe my conclusion is correct. There could be a missing premise, or I might simply be unable to articulate my position effectively.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 juillet 2011 - 07:01 .

[Dexi]

Il Divo wrote...

Dexi wrote...

Changing one's perspective is about two things:
1) Whether he is proven wrong or not
2) How willing he is to accept he was wrong

Your belief that the poster is wrong does not equate to the poster being wrong. Everytime I argue with someone on this board, excluding devil's advocate, it is with the belief that my position is correct, while theirs is flawed. Based on that, I do not tell people that they need to accept that they're wrong.

In other words, arguing that posters should "admit to being wrong" doesn't work, because rarely does anyone believe they are wrong. And this works against your position as well.

If you are proven wrong, the only thing's left is are you a man enough to admit you're wrong, see what you thought wrong and learn to do better next time, or are you too stuckup,stubborn and/or infatuated to accept that you're not always right.

And you are no different, in your belief. I could say that you should simply admit to being wrong. But you're probably no different, because you believe your position is correct. And as long as that's the case, rare is the poster who will willingly admit to being wrong.

What saddens me the most is that you admit my original statement, but try to justify it. 
It's not to be justified, but to be corrected... 

What is there to correct? If I do not believe your position is right, I'm never going to admit to being wrong. All that means is that I will go back to the drawing board and understand why I believe my conclusion is correct. There could be a missing premise, or I might simply be unable to articulate my position effectively.  

Mm... I was talking about being proven wrong... Not admiting being wrong when you're right... 
What I talk about "1) Whether he is proven wrong or not", what you talk about " If I do not believe your position is right, I'm never going to admit to being wrong". 
Was about already being pass that... 

But I'm done arguing with you, in any case, you're only proving my point. You really haven't even contradicted me since your arguments went around what I said...

[darth_lopez]

littlezack wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

littlezack wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...


No imma have to side with Terror here BWs Main line is "We make good Stories" What was DA 2?  it wasn't that the mechanics were too dumbed down (i'm sure it didn't help it's case though) it's not that it's combat couldn't be exillerating. What killed it for me, and my compadres at least, was that the story that was advertised "How Hawke Becomes the most important person in Thedas neh the DA universe" was not there. From Day 1 hawke was Portrayed as awesome the most important guy in the lore etc. What did we get? some slum dog climbing his way to the top, not that it wasn't interesting it just wasn't a good story we have countless moments where hawke just does stuff for no good apparent reason. we have even more moments where what he does makes little to no sense with the end result. We have even more moments where no matter what option you picked to help mages they continuosly betrayed your trust  we have a story that should've been 5 acts long but got cut at 3 and had a nonsense ending that didn't explain maybe 90% of what we wanted to know going into the game. We Had Qunari who literally only served the purpose of Random Unecessary antagonist #2 because BW couldn't think of anything to compliment the Idol section of story. We have literally a game, which unlike it's predecessor, was driven entirely off sex and violence (sigmund freuds favorite game ever = DA2) Hawkes personal story while interesting and entertaining for some on the story telling level was a massive let down. The Series would've been better off if it stopped at Awakenings or Just kept getting DLC. Because that's about what DA 2 was worth the Cost of Lelianas song. For the story that was presented It should have been no more than 10 dollars. Bioware literally did a 180 on a series that had great mechanics good story and was so close to perfect RPG and killed it.they flaunted important characters from the original yet did nothing with them. Flemmeth's role?  morrigans story?  where were the continuations?  why thorugh out the entire of a game whos predecessor was built on choice and options did this game make players feel like their choices bore no weight. we we promised mountains story wise and we got 2 inch mounds of shifty sand.

DA 2 was a betrayal out right. Bioware Failed the community by releasing it and the DA 2 team should be fired. What's worse is not only did they make a ****ty story and a rather ****ty game but one person at least had the gull to go to metacritc and try boosting the games stats. DA 2 was the worst game in Bioware history.

