296 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

ArcanistLibram wrote...

pepole dont like things that arr diffrent /Plinkett

I can guarantee you that if Dragon Age 2 had come out first, it would have gotten 10/10 reviews and everyone would have called Dragon Age Origins complete garbage. 

I can guarantee you that's a fluffy pile of hoo-ha.

[nitefyre410]

xabiton wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

Nobody likes cliffhanger endings in their videogames because the medium isn't like other media where in most cases we can expect those cliffhangers to be resolved in a timely fashion.

Games can sometimes take years to develop. Halo 2 for example made you not only wait for Halo 3 but also buy an entirely new hardware setup to see how it ends.

Developers should get this through their heads.

Cliff Hangers are what has kept me into Mass Effect. Though if ME3 doesn't have a solid ending I will be highly pissed as its the end of the series. I always ended the ME1 and 2 with a feeling of okay whats next the stories not over can't wait for the sequel 

   

Thats funny you bring that up I am sitting listen the End Run song from the ME 2 soundtrack...Remembering how satisfied I was when I told  TIM  to kiss my ass and blew that the  place to hell and back.  Then the epic run with Harbinger's great voice over.  How bad ass i fhol eith my whole squad on the Normandy, if they som how botched ME 3 i think i will cry... so i must not get my hopes  too high...

but yes cliffhangers are what keep things moving along.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 01 août 2011 - 04:58 .

[aftohsix]

Addai67 wrote...

I can guarantee you that's a fluffy pile of hoo-ha.

It's hard to say.  DA2 is very similar to Jade Empire in MANY ways.  Jade Empire was received pretty well if I remember correctly.

EDIT:  I should have prefaced that Mass Effect is the way cliffhangers should be done.  If you look at it at the end of ME1 and ME2 the narrative thread of that particular game is done while at the the same time the overarching threat of the reapers is not.

Still ME1 is Saren and the Geth
ME2 is the collectors and the abduction of humans.

Modifié par aftohsix, 01 août 2011 - 05:00 .

[nitefyre410]

aftohsix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I can guarantee you that's a fluffy pile of hoo-ha.

It's hard to say.  DA2 is very similar to Jade Empire in MANY ways.  Jade Empire was received pretty well if I remember correctly.

EDIT:  I should have prefaced that Mass Effect is the way cliffhangers should be done.  If you look at it at the end of ME1 and ME2 the narrative thread of that particular game is done while at the the same time the overarching threat of the reapers is not.

Still ME1 is Saren and the Geth
ME2 is the collectors and the abduction of humans.

 


Your right  DA 2 ending was not handeled  well -  at least give me a  scene where I am talking to whole party dependent on the choice about the fallout of what we did.  Since I sided with Mages and reluctantly kept  Anders alive I would have loved to  lay into him  and kick ass his  before going to take Bethany about what the hell we are going to do  now.

[Wulfram]

aftohsix wrote...

It's hard to say.  DA2 is very similar to Jade Empire in MANY ways.  Jade Empire was received pretty well if I remember correctly.

On the XBox it was.  The PC version of Jade Empire has the worst Metacritic rating of any Bioware full game except DA2 on the Xbox and Sonic Cronicles

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Jilted Girlfriends.

BioWare: "Hey! Let's do something different, maybe fix up the formula and make something that more people than usual will enjoy!"

Some Fans: "Ohmahgawd! How could you even look at them? Aren't we enough for you? I'll never talk to you again, I hate you, I hate you, I hate you! *sobs*"


Proof? As LeBurn suggested... read the sig.

"This begs the question: Shouldn't the primary audience for the sequel have been the people who liked the first game, and not an entirely new set of "fans"?" - Captain Sassy Pants

[nitefyre410]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Jilted Girlfriends.

BioWare: "Hey! Let's do something different, maybe fix up the formula and make something that more people than usual will enjoy!"

Some Fans: "Ohmahgawd! How could you even look at them? Aren't we enough for you? I'll never talk to you again, I hate you, I hate you, I hate you! *sobs*"


Proof? As LeBurn suggested... read the sig.

