628 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

ElvaliaRavenHart wrote...

I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know if this has already been mentioned.

There was nothing wrong with DAO or DAA until patch 1.03 came out. Both games played fine until this patch. Since this patch Awakenings is partially broken. This is when the imports got broken was due to this patch or at least with my games. So I can't speak for everyone only on the games that I actually own. We still don't have a patch to correct the mistakes that this patch created. So instead of turning the patch back or fully repairing this patch Laidlaw says that DAO and DAA is broken? Lame excuse if you ask me for the whole game to be rebuilt. Foolish actually and a waste of resources. Did the engine need to be tweaked? I'd say yes but not to the point of a total rebuild.

Many modders over at dragonagenexus have created mods that repaired the game. So if modders are able to create mods to correct many of the issues that patch 1.03 created, then I don't see the problem with the Dragon Age team repairing the two previous games.

Others who mod the game have created some amazing files and additions to the game with the use of the toolset and they didn't have any problems importing old characters into both engines, so I don't understand what the problem is with Bioware themselves not fixing their own game. There are some amazing fan created videos on the web showing their work.

So I really don't understand the problem or the issue of Laidlaw saying that DAO and DAA is broken and it needed to be scrapped.

No, no no.  When he said "busted" he  wasn't talking about bugs.  (and someone should really link us to the thread he made those comments in, already).  He was talking about design decisions.  He is after all,  part of the design team... not a QA guy.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 août 2011 - 01:07 .

[csfteeeer]

Feanor_II wrote...

Continuing the process to transform from Clint Eastwood to Michael Bay.
From Burton's Batman to Schumacher's Batman.

i'm just hoping they can transformon into Christopher Nolan...

[element eater]

SkittlesKat96 wrote...
Your completely right.

People are misinterpreting what the developers are saying and won't accept that maybe a voiced protagonist, better cinematics, streamlined companion systems and UI is better for Bioware's games.

maybe so but when it comes down to it what might be good for bioware games is not nessacerily whats good for an individuals gameplay experiance. If some one doesnt like these changes it realy doesnt realy make a differance what it contributes to the game(unless of course it allows something they enjoy more to be included). For example I prefer silent protagonists it realy doesnt matter what my reasoning is for this its simply true. Now im sure bioware could justify this change in a number of ways, i could read them and probably understand the reasoning but it doesnt stop me thinking that i would rather have a silent protagonist. Now should i simply ignore this change because objectively i can see its reasoning? should i accept what the devs say happily because the reasoning is sound? ofcourse not and thats essentialy the case for most people if they see statements they dissagree with why shouldnt they dissagree aslong as it isnt in a insulting or hurtful.

DA 2 was bad because of: Bad plot writing and ideas (the connection of plot, the time skip idea etc.) repetitive and boring/unlively environments and the fact that DA 2 was rushed by EA.

This just comes down to an individual experiance only very few flaws can be agreed upon by most players.Which is possibly why mike has only addresed a few criticisms thus far. And realy after trying to make an objective view you resort to saying it was rushed by ea. While this may or maynot be true until you can accurately state that this is the case and what negatives arrose from it its a pretty invalid criticism.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

I'm just talking about sense. To me, an item description doesn't make sense.

Where does it come from? How does the PC know it? If it comes from a merchant, why can't the merchant give you the description in game (as more show and less tell)?

It may make no sense to you because you choose to view it from angle that strips it from one.

Item descriptions are to me what they actually appear to be -- that is, a part of the UI, the user interface. It's not something the PC must be necessarily aware of (and in many cases he/she most likely isn't) It's instead something designed to give the player better idea about the item in question.

[Valcutio]

David Gaider wrote...

Zoikster wrote...
Exactly what was busted? I'd love some clarification. What exactly was so "imposing" about DA:O? I introducted several people to it who weren't familiar with the RPG genre who absolutely loved it; and hated DA 2. A lot of casual types adored the game. Laidlaw has made some serious miscalculations here.I just can't wrap my mind around his throught process except to think that EA says to dumb the game down to try and draw a larger audience. Which obviously would/has backfired. Can we at least stop blaming DA 2 problems on Origins?

While I can't speak for Mike specifically, a quick comment:

Origins was not a perfect game. It's perfectly acceptable to like a game despite its flaws (as every game has them), but from a design perspective it would be inexcusable to say that just because a game was good that means everything about it was good.