It's one bad game. Some companies make them all the time. Some companies make nothing but them. It's not cause to fire people, and it's doesn't equal to Bioware 'failing' the community. It's not that serious. Hell, people treat DA2 like it's the worst RPG ever made, but there are far - FAR - worse ones out even in this generation alone.

It's one Bad game that went against BW's pledge to fans and favorite line. The only "Far worse" game i can think of is Alhpa protocol and those are mostly technical issues. that is the only RPG i can think of off the top of my head worse than DA2.  i mean DA2 is still better than AP by 2k+ miles but it doesn't change that bioware went against their very principles in releasing DA2 and trying to boost it's ratings. That game to AAA series and reduced it to C- How is that not worth firing people? especially the guy who went rating boosting? (need i find the articles this was an amazingly big deal when the internet found out). DA 2 deserves the treatment it gets and anyone who thinks it has a decent to good story structure or execution needs to go and read some books and maybe take a basic english class.

First off, I don't recall Bioware ever making any 'pledge' to anybody. And as for RPGs that are worse than DA2, just off the top of my head...

Eternal Sonata 
Infinite Undiscovery
Final Fantasy 12 (in my opinion, anyway)
The Last Remnant

Especially Eternal Sonata. I'll take DA2 all day long over that crap.

Eternal Sonata was bad?  i heard good things about it
i've never heard of infinite undiscovery or last remnant but hose just sound like bad titles. And no comment on FF12. the point isn't "it's the worst RPG of all time" the point is Bioware did screw up and they screwed up bad so bad that the key ideas behind the company were violated.

BW did make a pledge When they wrote their about page
they failed their vision and in regards to DA 2 apparently failed to note

BioWare develops high quality console, PC and online role-playing games,
focused on rich stories, unforgettable characters and vast worlds to
discover

This entire line illustrates what was wrong with DA 2 The only memorable characters (at least for me memorability is subjective i don't think we can actually measure that one) were varric and merill. The world was not vast (unless you think the walls of Kirkwall particularly interesting along with what 3 or 4 out of city dungeons?) the story is in shambles from the start of the game it gets better then it takes a spin in an entirely random unprovoked course that makes very little sense. then ends on a note that makes even less sense in the global context becausewhat had just happened was only local even if you know the lore what happened was not a global issue it was local to the freemarches. and doesn't even apply to ferelden.(i don't want to spoil the ending so i'm trying to talk about it in a way that i won't it's not working well)

edit:spelling (what is wrong with it today)

Modifié par darth_lopez, 12 juillet 2011 - 07:23 .

[Il Divo]

Dexi wrote...


Mm... I was talking about being proven wrong... Not admiting being wrong when you're right... 

They're effectively the same problem. If I think I'm right (as most posters here do), I won't admit to being proven wrong, so we arrive at the same problem. Which is why your argument that "most get stuck in a mindset" is rather pointless, since it happens to everyone.

What I talk about "1) Whether he is proven wrong or not", what you talk about " If I do not believe your position is right, I'm never going to admit to being wrong". 

See above.

But I'm done arguing with you, in any case, you're only proving my point. You really haven't even contradicted me since your arguments went around what I said...

And that's your option to stop. I'm still interested, however.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 juillet 2011 - 07:19 .

[littlezack]

darth_lopez wrote...

Eternal Sonata was bad?  i heard good things about it
i've never heard of infinite undiscovery or last remnant but hose just sound like bad titles. And no comment on FF12. the point isn't "it's the worst RPG of all time" the point is Bioware did screw up and they screwed up bad so bad that the key ideas behind the company were violated.