"This begs the question: Shouldn't the primary audience for the sequel have been the people who liked the first game, and not an entirely new set of "fans"?" - Captain Sassy Pants

 

LOL this whole post is  full of win and wins post of damn because of how true it is. 

[HTTP 404]

I thought Dragon Age 2 was pretty decent the first time I played it. Subsequent replays made the game seem more droll (repeat environments, not too many real consequences to decisions, and so forth). I still think its not a bad game though.

[Wydi]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Jilted Girlfriends.

Not sure if I got you correctly, but did you just imply that so many people don't like DA2 because they feel jilted? 
You see, there are very specific, well justified reasons, many of them mentioned in this thread.
You can't simply deny that and label those/us buyers as jealous/childish conservatives.

From an objective point of view, there are quite some undeniable major flaws in DA2 which DAO hadn't. 

[Addai]

Wydi wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Jilted Girlfriends.

Not sure if I got you correctly, but did you just imply that so many people don't like DA2 because they feel jilted? 
You see, there are very specific, well justified reasons, many of them mentioned in this thread.
You can't simply deny that and label those/us buyers as jealous/childish conservatives.

From an objective point of view, there are quite some undeniable major flaws in DA2 which DAO hadn't. 

It's just Rinpoche's schtick.  He only posts one thing, ever.  You'll get used to it.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I pretty much agree with those who were disappointed in DA 2 because the game mechanics, visuals and story jumped off a cliff from the first game. I'm not mad, just disinterested in DA 2. Even the name shouldn't be DA 2, because "2" implies more of something that is of an equal quality or quantity as another object. DA 2 is neither equal in quality or quantity to the first game.

I appreciate some of the concepts Bioware was going with in DA 2 in making the elves more unique and adding different fighting style animations to each class but the end results were just goofy, wacky abominations. Selling points for the first game talked about it having a gritty, dark atmosphere that strayed away from high fantasy which had an innovative idea of six different Origins to help immerse players into the lore of the game world.

Now we have a disjointed plot which tries to be unique by using a framed narrative, but it just comes off as being a seamed, bumpy ride of a story which appears to be more about how interesting a character Varric is than focused on Hawke. "Who is the hero of Kirkwall?" Who cares? I never felt any mystery about it, because Hawke's family members can die off in the first minutes of the game without me even knowing them, Hawke never seems to take an active role in the world around him/her and now that the main character is voiced I'm stuck with a character who sounds nothing like one I would create yet doesn't have enough personality (or story) to steal the limelight from the narrator, Varric. Oh yeah, and my character has to be named Hawke...which sucks since that's the name you constantly hear other characters calling him/her...not champion, not a first name. And I have to play as a human, severely limiting any kind of fun racial interactions that could potentially be in the game. I went from playing a game with far more player options for building a protagonist to one where I'm essentially playing the same character everyone else is playing and am reminded of that whenever Hawke speaks. It's Bioware's character, and the protagonist isn't a very interesting one to me so while the game isn't truely terrible it just doesn't interest me one bit. DA 2 feels like a game made for Bioware employees rather than for DA:O fans.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Wydi wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Jilted Girlfriends.

Not sure if I got you correctly, but did you just imply that so many people don't like DA2 because they feel jilted? 
You see, there are very specific, well justified reasons, many of them mentioned in this thread.
You can't simply deny that and label those/us buyers as jealous/childish conservatives.

All of you, no.  Many of you, yes.  I have plenty of problems with the games, many of which Legacy has fixed up. 

But the hate?  The endless vitriol?  That's jilted girlfriends.  Look at the quote that I quoted.  B)B)

[jds1bio]

HTTP 404 wrote...

I thought Dragon Age 2 was pretty decent the first time I played it. Subsequent replays made the game seem more droll (repeat environments, not too many real consequences to decisions, and so forth). I still think its not a bad game though.

Yeah, even though there were plenty of dialogue options and sidequest endings to explore, it is the repeat environments and railroading of decisions that gave subsequent journeys through the game a more weathered, worn aspect to them.

