296 réponses à ce sujet

[Alicia Keys]

Why do so many people talk bad about Dragon Age 2?

[Rafficus III]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

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.

True. Feedback does matter, and this is what I was driving at. Usually when the question is asked about what people think about DA2, everyone loses it. When you ask how would you actually improve the game, you're met with dead silence save a few responses. Some geniune, others highly vitrolic of the game but they still offer ideas.

By your post I take it you actually do not have the game, from what you mentioned about Legacy. So I wouldn't be so quick to refer to DA2 as a dead horse just yet. If I paraded through different forum boards and said the Witcher 2 or Skyrim are trash, a vile blemish, failure, or huge disappointment, without actually playing the game in it's entirety, I would be deemed a fool (putting it nicely). And yes, I have run into people posting harsh criticisms of DA2, yet they never finished the actual game or even played more than the demo. It has it's faults and I can name numerous, but it does not negate that it is a good DA game, let alone a good game in general. I can also name numerous flaws with Origins as well, but when we start discussing these flaws true RPG fans seem to clam up or become a little heated.

As for the part about gamers: it was to serve as a statement. There seems to be a recurring theme of claimed indirect victimization of some of these posters. You know, "EA is the devil," "DA/Bioware is dead to me," "*insert Skyrim/Witcher 2 reference*," and "Origins was so flawless that DA2 should have been created as DA:O 2." Take your pick. Critiques are fine, they point out flaws and describe how the product/art may be bettered. Some of the posts made on DA2 aren't critiques let alone feedback, it's unadulterated diva pretentiousness. Gamers in my definition are those who play and enjoy the act of gaming. Dissecting and shredding a game bit by bit because it is not what you wanted is not gaming; that's destruction. Feedback and decent responses to the developers are what allow games to improve, providing a long tale of how a game is trash and has ruined your life doesn't offer much for improvement as they do not track every little post each individual has made and file it away with what said person liked and disliked between Origins and DA2. And this isn't directed at you by any means, I am simply growing disrespectful towards members within the RPG communities.

[nitefyre410]

hornedfrog87 wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

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.

True. Feedback does matter, and this is what I was driving at. Usually when the question is asked about what people think about DA2, everyone loses it. When you ask how would you actually improve the game, you're met with dead silence save a few responses. Some geniune, others highly vitrolic of the game but they still offer ideas.

By your post I take it you actually do not have the game, from what you mentioned about Legacy. So I wouldn't be so quick to refer to DA2 as a dead horse just yet. If I paraded through different forum boards and said the Witcher 2 or Skyrim are trash, a vile blemish, failure, or huge disappointment, without actually playing the game in it's entirety, I would be deemed a fool (putting it nicely). And yes, I have run into people posting harsh criticisms of DA2, yet they never finished the actual game or even played more than the demo. It has it's faults and I can name numerous, but it does not negate that it is a good DA game, let alone a good game in general. I can also name numerous flaws with Origins as well, but when we start discussing these flaws true RPG fans seem to clam up or become a little heated.

As for the part about gamers: it was to serve as a statement. There seems to be a recurring theme of claimed indirect victimization of some of these posters. You know, "EA is the devil," "DA/Bioware is dead to me," "*insert Skyrim/Witcher 2 reference*," and "Origins was so flawless that DA2 should have been created as DA:O 2." Take your pick. Critiques are fine, they point out flaws and describe how the product/art may be bettered. Some of the posts made on DA2 aren't critiques let alone feedback, it's unadulterated diva pretentiousness. Gamers in my definition are those who play and enjoy the act of gaming. Dissecting and shredding a game bit by bit because it is not what you wanted is not gaming; that's destruction. Feedback and decent responses to the developers are what allow games to improve, providing a long tale of how a game is trash and has ruined your life doesn't offer much for improvement as they do not track every little post each individual has made and file it away with what said person liked and disliked between Origins and DA2. And this isn't directed at you by any means, I am simply growing disrespectful towards members within the RPG communities.

   



^ this... All the way this... 

[Worrywort]

The biggest problem I have with it is that most of the side quests feel like a bunch of busywork with no worthwhile reward. It's like, you've got everything you need to go on the expedition to the deep roads, but you still have like 30 side quests to do, and you've got to do them before you go on the expedition or you can't do them at all, but you don't want to because they get really tedious, however, it's possible that you might miss something important like the Bait and Switch sidequest for example, so you gotta do them all or you feel like you missed out.

