1502 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...
 Do you think SW:ToR and ME 3 will have extra pressure to deliver, given that Bioware did injure its reputation with "some" of its fanbase do you think these two games will repair it / bring in new ones, or will it take a well delivered DA 3 to relly restore the confidence of those players who are now feeling a bit burned.

One of my biggest problems with BioWare overall right now is that their 3 franchises seem to be all playing the same in terms of presentation- they all have the "cinematic" twist, with voiced PC's, dialogue wheels and paraphrases. Thats a problem, in that it feels like in terms of story, I'm playing the same game with 3 different skins pasted over the  top- fantasy, scifi and Star Wars.

Beyond that, BioWare definitely hurt their reputation with DA2. While I don't think it will damage ME3 or TOR very much, I think its definitely done lasting harm to DA as a franchise. But we likely won't see what that means until DA3 comes out, since despite being able to respond to some feedback in DLC, a.) the majority of people that disliked DA2 have moved on and won't touch DLC for a game they didn't enjoy and b.) you can only change so many of the issues with DA2 in DLC, since so many of the issues are pretty core design choices.

Take this quote from EA CEO John Riccitiello from back in 2009 talking about how there is a lag in a poor sequel showing up in poor sales:

"Back in the '90s we made a great game... the following year, our game  was down on quality, but we also sold a lot," he says. "[It took] one or two poor games to actually turn success to failure of a franchise.  Consumers read last year’s Metacritic to buy this year’s game."

Faced with poor franchise sales, explains Riccitiello, "the right first  step is getting the quality right... but it might take two, if not three editions to fully put it back to [a good] position."


To prove it, challenges the CEO, print out NPD results, or  Gfk-Chart-Track results or any other sales charts and look at the top  10: "They're all sequels to prior titles that had high Metacritic  scores," he says. "When you consider that, you start to realize that the correlation is there. There's a time lag for titles rising or falling."

Between the lackluster Origins DLC and Awakening and then DA2, I think thats enough for some people to pretty much bail on DA. And it seems that way when you look at DA2's solid initial sales which then promptly jumped off a cliff. So when people see DA3 there will no doubt be a good number of people recalling how they got burned on DA2 or new people looking at DA2's average MetaCritic score.

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...
Oh there is no doubt the end  solution has to come from the developer, but the community feedback can  and should help guide it in the right direction.

Giving them as much information and ideally examples as we can should if they are a  listening company ensure that the end solution is somewhere near what we want to see too.  I think this is something everyone in this thread is  basically saying just with different examples.

Thats true. I think on the other hand that prior to DA2 being released, much of what was said was how DA2 was "Origins but better!" and how they got to where they were in DA2 based on feedback from Origins.

DA2 is just so much like Deus Ex Invisible War in my eyes as a sequel gone wrong that I'll just leave the video of Harvey Smith talking about where IW went wrong and about player feedback. I just get the impression that for whatever reason BioWare was sick of Origins by the time they were done with it and ignored much of the stuff people liked about DAO in making DA2. It comes down to understanding one's audience and I really don't think BioWare knows what DA's audience is- likely even moreso now after DA2 fractured any foundation or core audience Origins established.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
1. Area Re-use.

An obvious problem, and one we are keenly aware of. Not an intentional  issue, and certainly not "by design" but something that happened and  needs to be addressed. Players should not have to accept that Cave A is  also Caves B through D.

Personally, I don't mind area reuse when it makes sense in the narrative. So take something like Witch Hunt, where its essentially all reused environments and it didn't bother me that much since the game basically acknowledged and allowed the Warden to react to that fact that you were going to previously known areas.

And even areas like the Mage's Tower had changed with time, something the repeated areas in DA2 didn't do, which could have helped matters greatly.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
In retrospect, I probably should have just cut content to  reduce the re-use, but that's a tough call to make in the moment.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You just know then people would decry the game for being a 15 hour *insert expletive of choice here*. But exploration is a big part of RPGs, IMO, and being able to look forward to new, varied or changed areas is something that killed my interest in DA2.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
3. Impact of choice

We knew we were  taking a risk making a story about a major even in Thedas that was  pretty much going to happen, and reaction has been very mixed. While  some folks love the "sound of inevitability" that pervades DAII, there  are a number of weak spots in the impact they feel they should have on the world. Fair point.

