296 réponses à ce sujet

[nitefyre410]

Addai67 wrote...

FieryDove wrote...
You are right. Oggy + Crossbow all the way = awesome. Str over dex.

Alistair or Loghain with a longbow is dead sexy.

Bring back warrior archers, pls.

Honestly instead of Warrior Archers I would love to see a warriors use  Pole - Arms(Spears, Halbreds, etc, etc)

[Edhriano]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Honestly instead of Warrior Archers I would love to see a warriors use  Pole - Arms(Spears, Halbreds, etc, etc)

I think I would really like to see that, in DA 3 perhaps?

[nitefyre410]

Edhriano wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Honestly instead of Warrior Archers I would love to see a warriors use  Pole - Arms(Spears, Halbreds, etc, etc)

I think I would really like to see that, in DA 3 perhaps?

Considering  it is my favoriate weapon  choice other than a 2h Sword then yes please.

[Mike_Neel]

DA2 isn't a bad game. It's not good. But it's not bad.

I generally say it's not as bad as the internet wants you to believe it is, but it's also not as good as bioware wants you to believe it is. It doesn't deserve the hate the internet dishes out, but it's not deserving of the praise and endorsement bioware puts behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I know they won't discredit their own game, and it does have its merits, but the whole button awesome campaign and blatantly rushing a product out the door to appease the publisher deserves the criticisms it receives. But I don't think it deserves the hate and disregard it receive just because it wasn't Dragon Age Origins 2. As a standalone Dragon Age: Kirkwall Chronicles it's a good game. I don't feel jilted or betrayed, I've long since learned that game devs and studios are in a way in the same profession as Snake Oil salesmen. They can't just say "no this game isn't as great as we made it out to be. Go ahead and skip this title, we promise we'll do better next time." That said it's also why I never preorder games or first day buy.

[Anathemic]

BioWare should've scrapped DA2 entirely when the first signs of outcry over the release information began to rise, rather than release an obviously rushed game.

[FieryDove]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Honestly instead of Warrior Archers I would love to see a warriors use  Pole - Arms(Spears, Halbreds, etc, etc)

Why instead? Why not all? DW/Archer warriors need love too.

[miskatonica]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Honestly instead of Warrior Archers I would love to see a warriors use  Pole - Arms(Spears, Halbreds, etc, etc)

Yeah, I think polearms are a GREAT weapon, would love warriors to get a chance to use them-- it'd be a nice variety, too. I know mages TECHNICALLY sortakinda use polearms (with the bladed staffs and all) but it's just not the same. ;_; 

[nitefyre410]

miskatonica wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Honestly instead of Warrior Archers I would love to see a warriors use  Pole - Arms(Spears, Halbreds, etc, etc)

Yeah, I think polearms are a GREAT weapon, would love warriors to get a chance to use them-- it'd be a nice variety, too. I know mages TECHNICALLY sortakinda use polearms (with the bladed staffs and all) but it's just not the same. ;_; 

BAH that is not same its just means  of  focusoing  the magical engeries  for combat.. I speak True Pole arm use. sweeping strikes covering a wide area.  Pokes that keep Ogres at bay not some poultry  mage staff that spits out puff of smoke form  the end that  is some mockery of  blade..

okay  I can't even keep a straight now. ...  Yeah mages staffs are cool and but they are just staffs  you can staff with bladed  or studded end but in the function  mage staff is focus magic and  function of the pole- arm is to be  a whirlwind of doom esp. if you get Setsuken(sp) style that can break into three sections with a chain connecting each ... oh now we are talking.

[KotorEffect3]

Mike_Neel wrote...

DA2 isn't a bad game. It's not good. But it's not bad.