[Sakatox]

Maybe we're saying it's a bad cause IT IS one?

It did nothing but cut corners, got padded with reused areas, etc. Is this really even a serious thread? 

[Bombardist]

Mainly because we were comparing it to DA:O which makes it look feeble but in its own it is actually a good game.

Kevin Lynch: you can do every quest in the game without going over 20 hours on normal .

[PinkShoes]

On its own DA2 is a good game but yeah compared to DAO it isnt. Course your gunna compare it is a sequal.

But if you reallly wanna know read the constructive criticism thread. There are about 100+ pages.

[Alright-Television]

terrordactyl1 wrote...

Legacy is a good indicator of what DA2 should have been. I did like DA2, but got tired of politics, 40 hours in Kirkwall and the endlessly recycled maps. Fortunately, the devs listened, as that got fixed in Legacy. We can now look forward to quality DLC and a DA3 that everyone can enjoy.

Legacy is a standalone product. It cannot affect DA2 in any way.

Carry on.

edit: Also, in response to the moderator who slammed the OP for finishing the game in a couple of days. I myself finished the game in a couple of days with a final time of 23 hours. I did every sidequest and still managed to brush my teeth. Maybe on my next playthrough I will be so efficent I can wipe my butt too!

Modifié par Alright-Television, 02 août 2011 - 10:52 .

[bEVEsthda]

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

While RinpocheSchnozberry put it exactly this way just because he wants to ridicule, for the pupose of trying to dismiss, I think he's actually on to something here.

This is about peoples mind-property and emotional property. Not real "property" of course. But something that people have taken to their hearts. Many have lived with this vision of DA for a decade. Following DA development, what bits they could snap up, because they very much wanted to see a successor to BG. Something other games have failed to be. As far as I'm concerned Morrowind was more successful to resurrect that "wow"-feeling than DA:O. DA:O was ultimately a bit too influenced by 'convenient' games like Dungeon Siege, KotOR, WoW. But still, it was the best we've seen from Bioware for a long time and it had a crippled 4 person/NWN-exchange version of that old Baldur's Gate party we so longed for. And it had the Fantasy-atmosphere.

But so suddenly, when everybody thought we had a glorious franchise to look forward to, everything is discarded. The "2" in that title, DA2, clearly proclaims that the DA of DA:O is dead and gone, to be replaced by this console action-romp, "scientifically" (in the words of one of Bioware's founders) redesigned art-direction to appeal to what EA/Bioware considers is the desired market group for DA.
 
I'm sure EA marketing have done their research well, and measured dilation of pupils and other signs of arousal on teenage boys, as they've been showed spikes, feathers, white fluffy hairdos, horns, armor and weapons with ridiculoussly jagged shapes and whatnot, but I'm sorry, on me and a good deal of others it just doesn't work. We're too old. If I had liked the game, I could probably have swallowed a deal of that, even if it's repulsive, but there's so much else in the same spirit. The combat animations. The combat effects...
But ultimately it doesn't just lose it's pretense at realism and seriousness, it's not even a role play game. The funny thing is that not even Gaider seem to have noticed that this quality slipped away.

So yea, that's why people say DA2 is a bad game. If one move outside this forum, there's plenty of opportunity to tap into raging, vitriolic hate.
"Jilted girlfriends"? Yep! I'd even go farther though and say "Wifes cheated on and then cast away".

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 02 août 2011 - 11:27 .

[aftohsix]

^back to the hyperbole I see.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Aside from the "it's not a role playing game" part (it still is, I honestly can't imagine how it's not), it may be hyperbole, but it's essentially correct at it's core.

Remove the personal bias and what points does he make?

- DA:O while unoriginal was the BioWare game to appeal most to traditional RPG fans for quite a long time.
- Dragon Age 2 represents a shift to a new direction, away from that of DA:O. Kicking down the sandcastle, as it were.
- This new direction consists of: console oriented development (not the PC oriented development of Origins)
- A bigger focus on Action combat and presentation.
- An art direction, combat animations and general aesthetic style that's been changed for what EA/BioWare feels is better for their audience but also lost the grounded quality of Origin's aesthetic style in the process.