Its not even that the inevitable always happen in the end of DA2, its more that Hawke's "Rise to Power" essentially plays out the exact same way no matter what. Or even if the Big Mage-Templar Brouhaha always happened at the end, maybe it need not always be because of Anders doing one exact thing. From the start, given the framed narrative, I basically knew the ending but I was expecting more divergence in how you got there. Thats where I was most disappointed with DA2's lack of consequences.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
If we're going to offer you a decision, it should matter. Easy fix would be to cut decisions, but that's not what DA is
about, so we're going to have to get better about clear impact of those  decisions within the same game you're currently playing. Addressable, but not within a DLC, as they are pretty self-contained items.

Or make a concerted effort to have meaningful, reactive consequence to BIG choice in a sequel. Like you know that whole Old God Baby/Warden/Morrigan/Eluvian thing... Do something awesome with that plot line and I will give you all my money Mike:wizard: Thats really the only reason I'm hanging around at this point.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
4. Follower customization

A mixed bag....

I think this (and much of the other "streamlining" of things like the loot in DA2 harkens back to the Invisible War post mortem with Harvey Smith I linked above. Namely the point where he talks about skills and augmentations , where sometimes as a player you want to be able to do stuff and customize your PC (or companions) in a certain way without the game strong arming you or simplifying things to the point of taking the charm out of it.

Modifié par Brockololly, 04 août 2011 - 04:53 .

[csfteeeer]

Anomaly- wrote...

I have to say, after seeing how this topic has developed, I do somewhat regret my previous comments about Legacy. They may have been a little pessimistic, but I only make that realization now after seeing the most dev participation in a discussion in a long time on these forums. Before that, it seemed realistic.

The first point I'll make is that I do agree the backlash DA2 created was a little too much for anyone to deal with when the game first released. This is one of the reasons I waited a while to write my review. I avoided the forums, let myself finish the game and really got a firm hold on how I felt about the game before I reviewed it. In the end, I felt my review was one of the more honest and complete reviews out there. It was no 0/10 metacritic review, at least.

I also agree with Saintthanksgiving. I've given all the feedback I could on the game and tried to make my voice heard. However, that only goes so far and I can only expect so much to come of it, so I also express myself through my wallet. I haven't bought Legacy and I don't plan to, because A) I know a DLC isn't going to make enough fundamental change to the main game for me to really enjoy it and I can't help but feel that I would be another number in the sales tallies for a DLC linked to DA2, a game that I fundamentally didn't like.

I will say, what little has been said in here by devs including Laidlaw has given me some hope. I agree with Laidlaw about the obstacles in the way of fruitful discussion between devs and community, but it is something I would really like to see. For myself, I know that the reason for my frustration when discussing DA2 on these forums was equal parts the fact that I disliked so many aspects of the game, as well as the way the negative reception was handled. Suggesting that we just didn't like change, or flat out ignoring our numbers and rational viewpoints really irked me. I felt cheated by the marketing ploys and treated like they thought we were idiots. I think rational (I'm looking at you here, fans) and honest (I'm looking at you here, devs) communication would go a long way toward improving the end product, and significantly reducing the chances of such negative backlash.

I absolutely do not want the DA franchise to die. My interest and my passion have always stemmed from the fact that I felt so strongly about it after Origins. Even in my angrier moments, I certainly never wanted the death of the franchise, nor anyone to lose their jobs. I apologize if I have ever seemed rude or pessimistic about things around here, but it's hard not to be when all you see is a game seemingly catered to a completely different audience than it's predecessor, give your carefully thought out and articulated feedback on that game, and the only response you get is either being ignored or laughably suggested that you just don't like change. This thread is the first thing since the release of DA2 to actually make me feel something positive again. Thank you.

This, is EXACTLY how i feel.
Word.For Damn.Word.
This is precisely why i have my posted thoughts so many on what I, In my personal opinion, think the Franchise should do to move forward, get better, and see it grow, by either creating it's own ways, or taking inspirations from other games and making them it's own, either way works for me, or Hell both.
i do not want it to die, but i also don't know if i'm fully compeled by the way it's going right now, and that is why i try hard for my voice to be heard.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...