[Rafficus III]

DA2 is not a terrible game by any measure. I find it slightly ridiculous at the absurdity of some people who claim to be "fans," offer no productive input, provide only chastising statements, claim EA is the devil, and assert their self-proclaimed indirect power of Bioware. Bioware's fanbase is beginning to splinter into different divisions and it shows. Disregarding the amount of pretension that has reared its ugly head, the game happened.

Yes, your character does not walk on water and is no longer Superman; they make mistakes, despite doing their best at helping the world they do suffer drawbacks. Play any prologue to Origins and you see each Warden went through the same personal shortcoming as Hawke. Darkspawn no longer look like orcs and genlocks are no longer green midgets. My warrior no longer takes five minutes to cut across the battle field, do a funky shuffle, and then finally execute an attack. Heaven forbid, a gaming character in the twenty first century has a voice and no longer looks like you're going through script reading. The visuals? Better, a lot better, but not great. A family member saw me playing Origins a week ago and mistook it for being older than Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance because of the graphics.

DA2 has it's flaws, but Origins has it's own blunders as well. I enjoyed this game, as I have for every Bioware game since Baldur's Gate. If having a "true RPG" is so vital and that the writing could have been so much better, I pose this question: why not just go back to the old dice role and create your own story? No sense in souring the overall enjoyment of a game because it doesn't live up to your standards. And for those disappointed, why not play the game for what it is, instead of what it should have been? You'll find it to be more entertaining.

Bioware has been good to me and it's fans over the years, if this game is truly as atrocious as others make it out to be, I'd expect the company to rectify the shortcomings and redeem the series through DA3. Laidlaw has apologized before and addressed issues, Legacy was a response to the fan criticism, and even EA has commented on the matter. So can't we just go back to being gamers and trust the same creator that churned out critically acclaimed greats? I say yes.

Modifié par hornedfrog87, 01 août 2011 - 07:35 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

dude wall of text, tl;dr

[Jcarlo123]

Because it's very mediocre.

Pros:

Combat mechanics--much more responsive and fun. I still maintain the combat is exactly the same as Origins, just faster, which is a good thing. However, while the combat mechanics were awesome, the actual layouts of the fights were terrible and repetitive, which, I think, masked how great the combat is for most players (as others have said, the waves were bad).

Skill/abilities trees: I think the skill system is a massive improvement over Origins. It's simpler, intuitive, and fun without sacrificing complexity.

Characters: They are as good as any Bioware characters have ever been, I think. NOt the best, but not as awful as people make out.

Cons:

As I said, terrible and repetitive battles. And boss battles are excruciatingly boring.

A dead, ugly, world that doesn't at all feel lived in. Even if you hate Witcher 2, I don't think anyone can deny that CDP absolutely NAILS building a compelling and complex world that feels lived in and real (you can just walk around in the Witcher and watch NPCs go about their business, which is incredibly entertaining in itself). DA2, on the other hand, feels like a game from 1998. Walking through Kirkwall is like walking through a store sparsely populated with mannequins. I think Bioware could definitely learn a thing or two from CDP when it comes to world building.

Repeated levels-- Seeing the same levels over and over takes all the fun out of exploring, which is half the fun of playing an RPG and it just feels cheap, lazy, and awful---especially in a 60 dollar game.

Limited scope--I don't mind staying in one city if that city is interesting, but there are basically just 4 or 5 fairly boring areas in the city, so it gets tedious fast and just feels incredibly small.

Did I mention repetition? It seems like most of the game is fighting pointless battles of the same enemies over and over to pad out running time. It gets boring fast.

All in all, I think the game is worth playing provided that:

1. You recognize it's flaws going in and don't mind things like repetition, ugliness, and lazy design.

2. You don't pay more than 20 dollars for it. Personally, I would still feel slightly ripped off even at 20 dollars (I've gotten absolutely amazing games on steam sales for 7.50 or 5 dollars)--but still 20 dollars seems about right for the upper pricing level for a game like this. 60 dollars is criminal, though. I paid 60 dollars on release and felt ripped off--so I'm pretty much never buying another game on release without reading reviews first.