It would also be incorrect to suggest that just because some things didn't work that none of them did. Mike neither said nor implied that all of DAO was "busted"-- he said some things were, and those things he wanted to change.

While it might be difficult for a fan to understand (not because they're unintelligent, but because from your end it's indistinguishable), not everything that is changed from one game to the next is a deliberate design choice-- like the area re-use, for instance. So it would be a mistake to look at every change made between DAO and DA2 and assume they were all just that. The original thread where Mike made these comments is an excellent place to look for his thoughts on this front.

So nobody's "blaming" DAO for anything-- but neither do we put it on a pedestal. We worked on DAO's issues just as we'll work on DA2's issues, changing the things we believe didn't work and the things we want to change, based on what we can afford with the resources at hand. As to what will change about DA2, as Mike has said we'll talk more about this in time... and I believe his comments offer excellent insight, provided you're willing to take them at face value.

I think that's the problem, David. You don't put DA:O on a pedestal. Maybe that's why it's a far better game. I'm sure Brent Knowles put it on a pedestal when he was helping to craft it. If he would have been involved with the sequel, I'm sure it would have gone a long way toward making another masterpiece. And no game is perfect - but to diminish a wonderful game like DAO to make excuses for the disaster that is DA2 is lame.

I think the gaming community as a whole is stunned when comments like "We worked on DAO's issues" are said. What issues? The deep and involving story? Yeah, you fixed that. The core RPG statistical mechanics? Yup, fixed that too. The likeable characters that weren't sexual predators? Looks like Bioware fixed that. I'd mention the area re-use but you guys knew that was going to be an issue before the game even launched. I do love all the mock-surprise though. "Oh, you guys didn't like going back to the same exact area 7 times over the course of the game? We'll work on that!" And then you act like we should be grateful when you address the one concern that was so blatantly obvious as to not even merit mentioning.

I understand defending your project in the face of scrutiny. What I don't understand are the insulting tones used towards the fan-favorite product that made the series to begin with. Perfect? No. Amazing? Yes.

Modifié par Valcutio, 15 août 2011 - 01:24 .

[Rixxencaxx]

David Gaider wrote...

Zoikster wrote...
Exactly what was busted? I'd love some clarification. What exactly was so "imposing" about DA:O? I introducted several people to it who weren't familiar with the RPG genre who absolutely loved it; and hated DA 2. A lot of casual types adored the game. Laidlaw has made some serious miscalculations here.I just can't wrap my mind around his throught process except to think that EA says to dumb the game down to try and draw a larger audience. Which obviously would/has backfired. Can we at least stop blaming DA 2 problems on Origins?

While I can't speak for Mike specifically, a quick comment:

Origins was not a perfect game. It's perfectly acceptable to like a game despite its flaws (as every game has them), but from a design perspective it would be inexcusable to say that just because a game was good that means everything about it was good.

It would also be incorrect to suggest that just because some things didn't work that none of them did. Mike neither said nor implied that all of DAO was "busted"-- he said some things were, and those things he wanted to change.

While it might be difficult for a fan to understand (not because they're unintelligent, but because from your end it's indistinguishable), not everything that is changed from one game to the next is a deliberate design choice-- like the area re-use, for instance. So it would be a mistake to look at every change made between DAO and DA2 and assume they were all just that. The original thread where Mike made these comments is an excellent place to look for his thoughts on this front.

So nobody's "blaming" DAO for anything-- but neither do we put it on a pedestal. We worked on DAO's issues just as we'll work on DA2's issues, changing the things we believe didn't work and the things we want to change, based on what we can afford with the resources at hand. As to what will change about DA2, as Mike has said we'll talk more about this in time... and I believe his comments offer excellent insight, provided you're willing to take them at face value.

ehm i fear that you cancelled all the good things bringing the busted ones to da2

[ElvaliaRavenHart]

@Yrkoon

Uh, Laidlaw said that DAO and DAA is broken, he actually said this. I read enough of this thread to realize this point. So it is more than just art design or new design decision for whatever reason. He actually commented in another thread that the imports are broken or might be broken. Many of the community would like to know what was actually broken from Origins and Awakenings. What does he consider broken from the two previous games besides the imports?

For me patch 1.03 is the whole reason that the game is broken now. My whole point is that modders themselves have fixed these problems.