I generally say it's not as bad as the internet wants you to believe it is, but it's also not as good as bioware wants you to believe it is. It doesn't deserve the hate the internet dishes out, but it's not deserving of the praise and endorsement bioware puts behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I know they won't discredit their own game, and it does have its merits, but the whole button awesome campaign and blatantly rushing a product out the door to appease the publisher deserves the criticisms it receives. But I don't think it deserves the hate and disregard it receive just because it wasn't Dragon Age Origins 2. As a standalone Dragon Age: Kirkwall Chronicles it's a good game. I don't feel jilted or betrayed, I've long since learned that game devs and studios are in a way in the same profession as Snake Oil salesmen. They can't just say "no this game isn't as great as we made it out to be. Go ahead and skip this title, we promise we'll do better next time." That said it's also why I never preorder games or first day buy.

Nice to see a reasonable stance.

[bEVEsthda]

Mike_Neel wrote...

DA2 isn't a bad game. It's not good. But it's not bad.

I generally say it's not as bad as the internet wants you to believe it is, but it's also not as good as bioware wants you to believe it is. It doesn't deserve the hate the internet dishes out, but it's not deserving of the praise and endorsement bioware puts behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I know they won't discredit their own game, and it does have its merits, but the whole button awesome campaign and blatantly rushing a product out the door to appease the publisher deserves the criticisms it receives. But I don't think it deserves the hate and disregard it receive just because it wasn't Dragon Age Origins 2. As a standalone Dragon Age: Kirkwall Chronicles it's a good game. I don't feel jilted or betrayed, I've long since learned that game devs and studios are in a way in the same profession as Snake Oil salesmen. They can't just say "no this game isn't as great as we made it out to be. Go ahead and skip this title, we promise we'll do better next time." That said it's also why I never preorder games or first day buy.

So, is a game that was not wanted "not bad"?
I think one can become pretty scewed up by this objective stance.
DA2 is disgusting. The revenge of a group of individuals who could never understand certain things, but ultimately figured that if stealing an already established market presence, things would be different. And who now thinks that the only thing needed is to focus on some quality details and put "some rpg elements back in" and everything will be dandy.
I won't let the door hit me. In fact I'll still be here and ****** all over DA3, when that is released.

[Mabaker]

bEVEsthda, you preach the truth. DAII should not be even featured on Bioware's site.

[billy the squid]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

CommanderJessica wrote...

...
A lot of people who hate it wanted Origins v.2.
...

Oh, for heaven sake, not this Sh*te again. Please read anyone of the huge multiplicity of threads that have listed in excruciating detail the problems people have had with design direction and concepts before bringing something like this up. As comments like this are worthy of the proverbial "facepalm" so great, that it would make God himself cry.

No need to be so damn insulting over someone else's opinion

Stating something is opinion does not make it anymore valid or correct when the premise upon which it is based is wrong.

Doens't matter if you think it is valid or right or wrong.  That is no excuse for insults.

Oh really?
 
If the premise which it is based upon is outright daft it deserves to be highlighted as such. Or are all opinions equally valid no matter the specious reasoning behind it? The enjoyment of DA2 is not the point of issue and it never was, that is subjective. The daft belief is a simple deluded denial that everyone who disliked DA2 is in fact, close minded, 4chan trolls, blah, blah, blah etc.

My response may not have been the most nuanced, nor was it designed to swaddle the reader in cotton wool. But insulting, hardly.

[Alex Kershaw]

Notice how this doesn't get locked and told to repost in the 'constructive criticism' thread guys

[BounceDK]

Because it IS a bad game and compared to DAO it's a flippin' joke.

[alex90c]

BounceDK wrote...

Because it IS a bad game and compared to DAO it's a flippin' joke.

PEOPLE WHO DIDNT LIKE DA2 WANTED AN ORIGINS 2 BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH

[Joy Divison]

Bad? No.

Disappointing? Yes.

[erynnar]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Mike_Neel wrote...

DA2 isn't a bad game. It's not good. But it's not bad.