Or make a concerted effort to have meaningful, reactive consequence to BIG choice in a sequel. Like you know that whole Old God Baby/Warden/Morrigan/Eluvian thing... Do something awesome with that plot line and I will give you all my money Mike:wizard: Thats really the only reason I'm hanging around at this point.

And here I thought it was just to post "gameplay vidz please!" as soon as we announce something new for old time's sake.

[Frusciante31]

This thread is fantastic - this kind of interaction is absolutely fascinating.

Thanks!

[Mike Laidlaw]

csfteeeer wrote...

i do not want it to die, but i also don't know if i'm fully compeled by the way it's going right now, and that is why i try hard for my voice to be heard.

And it has been.

Up until Legacy, though, I don't think anyone would have believed me if I'd said we were going to take it into account. A lot of people on this forum had built up a grand conspiracy theory where we were deliberately stripping RPG out of Dragon Age because we are MEAN.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: we stripped some stuff out of DA becuase it was busted. Other stuff was simply a design choice, and some of it was circumstance. There is no way you guys could know exactly what falls on what side of that triangle, and as devs we are not always able to be crystal clear on that kind of thing, especially immediately after a controversial game launch when the community was so far out for blood that they took my suggestion that setting a game that was too easy to a higher difficulty might be a good call was some sort of gigantic, egotistical middle finger to the entire fanbase. That was not a time for reasonable discussion, clearly.

Now is the time. And I'm still very interested to hear what you folks have to say (unless it is a demand for gameplay videos before we announce anything, that is. ), and we are still working on the formula. If I'm going to ****** you guys off, it's going to be because I still firmly believe that RPGs do need to be more accessible to new players. Not dumbed down, not "consolized" (whatever that means. There are insanely complex games on the console), not diminished, but made less imposing and less terrifying to new players. In part because I want more people to play Dragon Age, and in part because there have been a lot of improvements in gameplay and UI design in the past 15 years, and we can learn from them.

So on that point, I'm sure we can all agree to disagree, so long as the end product is more choice-driven, offers more "twiddle" to the player's experience in terms of equipment, offers satisfying, constructed encounters and a deep story. DAII clearly didn't deliver on all fronts for you guys. For some it did, but I'm truly, deeply cognizant of the parts that are weak, and while we're not going to agree on everything, there's a game out there that's better than both Origins and DAII, and I'll be damned if the talented folks of the DA team can't find it.

[chunkyman]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Up until Legacy, though, I don't think anyone would have believed me if I'd said we were going to take it into account. A lot of people on this forum had built up a grand conspiracy theory where we were deliberately stripping RPG out of Dragon Age because we are MEAN.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: we stripped some stuff out of DA becuase it was busted. Other stuff was simply a design choice, and some of it was circumstance. There is no way you guys could know exactly what falls on what side of that triangle, and as devs we are not always able to be crystal clear on that kind of thing, especially immediately after a controversial game launch when the community was so far out for blood that they took my suggestion that setting a game that was too easy to a higher difficulty might be a good call was some sort of gigantic, egotistical middle finger to the entire fanbase. That was not a time for reasonable discussion, clearly.

Now is the time. And I'm still very interested to hear what you folks have to say (unless it is a demand for gameplay videos before we announce anything, that is. ), and we are still working on the formula. If I'm going to ****** you guys off, it's going to be because I still firmly believe that RPGs do need to be more accessible to new players. Not dumbed down, not "consolized" (whatever that means. There are insanely complex games on the console), not diminished, but made less imposing and less terrifying to new players. In part because I want more people to play Dragon Age, and in part because there have been a lot of improvements in gameplay and UI design in the past 15 years, and we can learn from them.

So on that point, I'm sure we can all agree to disagree, so long as the end product is more choice-driven, offers more "twiddle" to the player's experience in terms of equipment, offers satisfying, constructed encounters and a deep story. DAII clearly didn't deliver on all fronts for you guys. For some it did, but I'm truly, deeply cognizant of the parts that are weak, and while we're not going to agree on everything, there's a game out there that's better than both Origins and DAII, and I'll be damned if the talented folks of the DA team can't find it.