It was his decision to scrap DAO and DAA and how they were buildt. My whole point and also others in this thread have said they didn't see that much wrong with DAO to be totally rebuilt for DA2.

I'm also saying that patch 1.03 damaged Awakenings for me and it still hasn't been repaired to this day. As a consumer I shouldn't have to go to DragonAgeNexus and download a file that repairs my game when Bioware should have rolled back or fixed this patch. For me my game wasn't broken until patch 1.03. If Mr. Laidlaw is saying that something is broken from the two previous games, which he has, then I'm saying I believe it to be this patch and informing him of such on this forum.

[AmstradHero]

Fandango9641 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

I've noted that many of the people who complain about the "simplification" and "dumbing down" of DA2 routinely ignore some of the longer and more reasoned arguments in any discussions about the merits of the two games, particularly if those arguments aren't saying "DA2 is terrible."
I just found that to be an interesting observation.

Amstrad, your mods are terrific and I enjoyed hearing you talk on the recent Dragon Age Podcast but claiming that DA2 wasn’t an exercise in cutting corners is the BSN equivalent of arguing the world is flat! DA2 was dumbed down and streamlined in an attempt to widen its appeal and there’s just no talking around it I’m afraid.

I don't buy into the "dumbed down" argument because everyone has their own definition of what "dumbed down" means. For one, I found the combat system provided a lot more depth and interest than DAO's - you can actually use skills frequently throughout the fight rather than having to ruthlessly conserve stamina/mana. Conversely, I really disliked the removal of "non-combat" skills - but that's mainly because I love things like diplomacy skills.

However, I wouldn't dream of arguing that corners weren't cut in DA2's production for a second. Companion dialogue seemed significantly reduced from DAO - romances in particular feel awkwardly rushed and shallow. The level design of Kirkwall (particularly Hightown) is largely uninspiring, and the vast amount of level reuse within the game is utterly appalling. Certain key events that always happen exactly the same way regardless of the player's choices make it feel as though no meaningful impact can be had on major events or characters; only the lives of ancillary characters can really be affected throughout the game. Dull/limited/non-existent ambient life in areas, music lacking in emotion (applicable to DAO as well) and the simple lack of item icon variety (again a problem in DAO) made the game feel less polished and professional than it should have.

Then there are some things that people complain about that I I honestly didn't mind that much, e.g.  not being able to customise companion armour. Sure, it might have been nice to be able to change the outfits of your party members from time to time, but I still felt there was enough inventory management anyway. I'm a self-confessed packrat going back to the gold box days (heck, even Dungeon Master and Dungeon Hack if anyone remembers those two games), but I don't mind a small reduction in inventory swapping. I don't think I'd want it reduced any more than DA2 though. Regardless, I'd argue that both DAO and DA2 have serious shortcomings in terms of their loot distribution and variety. (But that's a whole different discussion)

In short, I don't disagree that DA2 needed more time before it was released to address some of the more glaring issues, but I don't by any means feel that it was a bad game.

From a personal perspective, that is why I'm taking my time in releasing my next mod. I don't want to cut corners. I want to have new and unique areas for the players to explore. I want the choices of players to matter (and dammit, they will matter a LOT!). I want them to have new combat scenarios, NPCs they will love to hate, and party members they can care about. If I don't do that, then I'm not giving players what they deserve - a meaningful, deep and polished Dragon Age experience.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 15 août 2011 - 02:10 .

[DaBigDragon]

Origins was imposing for folks who have never played an RPG of that depth before. There's a lot of inventory managing that goes along with that game and yes, it was a difficult game even on Normal if you were not used to that type of gameplay.

I've only played through Origins once because I can't get over the clunky combat. DA2 has its faults, which have been acknowledged numerous times by Bioware by the way, but I love the combat. The story from the first game was better in my opinion, but Legacy was a step in the right direction for DA2.

A lot of folks don't seem to want to accept that Bioware, in my opinion, wants to get away from making games that only a smaller group of people can get into easily and enjoy right off the bat without a lot of practice or trial and error that a new player would need to get into the series.

[Monica21]

Yrkoon wrote...
No, no no.  When he said "busted" he  wasn't talking about bugs.  (and someone should really link us to the thread he made those comments in, already).  He was talking about design decisions.  He is after all,  part of the design team... not a QA guy.