I generally say it's not as bad as the internet wants you to believe it is, but it's also not as good as bioware wants you to believe it is. It doesn't deserve the hate the internet dishes out, but it's not deserving of the praise and endorsement bioware puts behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I know they won't discredit their own game, and it does have its merits, but the whole button awesome campaign and blatantly rushing a product out the door to appease the publisher deserves the criticisms it receives. But I don't think it deserves the hate and disregard it receive just because it wasn't Dragon Age Origins 2. As a standalone Dragon Age: Kirkwall Chronicles it's a good game. I don't feel jilted or betrayed, I've long since learned that game devs and studios are in a way in the same profession as Snake Oil salesmen. They can't just say "no this game isn't as great as we made it out to be. Go ahead and skip this title, we promise we'll do better next time." That said it's also why I never preorder games or first day buy.

Nice to see a reasonable stance.

A very reasoned stance. Three things: that foolish argument that most people who didn't like it wanted Origins the copy.  DA2 was not promoted, sold, or made to be a stand alone game. So comparing it to Origins is, in my opinion valid, and what DA2 deserves. And many people I know who felt jilted or betrayed felt so for getting half the game for higher price tag than Origins (which Laidlaw even admits is not nearly as complex or detailed as Origins).

[The Edge]

It's a good game in it's own right (I enjoyed it as well); unfortunately, as a "sequel", it wasn't up to par with Origins.

For me, I think DA2 suffered mostly because took a sudden turn from what Origin's was. It was too much change and not enough polish to the original formula

[Time4Tiddy]

DA2 is not a bad game at all, just different (from DA:O). Much less replayability, with most (but not all) of the characters much less interesting. It does feel rushed, and is certainly not in the same league as DA:O, but we all knew we'd be getting a subpar game when we learned it was coming out what 18 months after instead of 3 years (typical time for "quality" game.

However, when comparing DA2 to nearly all other "rpgs" currently on the market, I'd much rather play DA2. It's still a mostly fun game with a decent storyline, some twists and turns, and tons of customization for your Champion. I just wish they had called it Dragon Age: Kirkwall or something instead of DA2. It does feel more like a linear story set in the same universe rather than an actual sequel. I find way more similarities to Awakening than Origins.

[nitefyre410]

FieryDove wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Honestly instead of Warrior Archers I would love to see a warriors use  Pole - Arms(Spears, Halbreds, etc, etc)

Why instead? Why not all? DW/Archer warriors need love too.

How many games have Archers -  we can name alot but how many games have you seen a Pole- arm weilder warrior effectively protrayed.      Duel Wielding warriors yes as long as they do something with those animations - I played a Duel Wielder in  Origins simple because  2h was... *shutters*   Okayt comprise... Warriors get to use Crossbows but not Longbows.   Rogues can use both and add say a throwing weapon for Rogues like a throwing knife.

[DraCZeQQ]

"Origins copy" is becoming some kind of urban myth ... im pretty sure that by Origins copy or "Origins 2" was meant: bigger, better, polished, debugged, expanded game based on the philosophy of Origins ... not some CTR+C and CTR+V Origins in Kirkwall kind of a game ...

I would like to bring few games as example ... first lets look at Batman: The Arkham Asylum and Batman: The Arkham City ... this is nice example of making second game ... they didnt redo game system, they just added tons of new features, polished old ones, made everything bigger ... bigger game space, more varieties of enemies, you can play different characters, the story got bigger and polished and everything ... or lets look at Assasins Creed, the first game was ok, great idea, but got boring after the first city, coz it was ctr+c and ctr+v, so the developers learned ... made it more interesting, added variables, polished it, focused on mistakes of the past ... and the same came and will come with next AC games, brotherhood added MP and your own assassins (loved these) and now Revelations is due, and it looks still awesome, actually even more polished and more interesting ...

and what did Bioware do with DA? Trashed it, and made it less polished, made it shorter, actually removed variety of enemies and made everything ctr+c and ctr+v, took awesome lore and just butchered it for the "new - more fun - combat system" etc. and after all these steps that made no-sense what so ever, they even rushed this experiment ...

thats why it gets all the blame ... and I really like the opinion that this game is not as bad as internet says, but its definetly not as good as Bioware is trying to present it ...