I'm happy that the devs are taking the criticism seriously and addressing issues point by point. One thing that no dev has mentioned (to my knowledge) is the return of "origins". Is a human-only PC standard now, or is there hope of getting to choose between humans, elves and dwarves in the future?

Modifié par chunkyman, 04 août 2011 - 05:52 .

[mesmerizedish]

How about a detachable camera?

Also... more transparency as far as stats. I agree with you that a player new to RPGs doesn't want to open her character sheet and see tons of numbers. But I do, and I want to know where those numbers come from and where they go. When I see that fireball does 83 damage, I want to know how that's determined. There's a loading screen tip that mentions some stats have a "sweet spot" after which a point ceases to be as effective. But that's the ONLY place that mentions this at all.

In general, I'm not such a fan of WoW-esque stat "ratings" that convert to a stat percentage that could vary depending on your level. I sort of (but not really) get why you do it... but it means that the formulae for determining stats are incomprehensible to a player, and that should NOT happen. I should understand the rules, and I should do so without extracting all the .gdas and studying them.

[Melca36]

Hey Mike

I truly believe that any spoiler thread when a game comes out should be deleted immediately.

 That huge spoiler thread that developed from forum regulars who got the game earlier, tainted it for everyone. I think there should be a rule about posting spoilers before the official game release day.

Modifié par Melca36, 04 août 2011 - 05:50 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Alas, I can't comment on all features/story bits/origins, etc. Some are game dependent, some are tech dependent, some are just still under discussion. My goals with this thread (which I sorta hijacked, apologies!) were to give you guys a sense of my top line items that we will continue to address. We'll deep dive a bit more later, as I'm able.

[John Epler]

Melca36 wrote...

Hey Mike

I truly believe that any spoiler thread when a game comes out should be deleted immediately.

 That huge spoiler thread that developed from forum regulars who got the game earlier, tainted it for everyone. I think there should be a rule about posting spoilers before the official game release day.

This is something we try to do, but unfortunately - there are only so many people who are experienced enough with the forums that they can quickly and effectively deal with this sort of thing. That's not to say we can't improve how we respond to these sorts of things, though - there's always someone who thinks that ruining someone else's experience is the height of comedy, and we need to recognize that and deal with it.

But certainly, it would be nice to have better moderation around the time that a product releases. Of course, when half of the people moderating are the same ones who've just come out of a significant crunch to get that some project completed, there's a tendency to avoid the forums for a bit to decompress and get your brain back to a state where thoughts longer than 'Food good' are possible.

[Cutlass Jack]

^The obvious solution is to have 'Technical Difficulties' on release week so we're all forced to go post about the game on the CD Projekt forums.

[Realmzmaster]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

^The obvious solution is to have 'Technical Difficulties' on release week so we're all forced to go post about the game on the CD Projekt forums.

Touche!

[HTTP 404]

I actually read all four pages ....kudos OP for posting three times before this thread got going. Funny how, constructive threads are wholly ignored and loud obnoxious ones run 10 pages plus.

Also, I feel that I can sleep well tonight knowing that Mike and co. are "having discussions" about what doesn't work for Da2 and listening to fan feedback.

Modifié par HTTP 404, 04 août 2011 - 06:09 .

[Brockololly]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
...not "consolized" (whatever that means. There are insanely complex games on the console)...

Come on, you know damn well what that means. Its making a game from the ground up to work best on a PC, which takes advantage of everything available there. Whether thats a UI catered to mouse and keyboard, the flexibility of a tactical camera that can zoom out, better textures/graphical bells and whistles and just having a game that hasn't been neutered to fit into the hardware and input constraints of 5-6 year old console hardware. Like what your EA bretheren at DICE are doing in leading BF3 on PC.