Now, bEVEsthda sees it as a negative, other people may see these things as a positive, opinions aren't universal. But while it might be considered "hyperbolic" (the it's not an RPG is hyperbole), he's not lying, wrong or incorrect as far as those general points go.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 août 2011 - 01:11 .

[bEVEsthda]

mrcrusty wrote...
...Now, bEVEsthda sees it as a negative,..

Yes, I do. But that was never the point.  I made no attempt to claim DA2 is a bad game or try to explain that DA2 is a bad game because of whatever. Nothing I say about the game is necessarily a defect or anything that make the game 'bad'. And the Bioware developers certainly didn't think so since all this was totally intentional and by design. I tried to emphasize why DA2 is a different game for different people.

The thread's question is "why did so many people say DA2 was a bad game?"
That's the question I answered.
And I think Rinpoche... nailed it. He just put it in ridiculing and gloating terms. I thus decided to elaborate on that.

As for roleplay, you didn't catch the distinction, and I have some doubts you ever will. DA2 is a "RPG", as whatever that is defined. It's not a role-play, since it's pretty much impossible to sink down into DA2's Hawke and make it 'ours'. This is not 'our's' story, it's Mike Laidlaw's Hawke's, and we could just as well be watching a movie or reading a book or playing a jrpg. People who like the dialogue wheel often explain themselves by expressing delight at hearing the answers. I think that's proof enough of a big division.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 02 août 2011 - 02:24 .

[miskatonica]

@beEVEsthda: I got the distinction you meant about it not really being a role playing game, in the sense of D&D and other tabletop games! I also agree that that's an aspect that probably plays into why some people feel so strongly about DA2 being so different from DAO: it's rather like DAO was a coloring book with the pictures made in dotted lines, as a vague suggestion of where you ought to put the colors, and DA2 was a color-by-the-numbers book.

Having said that, I feel like tabletop-style play is best saved for... well... tabletop, where I can snark at my friends out of character and build a story together. But role playing games seem to be very much Bioware's Thing for the longest time, so I can understand why long-time fans (who LIKE that aspect of Bioware's games, that it's easy to drop yourself into the character because so little is defined, which isn't all that common now even playing as a silent protagonist) would feel massively upset that Bioware broke with that formula in DA2.

I had a lot of fun with DA2, and it saddens me to think that so many people seem to have felt ... well, basically, betrayed by it.

[Luigitornado]

Haven't bought it myself yet, I was thinking of holding on a bit longer to see what kind of DLC comes out. Legacy looks nice, but any plans to release anything else?

[Darth Obvious]

hornedfrog87 wrote...

It has it's faults and I can name numerous, but it does not negate that it is a good DA game, let alone a good game in general. I can also name numerous flaws with Origins as well, but when we start discussing these flaws true RPG fans seem to clam up or become a little heated.

I think Origins was much better than DA2, but I will readily admit Origins flaws:

- tedious inventory system (and how backpacks are somehow such a rare, hard-to-find item)
- repetitive combat
- levels that seemed to never end (e.g. Deep Roads)

Aside from the few flaws, Origins had a fantastic story, and it laid the foundation for what could have been a really good franchise. Unfortunately, the people at Bioware have never heard the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" because they completely gutted DA2, taking away much of what made the original game good...

DA2:

- terrible story. The ultimate conflict between the Qunari and the people of Kirkwall ended up being merely a sideshow to the sophomoric 3rd act. Worst ending to a Bioware title ever (until Legacy came along and was possibly even worse). Also, the framed narrative was a pointless waste of time.
- combat is even more repetitive than DA:O, since the ridiculous enemy paratrooper "waves" occur in virtually every fight. Were they trying to make this game hopelessly boring, or what? There is no way they could have playtested this, or their playtesters would have been put to sleep by this tedium.
- inability to customize teammates' armors, and even the armor options for the main character have been drastically reduced compared to the original game. Giving the player a lot fewer choices is never a good idea, and many of the choices that should be up to the player have now all been decided by the devs. Is this my game or someone else's? Weird. Effective way to kill replay value, though. Thanks for saving me some time.
- recycled maps to the point of absurdity. Again, inducing boredom is never a good idea, Bioware.
- same tedious inventory system as in DA:O.
- inability to truly affect the world around you with your choices. Instead of being the player in an RPG, you are just a spectator along for the ride. Ugh...

