146 réponses à ce sujet

[Luke Bioware]

I was just wondering about this, and sorry if it has been discussed before. I would've rather had something like Awakening again to be honest, if they truly didn't get much time from EA to make a new classic. Much like Baldur's Gate II was to Baldur's Gate I mean: subtle changes, which made the game somewhat better than its predecessor in the end.

Personally I really hated the dumbed down combat. Easier to handle for consoles is great and all that, but if you need new mobs coming out of nowhere to make things 'interesting', there is something wrong. (I suppose I don't have to talk about the rehashed areas, abscence of many monsters and creatures that did exist in the original and so on and so on.)

To long, didn't read: I would've been more happier with a revamped DAO, so that the focus could've been placed on the story and more important things than the redesign.

[LeBurns]

YES. They already have everything they needed, models, textures, etc. With the little development time they had they could have used what they had, polish it up a little bit, add another great and epic story, and easy WIN. WHY DIDN'T THEY DO THIS!!!!

Instead they worked hard to change everything, did cheap map copies and poor default graphics and NPC's, etc., lame waves of enemies, on and on and etc. and they gave us this crappy game called DA2.

[Ronnel]

They should focused more in RPG and not anything else, because that's bioware stands for the RPGness not the hack and slashness.

@Leburns, because bioware wants to capitalized their success in Origins they did not care anymore if thats bad they focused more in money, so they'll now taking risks if the old fans will bothered to return to the franchise or abondoned it and look for another developer that satisfy the RPG they need. It's bioware's fault they could at least extend the released date of DA2 at least 4 months so that this DLC is in the content and at least minimized the hate of the game.

Modifié par Ronnel, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:06 .

[Nozybidaj]

LeBurns wrote...

YES. They already have everything they needed, models, textures, etc. With the little development time they had they could have used what they had, polish it up a little bit, add another great and epic story, and easy WIN. WHY DIDN'T THEY DO THIS!!!!

Instead they worked hard to change everything, did cheap map copies and poor default graphics and NPC's, etc., lame waves of enemies, on and on and etc. and they gave us this crappy game called DA2.

You know, that was always the question in the back of my mind as well.  If they knew they were up against such strict time and budget restrictions why spend so much time doing a 180?  They could have focused on story and content for the little time they had and made an impressive game instead of, well, DA2.  Then, assuming the next iteration allowed for more development time, spent more time working things out in DA3.  /meh  Oh well, spilled milk and all that......

[LeBurns]

Yea I know why they did it, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. It does seem to me that in the end all they did was shoot themselves in the foot.

I always loved the TES universe also and now my hopes are all on ES-V Skyrim.

[Salaya]

Definitely, yes.

All the effort on redesign and gameplay changes could have been invested on improving the original formula. In my humble opinion, changes should have been much more subtle. To summarize: all the philosophy behind the DA2's "innovation" was "rotten" from the beggining (ok, Im sorry for the crudeness, I mean no disrespect).

Trying to innovate, taking risks... all those things are great as ideas, but very problematic when put in motion. DA2 is the perfect example. They thought that radical changes with "simplification" philosophy would lead to inevitable success, but they failed ._.

Probably, some people had critized some lack of innovation, but the intensity and seriousness of those were not as the ones the actual DA2 received.

[Luke Bioware]

I am looking forward more to Skyrim than I am rooting for DA3, because of DA2 (and I absolutely disliked Oblivion).

[Tirfan]

Well.. yes, I would have liked it more, I also would have liked it to improve on certain things; better usage of gameplay as an tool of narrative, combatwise.. better balance and better encounter-design. I'd have liked a few changes to companion-interraction (I'd like to have conversations with companions so that there are several of them actually participating in them), the gift-system revamped a bit. A bit more natural looking animations both in and out of combat. Nothing too serious. Perhaps a bit more quests where you can express your character and have those great RP-opportunities..

And of course, the most important thing should have stayed; the silent protagonist.