I know its more complicated than that naturally, but I hate seeing games have features simplified, mushed together or cut because they'd be hard to do on the console. Especially at this stage in the console lifespan vs. PC's, there is a definite disparity- bring the console features up to the level of the PC, but don't in the process lower the bar for the PC features either. I think DA2 suffered from that, especially given how Origins was designed from the ground up for PC.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
So on that point, I'm sure we can all agree to disagree, so long as the end product is more choice-driven, offers more "twiddle" to the player's experience in terms of equipment, offers satisfying, constructed encounters and a deep story.

And a tactical camera and mod support. Genuinely curious though, what happened to the free roaming Tactical Camera 2.0? I won't bring up the quote where you said a free roaming tactical camera was the key to tactical gameplay, but was it just something that wasn't working? Not enough time to get it in? And will we ever know if the toolset will be updated or is that something thats just no longer in the cards for DA?

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
...there's a game out there that's better  than both Origins and DAII, and I'll be damned if the talented folks of  the DA team can't find it.

I'll help.

Or maybe this'll help too.

Modifié par Brockololly, 04 août 2011 - 06:23 .

[Morroian]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

1. Area Re-use.

An obvious problem, and one we are keenly aware of. Not an intentional issue, and certainly not "by design" but something that happened and needs to be addressed. Players should not have to accept that Cave A is also Caves B through D. While -some- assets will be reused in the course of any game (and should be, otherwise games would simply be too expensive to create), they should be done so with considerably more discretion. In retrospect, I probably should have just cut content to reduce the re-use, but that's a tough call to make in the moment.

Please don't ever cut content. LIke someone else said what needed to be done was hide the re-use better, it was far far too blantant that the cave was re-used many many time. Sebastians DLC was an example of hiding the re-use pretty well, the cave below Harrimans Estate was the same cave but hidden better.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

2. "Wave" combats

When everyone talks about how it's raining men in DAII, there's clearly something wrong. Simple problem: waves were introduced as a mechanic and overused without enough time to tune them. Fan reaction prompted us to start making adjustments to the system pretty much immediately, and Legacy demonstrates the start of the result. I am amused when people note that waves are "gone" from Legacy. They're actually there, just done much better. So, yes, the bad waves are gone. Still more work to do, but a good start.

Agreed, carry that over into DA3 and make it even better would be great, and please move heaven and earth to give us some form of tactical camera again.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

4. Follower customization

A mixed bag. Lots of folks liked unique looks for followers. Many more hated losing the ability to put new platemail on Aveline. Completely understandable, and likely aggrivated by finding platemail that your mage character would likely never be able to equip. Needs to change, but we'll cement how before talking in detail. Also not really addressable in a DLC, as there would be fundamental changes to the core game needed, which goes beyond the scope of what a DLC can deliver.

I personally would be fine with fixed looks but with more than 1 option, say give each follower at least 3 outfits to use.

Modifié par Morroian, 04 août 2011 - 06:21 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
...there's a game out there that's better  than both Origins and DAII, and I'll be damned if the talented folks of  the DA team can't find it.

I'll help.

Or maybe this'll help too.

See, you're not just here for the god baby. You're here to be a wise ass. Good times as always.

[Anomaly-]

csfteeeer wrote...
This, is EXACTLY how i feel.
Word.For Damn.Word.

Good to see someone else sharing the same sentiments.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Now is the time. And I'm still very interested to hear what you folks have to say (unless it is a demand for gameplay videos before we announce anything, that is.... So on that point, I'm sure we can all agree to disagree, so long as the end product is more choice-driven, offers more "twiddle" to the player's experience in terms of equipment, offers satisfying, constructed encounters and a deep story.

Personally, one of the most important aspects of an RPG is character customization, imo. This includes "twiddling" equipment, as well as other aspects. Attributes and skills, for example, play a big role in this, both of which I found lacking in DA2. The more options players have in developing their characters, the more people and playstyles you cater to. The challenge is making those options both detailed and accessible, but it can certainly be done. If you're really interested in suggestions, you may want to check out the review in my sig. It's a long read, and I'm afraid some parts are a little negative, but I believe there is a lot of useful feedback in there.

I really look forward to seeing/hearing more from you guys.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 04 août 2011 - 06:34 .

[Tommyspa]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

4. Follower customization

A mixed bag. Lots of folks liked unique looks for followers. Many more hated losing the ability to put new platemail on Aveline. Completely understandable, and likely aggrivated by finding platemail that your mage character would likely never be able to equip. Needs to change, but we'll cement how before talking in detail.