[nitefyre410]

DraCZeQQ wrote...

"Origins copy" is becoming some kind of urban myth ... im pretty sure that by Origins copy or "Origins 2" was meant: bigger, better, polished, debugged, expanded game based on the philosophy of Origins ... not some CTR+C and CTR+V Origins in Kirkwall kind of a game ...

I would like to bring few games as example ... first lets look at Batman: The Arkham Asylum and Batman: The Arkham City ... this is nice example of making second game ... they didnt redo game system, they just added tons of new features, polished old ones, made everything bigger ... bigger game space, more varieties of enemies, you can play different characters, the story got bigger and polished and everything ... or lets look at Assasins Creed, the first game was ok, great idea, but got boring after the first city, coz it was ctr+c and ctr+v, so the developers learned ... made it more interesting, added variables, polished it, focused on mistakes of the past ... and the same came and will come with next AC games, brotherhood added MP and your own assassins (loved these) and now Revelations is due, and it looks still awesome, actually even more polished and more interesting ...

and what did Bioware do with DA? Trashed it, and made it less polished, made it shorter, actually removed variety of enemies and made everything ctr+c and ctr+v, took awesome lore and just butchered it for the "new - more fun - combat system" etc. and after all these steps that made no-sense what so ever, they even rushed this experiment ...

thats why it gets all the blame ... and I really like the opinion that this game is not as bad as internet says, but its definetly not as good as Bioware is trying to present it ...

Oh those a great Examples(Especially   Batman and Assassins  Creed  I live both games.)  and I actually agree with  the point you are  making but I shall just a bit of devil's advocate here for just a moment.   

Now  Origins while I enjoyed the game and still play it today - working  a complete DA run at the moment through boths game.   Its engine looked dated -  the characters were stiff  and while wonderful voiced acted the characters rarely reflected  that any kind of emotion at all unleass it was done very dramatic moments.  The  combat ... Playing as warrior - there should be no reason that  if there is a mage or archer in the near distanc. Now does that mean   DA 2 style is perfect no they need  pull it back some.  Give the Warrior a  Charge Skill  that has a certain range "Warriors Charges  enemey  from 5-10 yrds"  change the animantions from dash to a sprint the warrior leans in with his shoulder or Sheild.  

Now the Waves -  See the waves of spawning enemies alot games do and even DA:O did at times but  the trick is how well the hide the spawns so we the player did notice.    On of the things that I disliked about  both games but it hurt DA 2 was the quick travel map being the only  method of travel from  point a to point b.   If they would have  opened the map allowed  you to travel via foot from district to district you have more allies and other places for the mobs to spawn from that are out of the players site.  Instead of  having  look like they are jumping from rooftops trying ambush you.   Having combat be more than just on set of enemies in a room adds a  some level of tactics to fighting(when executed properly)  becasue "No plan survives first contact  with the enemy."   

Now  development time -  What DA 2 needed more than anything else is time  but see   "Time is money friend" .  DA 2 came out in March  - so lets say we waited  6 months that puts it out in  September and ahead of but right in the mix with games like Batman,  Gears of War 3,   Battlfield 3,  Skyrim,  and KOTOR.  Now  to most RPG fans these games are not direct competition but with todays ecomony everything is direct competition.  So realeaing DA 2 in the 3 quarter of the year  going into the holiday season  it would have gotten lost in the noise. Say you wait  4 months - well that puts out in August and going head to head with Deus EX:Human Evolution. You wait a year then you going  head to head with yourself and Mass  Effect 3.  So take the hit now - let you deve team get back in lab, get some constructive feed( not just - "this sucked - I want this")  and let them work on  refine what  they have laid down.   The strenght that both Batman and Assassins Creed had is the there first games laid the groundwork and the devs did not have to go back and re-do the game. DA 2  did not have that advanage - DA 3 will.   This was not exepirment they taking the series in new direction and from what Devs have posted they are sticking from firmly to it.