[Persephone]

Wydi wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Jilted Girlfriends.

Not sure if I got you correctly, but did you just imply that so many people don't like DA2 because they feel jilted? 
You see, there are very specific, well justified reasons, many of them mentioned in this thread.
You can't simply deny that and label those/us buyers as jealous/childish conservatives.

From an objective point of view, there are quite some undeniable major flaws in DA2 which DAO hadn't. 

And: From an objective point of view, there are quite some undeniable major flaws in DAO which DAII hadn't. 

That's true for every game. Like...EVER.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

nope all the flaws that dao had da2 has except it has more

[KnightofPhoenix]

Jcarlo123 wrote...

Because it's very mediocre.
 

That's how I'd describe it. Not entirely bad, just mediocre (imo).
And mediocre when it comes to a franchise I loved, naturally pisses me off.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

hornedfrog87 wrote...

 If having a "true RPG" is so vital and that the writing could have been so much better, I pose this question: why not just go back to the old dice role and create your own story? No sense in souring the overall enjoyment of a game because it doesn't live up to your standards. And for those disappointed, why not play the game for what it is, instead of what it should have been? You'll find it to be more entertaining. Bioware has been good to me and it's fans over the years, if this game is truly as atrocious as others make it out to be, I'd expect the company to rectify the shortcomings and redeem the series through DA3. Laidlaw has apologized before and addressed issues, Legacy was a response to the fan criticism, and even EA has commented on the matter. So can't we just go back to being gamers and trust the same creator that churned out critically acclaimed greats? I say yes.

Sure you can accept something as it is, but if there is no feedback, how does a company know how to change a product that isn't well recieve or even know if the product isn't well recieved? Feedback is important.

Also, your deffinitinos of "true RPG,"  "fans" and just the concepts of trust in a company are very different than many people's. I'm not saying you are wrong, but everyone has different views on those topics, different opinions.

Hearing that Legacy's story was better and a few of the mechanics were tweaked is encouraging that EA and Bioware are listening somewhat to fans, but I isn't going to make me buy DA 2. Another poster made the humorous analogy of Legacy "putting a mink coat on a dead horse" and that fits pretty well for me (pun intended).

I'm not sure what you mean by going back to "being gamers and trust the same creator that churned out critically accalimed greats." Does offering a critique of software and suggesting fixes disqualify me from being a gamer? I sure hope not, since I'm still playing games, just not DA 2.

I like how capitalism works, supply and demand. If Bioware wants to be around, then they will keep making successful products but I'm not going to blindly trust in their products. I don't ask them to cater to me, but by virtue of my criticism I try to be constructive as I offer feedback and let them know what is on one of many gamers' minds. In my own way I am supporting them, even if I am disappointed in their occaisional releases.

Oh yes, there is also a big difference between "critically acclaimed" and well recieved. DA 2 was critically acclaimed by alot of game review sites and magazines, but it was questionably recieved as a whole.

So much confusion and disappointment could of been avoided if Bioware just left the "2" out of the title and just called it Dragon Age: Hawke's Big Score.

[Wydi]

Persephone wrote...

And: From an objective point of view, there are quite some undeniable major flaws in DAO which DAII hadn't. 

That's true for every game. Like...EVER.

But that's what to expect from a sequel, right?
To improve the bad things from a game and build upon it, but not to break things that worked totally fine in the first game.

Imagine the next Call of Duty game greatly improved the graphics and added tons of new weapons, but removed the Multiplayer and replaced the Singleplayer with a "Capture the Flag" with bots on no more than one map.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Wydi wrote...

Persephone wrote...

And: From an objective point of view, there are quite some undeniable major flaws in DAO which DAII hadn't. 

That's true for every game. Like...EVER.

But that's what to expect from a sequel, right?
To improve the bad things from a game and build upon it, but not to break things that worked totally fine in the first game.