This isn't that bad at all, but it does need some more uniqueness. Or perhaps making the in game armor look different for each character, if that be those upgrades altering the look the armors themselves or (my preference) not having all generic armors looking the same on everyone like in Origins. It would make many people that have a problem with it happy.

[devSin]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Now is the time. And I'm still very interested to hear what you folks have to say (unless it is a demand for gameplay videos before we announce anything, that is. ), and we are still working on the formula.

More Flemeth and Hawke and Varric. More fun. Less Origins characters and Wardens.

I'm not hung up on major choices or decisions (does Group A win or Group B win: you decide), but the player should progress. That is what I think DA2 lacks. You don't go anywhere. You don't advance beyond what you see in the first act. You get new content, but it's all the same people in the same place. Origins could have the most ridiculous plot in the world, but it still provides new places and faces, and it's still introducing them right up to the end. DA2 just dumps you into a small region and says, "Time passes. Why don't you play through some of it."

And don't have big fights that a reasonable player could lose where there's a conversation or cutscene between the auto-save and the battle. Legacy did this for every single fight except the last, and it pissed me off like you wouldn't believe. Forget about equating "dumbing down" with the difficulty setting (own up to it, man, and overcome; don't still be all defensive about it months later), I was straight up not having fun anymore having to go through the conversations JUST ONE MORE TIME (I don't use healing potions, for some obscure reason, and reload if anybody falls, and Legacy was terrible).

And don't over-think all the encounters. Legacy, I think, agonized over every single one, and ended up being gimmick after gimmick (nice, and fun, and proof that you care, sure, but come on, let me feel proficient at least some of the time). Sometimes I just want to hit stuff with a sword and kill it. I don't want to have to find the trick, or the most effective strategy, or the only way you can keep your sanity without having stupid AI or pathfinding kill everybody for you, for every single fight.

Oh, and try to get the artists to kick back with the contrast. I can barely see after playing Legacy, the graphics hurt my eyes so bad.

I have a hard time getting worked up about companion equipment. I hate the item system (only marginally more here than I did in Origins, so don't feel bad); I simply don't care that some largely irrelevant random property isn't available for my companion (and really, the only difference between items is level-based armor/damage and the crap-roll of junk properties). Better that they be balanced to not need you to buy specious, vanity "upgrades" to add a rune slot or +60 attack (if they need the attack, then give it to them when you think they should have it; otherwise, you're just wasting my time with something you admit doesn't matter). Of course, I'm the sort of player who kept most everybody in Origins in default or default-looking gear (and my mage wore Mage Robe for the entire game because those Tevinter frocks were so ridiculous; dear god, please make them get rid of the robes for the PC in the next one), so I'm probably more sympathetic to the idea of not giving too much control to the player.

Modifié par devSin, 04 août 2011 - 06:53 .

[hoorayforicecream]

One concern that I've had for a while has been for the visual style of DA2. What I've noticed specifically is that Kirkwall is actually a very good looking city, with a lot of iconic looking imagery. Unfortunately, most of that imagery was above the normal sight line, and I ended up not seeing it unless I stopped playing, and started looking.

Kirkwall as a city was fabulous on a flythrough, but because we spent the majority of our time looking *down* at the world, it looked very plain. So instead of the City of Chains, we get the City of Linoleum. The nature of the gameplay makes me want to angle the camera down so that I can see the positions of all the bad guys, all of my characters, and the lay of the land. That's perfectly fine, but I think that the environment visuals need to be designed with this in mind. We already saw a bit of that with the vista points in Legacy (which were pretty nice, by the way), but it needs to be better integrated than 'find a clicky and click on it' for the visuals.

Warning: Image heavy.

Like, for example... this is the standard view of the Gallows that I spent the majority of the time looking at:


But here is the actual Gallows that I got to see from the docks.


What about Lowtown? I've fought many a bad guy at the Foundry district:


But I hadn't realized until very recently that the Foundry district actually had billowing smoke, flames, etc. like a real foundry.