What they fixed in DA2:

- no more levels that go on forever

That's it. They fixed one thing, and butchered most of the rest of the game, to the point that it is barely recognizable as Dragon Age. DA2 isn't even close to being a "good" game, and was one of the biggest let-downs in all of my years of gaming.

Modifié par Darth Obvious, 02 août 2011 - 06:04 .

[Addai]

bEVEsthda wrote...
I'm sure EA marketing have done their research well, and measured dilation of pupils and other signs of arousal on teenage boys, as they've been showed spikes, feathers, white fluffy hairdos, horns, armor and weapons with ridiculoussly jagged shapes and whatnot, but I'm sorry, on me and a good deal of others it just doesn't work. We're too old. If I had liked the game, I could probably have swallowed a deal of that, even if it's repulsive, but there's so much else in the same spirit. The combat animations. The combat effects...
But ultimately it doesn't just lose it's pretense at realism and seriousness, it's not even a role play game. The funny thing is that not even Gaider seem to have noticed that this quality slipped away.

Heh.  Your reply is entertaining.  I think there's something to it, particularly the part I bolded.  I was flipping through Game Informer last night and saw some screenshots for an FPS game I'll never play that were more attractive, more mature and realistic looking, than DA2.  I thought "if my favorite RPG franchise is going to be churning out cheap console action games, I should just start playing shooters."  This, to me, is the sad part.  The franchise could have distinguished itself, rather than aspiring to be just like dozens of other games out there.  And the actiony stuff really does take away from any emotional impact the game could have, for me at least.

[KotorEffect3]

Too many people either love something or they hate it, In their minds something is either 10/10 or 0/10. As for me I like DA2 and even though DA2 is flawed and I think many of the criticisms of it are legitimate at the end of the day I still enjoy playing it and that is what matters. Yes I like DAO more but at this point my Dragon Age experience would not be complete without DA2 to go along with DAO.

[aftohsix]

Addai67 wrote...

Heh.  Your reply is entertaining.  I think there's something to it, particularly the part I bolded.  I was flipping through Game Informer last night and saw some screenshots for an FPS game I'll never play that were more attractive, more mature and realistic looking, than DA2.  I thought "if my favorite RPG franchise is going to be churning out cheap console action games, I should just start playing shooters."  This, to me, is the sad part.  The franchise could have distinguished itself, rather than aspiring to be just like dozens of other games out there.  And the actiony stuff really does take away from any emotional impact the game could have, for me at least.

I know what you mean.  I hate it when games have more than one animation for a sword swing.

[Addai]

aftohsix wrote...
I know what you mean.  I hate it when games have more than one animation for a sword swing.

Is that meant to have a "har har" on the end?

The finishing moves of Origins were a lot better than DA2's herky jerk animations.  And I don't even mean the ridiculous dagger rogue stuff.

[Edhriano]

Hmm let me put it this way

Some people like coffee with sugar, no cream
Some people like coffee with cream, no sugar
Some people like coffee with sugar and cream
Some people like coffee Black

I like coffee with sugar and cream (DAO),
while to me DA 2 is as black as a coffee can be...
Can still drink it .... but .... well you get the idea .

ps.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing againts black coffee.
This is an analogy, Fell free to enjoy them .

Modifié par Edhriano, 02 août 2011 - 05:57 .

[Alright-Television]

Some people like coffee. Some people like to make coffee taste less like coffee.

[Edhriano]

Each to his/her own taste .

[Alright-Television]

And when the time comes may God sort you milk, sugar and cream heathens out.

[Edhriano]

FYI

Heathen
Heathen is from Old English hæðen "not Christian or Jewish" (c.f. Old Norse heiðinn). Historically, the term was probably influenced by Gothic haiþi "dwelling on the heath", appearing as haiþno in Ulfilas' bible as "gentile woman" (translating the "Hellene" in Mark 7:26). This translation was probably influenced by Latin paganus, "country dweller", or it was chosen because of its similarity to the Greek ἐθνικός ethnikos, "gentile". It has even been suggested that Gothic haiþi is not related to "heath" at all, but rather a loan from Armenian hethanos, itself loaned from Greek ἔθνος ethnos.

Source :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

Modifié par Edhriano, 02 août 2011 - 05:52 .