[In Exile]

No. Awakening wasn't a very good game, and it stripped out everything that made DA:O worth playing (the origins, the meaningful interactions with companions, significant choice). I don't think DA2 was different from Awakening. It just had different potentially saving graces (depending on where you're standing re: your preferences). 

I'd rather have gotten DA2 with 2 more years of dev. time. 

Nozybidaj wrote...
You know, that was always the question in the back of my mind as well.  If they knew they were up against such strict time and budget restrictions why spend so much time doing a 180?  They could have focused on story and content for the little time they had and made an impressive game instead of, well, DA2.  Then, assuming the next iteration allowed for more development time, spent more time working things out in DA3.  /meh  Oh well, spilled milk and all that......

It's almost like Bioware believes in its artistic vision enough to change the formula from their most succesful (sales wise) franchise independent of tight scheduling pressures or other financial considerations. Which is obviously just a failed scam by EAware to try to trick us into thinking they like video-games.

Tirfan,

And of course, the most important thing should have stayed; the silent protagonistp

You mean, the worst thing should have gone, right?  

Modifié par In Exile, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:25 .

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
You know, that was always the question in the back of my mind as well.  If they knew they were up against such strict time and budget restrictions why spend so much time doing a 180?  They could have focused on story and content for the little time they had and made an impressive game instead of, well, DA2.  Then, assuming the next iteration allowed for more development time, spent more time working things out in DA3.  /meh  Oh well, spilled milk and all that......

It's almost like Bioware believes in its artistic vision enough to change the formula from their most succesful (sales wise) franchise independent of tight scheduling pressures or other financial considerations. Which is obviously just a failed scam by EAware to try to trick us into thinking they like video-games.

It's good and all to have faith in your artisitic vision, but artisitic vision rarely meshes well with budget and deadlines.  

This isn't a "OMG EAware is the devil" theory, I'm just saying don't bite off more than you can realisitically chew.  It seems to be this was a bit of the problem folks had with DA2.

[furryrage59]

In Exile wrote...

No. Awakening wasn't a very good game, and it stripped out everything that made DA:O worth playing (the origins, the meaningful interactions with companions, significant choice). I don't think DA2 was different from Awakening. It just had different potentially saving graces (depending on where you're standing re: your preferences). 

I'd rather have gotten DA2 with 2 more years of dev. time. 

Nozybidaj wrote...
You know, that was always the question in the back of my mind as well.  If they knew they were up against such strict time and budget restrictions why spend so much time doing a 180?  They could have focused on story and content for the little time they had and made an impressive game instead of, well, DA2.  Then, assuming the next iteration allowed for more development time, spent more time working things out in DA3.  /meh  Oh well, spilled milk and all that......

It's almost like Bioware believes in its artistic vision enough to change the formula from their most succesful (sales wise) franchise independent of tight scheduling pressures or other financial considerations. Which is obviously just a failed scam by EAware to try to trick us into thinking they like video-games.

Tirfan,

And of course, the most important thing should have stayed; the silent protagonistp

You mean, the worst thing should have gone, right?  

Some of us preferred having vastly more conversation options and immersing ourselves into it more by speaking it for ourselves instead of someone else doing it for us.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

It's this generation's Ultima VIII. Lol. j/k.

Anyways, out of curiosity, I would say Dragon Age 2 with more development time. Considering the deadline, a refined version of Origins would be preferable to kicking down the sandcastle, but I am a little curious to see how Dragon Age 2 would've turned out had it not been rushed.

Though I'd say that a DAO-styled game with more developed time would probably be my ideal outcome.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:51 .

[MonkeyLungs]

I would vastly have preferred a DA:O 2 than what we got. I don't like the new combat system compared to DA:O, the only thing I like is that you can tell a companion to move to a specific spot much easier on console now.

I don't dig not being able to see exactly what my character is going to say.

I don't dig Hawke being voiced (even though I think both voice actors did a great job).

I don't dig having to play as a human ... that's what most of YOU like to do, play as a human warrior, it is overwhelmingly the most popular style of play and one of the reasons for the big shift in combat design.