And what about Hightown? I always thought that the Chantry was kind of boring. It had a few statues and a chantry board, right?


Yeah... a few statues. That I could see from the Viscount's place, and Fenris' mansion.


The point being that these visuals are well-crafted and pretty... but few actually get to see and enjoy them, because they require playing the game counterintuitively. Please, in the next game incorporate the visuals for a top-down camera to take the most advantage from them, or at least give us more flythrough opportunities so we can actively see how gorgeous some of the stuff looks.

[jds1bio]

This thread has turned out to be one of the real gems, thanks everyone.

As for story, I think the march towards inevitability is fine. I also get the companion outfits, after all in Kirkwall they have jobs/lives, and are not on some do-or-die quest where anything you can get your hands on is valuable. The waves, they can be managed well (i.e. Legacy). The recycled caves and such - yeah, you're just going to have to build more sets.

I also thought the sidequests were somewhat meatier in this game. But I'd like to see sidequests be more related to backstory, where the experience tells you something about someone or some lore that someone who rushes through the main quest is probably going to miss. In DA2, if I decided to pick many "red" choices with companions, and declined some of the companion requests, I missed out on a LOT.

[Anarya]

@hoorayforicecream: That is actually a REALLY good point. I like to pan the camera around sometimes and look at things while I'm idling, so I did notice that Kirkwall actually has some great things going for it visually, but the amount of time I spent doing that compared to the amount of time I was staring down at a grid of beige squares was really pretty miniscule, and that's a shame.

[Dial_595]

I disagree with devSin, I liked the Origins characters and would very much like to see them featured in the future as well. Especially the warden.

I have one big gripe though - and that's the combat system which is just plain ineffective on the console. It's not particularly interactive or fun IMO. I kept wondering where the pause function went or why I was tapping the X button 5000 times in a row.

You need to raise your standards in that regard seriously, perhaps make it something a bit more like God of War or Castlevania, only... immersive. There's a huge difference between the amount of combat interaction in Dragon Age 2 and Castlevania or Call of Duty for example. So, I think the amount of interaction needs to be increased in that regard if you want to make it a real gem.

I really liked Legacy however. More puzzles. Those are always nice.

[devSin]

Actually, I think the city suffers from "Lego" construction (and background scenery buildings are terrible, if you run to the edge of the map and see those chunky things supposedly built into a mountain). A lot of the upper stories just look stacked (the chantry may look neat in that shot down at the bottom of the stairs, but if you look up close, it's not that natural-looking a building--none of them are). The vistas and sky are pretty, but depending on your zoom, most should be visible at least some of the time (I usually play two "mouse-wheel-turn" zooms out, and the angle the camera defaults to is pretty generous). If you zoom all the way out, though, the camera naturally angles downward to a fake-ish tactical view (I can't play like that, because you lose most of this "second-story" detail); don't play like that if you want to see the pretty.

But most apparent in those shots is the ultra-high-contrast textures. It burns!

[Redcoat]

On "Accessibility":

I know that I, and many other people, do an involuntary cringe whenever we hear that a developer is going to make their next game more "accessible;" not because it'll bring in more players (which can only be a good thing), but because we fear that the game is going to be simplified, stripped down, and made generally less deep and complex to avoid intimidating people new to the genre. Sadly, this is exactly how I perceived DA2; it just ripped things out. I won't bore anyone with the details, one can just look at my post in the Constructive Criticism thread or read my GameFAQs review. BioWare's solution, unfortunately, in both DA2 and in ME2 has been to take flawed features like ME1's inventory, and instead of improving upon their implementation, they just throw them out altogether.

I think gamers can handle a fair bit more complexity than people seem to give them credit for. No, a game like DCS A-10C Warthog isn't going to be making any Best Selling Game lists any time soon, but that's an extreme example. What I think "accessibility" should entail is a well-written manual that explains the game mechanics and some of form of tutorial to introduce the player to the game mechanics. That's "good" accesibility; preserving complexity and depth while not overwhelming those unfamiliar with the system. "Bad" accessibility is removing features and stripping things from the game. That's where you get the accusations of "dumbing down."

Modifié par Redcoat, 04 août 2011 - 07:19 .