BW did make a pledge When they wrote their about page
they failed there vision and in regards to DA 2 apparently failed to note

BioWare develops high quality console, PC and online role-playing games,
focused on rich stories, unforgettable characters and vast worlds to
discover

This entire line illustrates what was wrong with DA 2 The only memorable characters (at least for me memorability is subjective i don't think we can actually measure that one) were varric and merill. The world was not vast (unless you think the walls of Kirkwall particularly interesting along with what 3 or 4 out of city dungeons?) the story is in shambles from the start of the game it gets better then it takes a spin in an entirely random unprovoked course that makes very little sense. then ends on a note that makes even less sense in the global context becausewhat had just happened was only local even if you know the lore what happened was not a global issue it was local to the freemarches. and doesn't even apply to ferelden.(i don't want to spoil the ending so i'm trying to talk about it in a way that i won't it's not working well)

That's just a marketing line. Ask anybody who works for a game company, and they'll tell you that they make good games - even if they make really bad ones. A company that openly states to make subpar products isn't going to stay in business for long.

I'm not saying DA2 was a great game, or even a good one. Worst game in Bioware's history? Sure, fine, they can't all be winners. Any company that's around for a significant amount of time is going to eventually have a miss. But I think you and others hold Bioware to too high a standard. One mediocre game does not mean that they entire company is defunct.

[Kenthen]

You can call that a lot of things, but a gd pledge? Please.

Modifié par Kenthen, 12 juillet 2011 - 07:32 .

[darth_lopez]

littlezack wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

Eternal Sonata was bad?  i heard good things about it
i've never heard of infinite undiscovery or last remnant but hose just sound like bad titles. And no comment on FF12. the point isn't "it's the worst RPG of all time" the point is Bioware did screw up and they screwed up bad so bad that the key ideas behind the company were violated.

BW did make a pledge When they wrote their about page
they failed there vision and in regards to DA 2 apparently failed to note

BioWare develops high quality console, PC and online role-playing games,
focused on rich stories, unforgettable characters and vast worlds to
discover

This entire line illustrates what was wrong with DA 2 The only memorable characters (at least for me memorability is subjective i don't think we can actually measure that one) were varric and merill. The world was not vast (unless you think the walls of Kirkwall particularly interesting along with what 3 or 4 out of city dungeons?) the story is in shambles from the start of the game it gets better then it takes a spin in an entirely random unprovoked course that makes very little sense. then ends on a note that makes even less sense in the global context becausewhat had just happened was only local even if you know the lore what happened was not a global issue it was local to the freemarches. and doesn't even apply to ferelden.(i don't want to spoil the ending so i'm trying to talk about it in a way that i won't it's not working well)

That's just a marketing line. Ask anybody who works for a game company, and they'll tell you that they make good games - even if they make really bad ones. A company that openly states to make subpar products isn't going to stay in business for long.

Marketting line or not it's there and they said it to the public, they also re-iterate it every chance they get. DA2 violates the line plane and simple.

I'm not saying DA2 was a great game, or even a good one. Worst game in Bioware's history? Sure, fine, they can't all be winners. Any company that's around for a significant amount of time is going to eventually have a miss. But I think you and others hold Bioware to too high a standard. One mediocre game does not mean that they entire company is defunct.

I will give you that statistically the longer they stayed in the business the more likely they were to make bad games. BW set it's own standards through awards and hype. The successor to a highly awarded BW Success is a sub-par story with mediocre gameply (though entretaining at times gameplay). For Me what makes it such a betrayal is the simple way the story was handled irresponsibly. I"m not saying all of BW is defunct because of this one game Just that the Team who made it Betrayed their fans and went back on the BW standard.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 12 juillet 2011 - 07:41 .

[littlezack]

 Betrayal would imply that Bioware actually owes its fans anything. It really doesn't. You never gave them any sort of charity - they made games and you bought them, they provided a service and you paid for it.

[Someone With Mass]

littlezack wrote...

 Betrayal would imply that Bioware actually owes its fans anything. It really doesn't. You never gave them any sort of charity - they made games and you bought them, they provided a service and you paid for it.

This.

Some people are taking things way too personally.

Yeah, BioWare didn't make a game that was top of the line, so what? It doesn't mean every game from there on will be as bad.