Not being able to outfit my companions is lame. I'm the general and if I say wear this armor in battle, they damn well better comply or they can hit the road. "But I want to wear my panties in battle so the kids can get some sweet panty shots!"

I don't dig teleporting enemies.

I don't dig waves and waves of enemies appearing out of thin air.

I don't dig how the street gangs in Kirkwall are more numerous than the Templar army.

I don't dig how small and cluastrophobic Kirkwall is. I don't dig how every building is connected by right angles and basically no building is a standalone structure its all soap opera set pieces with facades painted on. Bioware sucks at level design anyway and they have since they moved to 3d so this complaint stands from KoTOR on. Learn how to build better maps, make a better engine.

I don't dig how I can cast spells directly at a Templar NPC and NOTHING happens. This is so absurd I just vomit a little inside my mind every timeI think about it.

I don't like not being able to swap weapon sets out. I don't dig stupid weapon restrictions for classes that were not present in DA:O. Warriors can use bows!!! I don't like how dumbed down the new weapon system is .. so dumb that you can't actually fully unequip weapons, you get a dumbed down streamlined default POS weapon in place if you try to go weaponless.

I don't dig streamlining at all.
---
I enjoyed DA2 a little bit because I liked the companions, especially Aveline and chapter 2 was pretty cool. Oh and I liked the new character modles and armor models. When I compare it to DA:O though I feel very sad in the gamer part of my heart. In the larger scope of things its no big deal but I wanted DA series to go non-streamlining route and they chose not to do this.

EDIT: I really really HATE how the Arishok has conversations with a Bas Saarebas ... otherwise Arishok is awesome but this one flaw is just a slap in the face to Qun, to the gamelore, to Gaider's creation of the world of Thedas, and to gamers who actually give a flintlock about the lore of the gameworld.

THE ARISHOK SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH BAS SAAREBAS!

Modifié par MonkeyLungs, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:53 .

[phoenixgoddess27]

Yes. I would have very much preferred a DAO-styled game instead of what we got with DA2. However, as much as we want that, I don't believe we'll ever see it, again.

Who knows, maybe they'll surprise us all despite saying they weren't going to, but... I doubt it.

For what it's worth, I hope this thread stays on-topic so it doesn't get locked.

[Teddie Sage]

Maker, no! I really dislike the click and drag style rpg. It took me forever to enjoy DAO, I finished it once and I'm not planning to finish it twice. Well, maybe another time because I want to upload the file to Dragon Age 2. But for me, the gameplay in Dragon Age 2 was way better. Way, way, way better. The only think I didn't like was the re-used dungeons and the rushed story. (Arc 3 ftw...) I also sincerely think that the characters interactions were done better in DA2, only, I wanted more of them.

Edit: I couldn't care less about a silent protagonist, to be honest. I prefered Hawke being voiced, like Shepard. There are still work to be done with Hawke, but I like him/her better than I ever did for my warden.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 11 juillet 2011 - 04:17 .

[In Exile]

furryrage59 wrote...
Some of us preferred having vastly more conversation options and immersing ourselves into it more by speaking it for ourselves instead of someone else doing it for us.

You got the secret experimental version of DA:O where you talked into the microphone instead of picking predefined and prewritten dialogue options from a list?

Modifié par In Exile, 11 juillet 2011 - 04:15 .

[BanksHector]

No

[Captain Sassy Pants]

Teddie Sage wrote...

Maker, no! I really dislike the click and drag style rpg. It took me forever to enjoy DAO, I finished it once and I'm not planning to finish it twice. Well, maybe another time because I want to upload the file to Dragon Age 2. But for me, the gameplay in Dragon Age 2 was way better. Way, way, way better. The only think I didn't like was the re-used dungeons and the rushed story. (Arc 3 ftw...) I also sincerely think that the characters interactions were done better in DA2, only, I wanted more of them.

Edit: I couldn't care less about a silent protagonist, to be honest. I prefered Hawke being voiced, like Shepard. There are still work to be done with Hawke, but I like him/her better than I ever did for my warden.