Imagine the next Call of Duty game greatly improved the graphics and added tons of new weapons, but removed the Multiplayer and replaced the Singleplayer with a "Capture the Flag" with bots on no more than one map.

Yeah, which was kind of what alot of people hoped for in DA 2...largely because of the "2" in the title. It all seemed to work so much better with Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2. Bioware kept the core game intact while fixing bugs and adding more spells, more classes, more fighting styles and a deeper story. Some good things were lost but most were kept intact. Dragon Age shouldn't try to be Baldur's Gate, but the developement should try to adhere to a similar pattern of not trying to reinvent the wheel...but giving that wheel some better tires or spinning rims doesn't hurt.

[erynnar]

ArcanistLibram wrote...

pepole dont like things that arr diffrent /Plinkett

I can guarantee you that if Dragon Age 2 had come out first, it would have gotten 10/10 reviews and everyone would have called Dragon Age Origins complete garbage.

But aside from that:
1- Recycled areas are boring.
2- Waves of enemies are just tedious to deal with.
3- The plot is heavily railroaded, even more so than DAO. In DAO, the Warden had objectives to accomplish and the way these objectives were accomplish had consequences on the plot, even if they were minor. Regardless of how Hawke completes his objectives, the consequences of his actions are pretty much the same in the end.
4- We were told that the game would span over a decade. There's a three year timeskip between acts 1 and 2 and another three year timeskip between acts 2 and 3. That's over half the decade gone right there.
5- We were told that Hawke was the most important person in Thedas. He's not. Bartrand, the Arishok, Petrice, Orsino, Meredith and Anders are all much, much more important to the plot of Dragon Age 2 than Hawke ever is. Throughout the game, Hawke shows no initiative and has no agency in anything that happens in Kirkwall.
6- We were told that Hawke would become the Champion of Kirkwall. The title of Champion of Kirkwall apparently means nothing because getting it doesn't affect Hawke in any way, shape or form.
7- The central conflict of Dragon Age 2 is left completely unresolved. Hawke accomplishes little and what he does accomplish has no meaning and leaves the players unrewarded and left hanging.

No, you can't guarantee such a thing. There are people who see DA2 for the rushed, disjointed, cartoony, recycled,  trying to appeal to too many different audiences, attempt that it was. It was'nt  horrible, but it wasn't good. It was mediocre for a BioWare game. Coming first wouldn't have helped it.

Legacy helped it, I'd say. 

OP, there are just too many things to list here as to why I didn't like it. Your best bet is to look at the official "constructive Crit" thread, and the official reviews thread. There are people who hate it it just to hate it. But don't let the "just don't like change, or wanted a DAO" clone arguments throw you. Many people had legitimate reasons.

WIth that beign said, I am so glad you liked it. Definitely nothing wrong with that. So, don't let anyone's opinions or thoughts on the game tell you otherwise. If you enjoy it, that is all that matters.

[erynnar]

Persephone wrote...

Wydi wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Jilted Girlfriends.

Not sure if I got you correctly, but did you just imply that so many people don't like DA2 because they feel jilted? 
You see, there are very specific, well justified reasons, many of them mentioned in this thread.
You can't simply deny that and label those/us buyers as jealous/childish conservatives.

From an objective point of view, there are quite some undeniable major flaws in DA2 which DAO hadn't. 

And: From an objective point of view, there are quite some undeniable major flaws in DAO which DAII hadn't. 

That's true for every game. Like...EVER.

Sorry, have to agree to disagree with this. Yes, DAO has flaws, I was expecting them to be fixed, what was meh to be improved, and what worked to be kept. Instead we got DA2 which gutted DAO, fixed what wasn't broken, didn't improve the meh, and tried to re-write the franchise into a "Jack of all trades , master of none" game trying for an audience that doesn't like RPGs. DA2's largest flaw to date- dumping a strong, large base audience for a shiny new one and charging more for less game (details, new dungeons, and length, just to name a few).

I liked Legacy though.