Why'd you buy it, then? Or did you not hear the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" bit of marketing?

It, clearly, wasn't made for you.

So, the stinging question still remains: why was the sequel, then, made for people like you, who don't like the first game, instead of the people the original was made for?

I think that's what bothers me most about the whole ordeal. Since day one, this game felt like Bioware was trolling me (and other like-minded individuals). I could hardly believe that that was really the direction they were taking for the sequel, but then the demo came out and all fears were realized.

[Backlot Basher]

So far I'm enjoying what I've played in DA2, even though it does seem to have strayed from the original concept. Been trying to play Insanity just for the challenge, and found that there were places where things seemed way out of balance. A few people made reference to repeating waves of enemies, and enemies that appear out of nowhere. That does drive me nuts.

I mean, I'm sure there's a "sweet spot" formula for build, party makeup, and tactics that makes any skirmish winnable, but it just strikes me that the margin for error is a little too harsh at times. I was doing a quest yesterday (can't recall the name of it, but it was on Sundermount somewhere), and at one point we were overwhelmed by an Apostate mage with about 6 mabari, then a half dozen spiders in the middle point, and a bunch of bandits just over the hill. Engaging the spiders would cause all three groups to descend on you at once. I was able to hold this to just the spiders and mage/mabari, but even then, nothing I tried seemed to work. I guess someone with tactical zen genius can do this in their sleep, but I tried it over and over for 45 minutes and had no luck. I like a challenge as much as anyone, but this just became tedious and frustrating

[Kail Ashton]

Outside the exploration/travel & full fledged good story, no, origins was pretty bland, slugish & ugly as hell

DA2 fixed everything Origins screwed up at the expense of screwing up everything Origins did right, they're two sides of the same generic coin

[Jamie_edmo]

Yes, I by far preferred Origins, but hopefully bioware takes our opinions into account when moving forward with DA3.

[Skaden]

Overall yes, for DA3 I hope the style shifts back more towards DAO ie- choosable origins, finishing moves, more custimization within classes (dw warrior anyone?),varied choices that significantly impact the plot etc. while keeping a few things from DA2 that did work ie- friendship/rivalry system, responsive combat (hopefully slowed down a bit) and the mage combat animations

[Teddie Sage]

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...

Why'd you buy it, then? Or did you not hear the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" bit of marketing?

It, clearly, wasn't made for you.

So, the stinging question still remains: why was the sequel, then, made for people like you, who don't like the first game, instead of the people the original was made for?

I never played Baldur's Gates and there was a lack of RPGs on PS3. I read a bunch of reviews and heard that the story was kick ass. Since I like story over gameplay, I picked it up. I wasn't impressed with the slow and tedious gameplay. I felt like I was watching the game and not playing it, which is not the case with Dragon Age 2.

Like I said on many threads before: click and/or drag rpgs kinds like Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age Origins shouldn't even be ported on consoles. They play way better on PC  and they don't remove the God's view camera that all players need on consoles. Dragon Age 2 is perfect for consoles. Origins was perfect for PC. What lesson should we learn from this? Dragon Age 2's style should remain on console on Origins should remain on PC.

[Salaya]

Teddie Sage wrote...

...

I never played Baldur's Gates and there was a lack of RPGs on PS3. I read a bunch of reviews and heard that the story was kick ass. Since I like story over gameplay, I picked it up. I wasn't impressed with the slow and tedious gameplay. I felt like I was watching the game and not playing it, which is not the case with Dragon Age 2.

Like I said on many threads before: click and/or drag rpgs kinds like Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age Origins shouldn't even be ported on consoles. They play way better on PC  and they don't remove the God's view camera that all players need on consoles. Dragon Age 2 is perfect for consoles. Origins was perfect for PC. What lesson should we learn from this? Dragon Age 2's style should remain on console on Origins should remain on PC.

I don't see your point. You like story over gameplay but at the same time dislike origins because the gameplay?