Here you go: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/315/index/7992640

[Ariella]

Valcutio wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Zoikster wrote...
Exactly what was busted? I'd love some clarification. What exactly was so "imposing" about DA:O? I introducted several people to it who weren't familiar with the RPG genre who absolutely loved it; and hated DA 2. A lot of casual types adored the game. Laidlaw has made some serious miscalculations here.I just can't wrap my mind around his throught process except to think that EA says to dumb the game down to try and draw a larger audience. Which obviously would/has backfired. Can we at least stop blaming DA 2 problems on Origins?

While I can't speak for Mike specifically, a quick comment:

Origins was not a perfect game. It's perfectly acceptable to like a game despite its flaws (as every game has them), but from a design perspective it would be inexcusable to say that just because a game was good that means everything about it was good.

It would also be incorrect to suggest that just because some things didn't work that none of them did. Mike neither said nor implied that all of DAO was "busted"-- he said some things were, and those things he wanted to change.

While it might be difficult for a fan to understand (not because they're unintelligent, but because from your end it's indistinguishable), not everything that is changed from one game to the next is a deliberate design choice-- like the area re-use, for instance. So it would be a mistake to look at every change made between DAO and DA2 and assume they were all just that. The original thread where Mike made these comments is an excellent place to look for his thoughts on this front.

So nobody's "blaming" DAO for anything-- but neither do we put it on a pedestal. We worked on DAO's issues just as we'll work on DA2's issues, changing the things we believe didn't work and the things we want to change, based on what we can afford with the resources at hand. As to what will change about DA2, as Mike has said we'll talk more about this in time... and I believe his comments offer excellent insight, provided you're willing to take them at face value.

I think that's the problem, David. You don't put DA:O on a pedestal. Maybe that's why it's a far better game. I'm sure Brent Knowles put it on a pedestal when he was helping to craft it. If he would have been involved with the sequel, I'm sure it would have gone a long way toward making another masterpiece. And no game is perfect - but to diminish a wonderful game like DAO to make excuses for the disaster that is DA2 is lame.

I think the gaming community as a whole is stunned when comments like "We worked on DAO's issues" are said. What issues? The deep and involving story? Yeah, you fixed that. The core RPG statistical mechanics? Yup, fixed that too. The likeable characters that weren't sexual predators? Looks like Bioware fixed that. I'd mention the area re-use but you guys knew that was going to be an issue before the game even launched. I do love all the mock-surprise though. "Oh, you guys didn't like going back to the same exact area 7 times over the course of the game? We'll work on that!" And then you act like we should be grateful when you address the one concern that was so blatantly obvious as to not even merit mentioning.

I understand defending your project in the face of scrutiny. What I don't understand are the insulting tones used towards the fan-favorite product that made the series to begin with. Perfect? No. Amazing? Yes.

There's a term in writing called "kill your darlings". It has to do with throwing things out that just don't work no matter how much you love them. This is why as a designer or a writer etc you CAN'T put your work on a pedestal.

And I suddenly feel like breaking out into Che's counter point in the opening of Evita: Brent Knowles is gone and he's never coming back to you! Brent wasn't the be all end all of Dragon Age. He's gone off to do other things, and we have no clue if his version of a sequel to Origins would have worked with the fans either.

As for your personal opinions about the story, the characters, and the RPG mechanincs, that's just what they are, opinions. I found the abilities trees much more enjoyable than the blocks in DAO. I, personally, was very glad to find that tactics slots and ability advancement wasn't tide to skills that otherwise did nothing. And while I would like to see skills reimplemented at some point, I'd like them to be deeper and more involved, where one could actually use them to avoid combat, open new options for quests etc.

I also found the story had depth. To me Hawke was a person, not the avatar of a powerful group. All the friendships, enemies, and alliances she made were her own, and owed nothing to any faction she happened to belong to from the start.

And sexual predators? Rather hyperbolic, isn't it? There is one companion who is vocal in her enjoyment of sex, but that doesn't make her a predator.  None of the LI are predatory in their natures when it comes to sex, and it's insulting to people who actually have had experience with sexual predators to imply otherwise.

[aries1001]

I like the new improved user interface in DA2, I like the way the quests are organized. It is clear what I as player must do, and where I have to go and when I have to do it. [This is actual not far from what being a teacher, as I am, is all about -- telling the students what to do, when to do them, how to do them, and how much time they have, but I digress...]

I like the new organized level-up screen; however, to me it the level up system could be a bit clearer about what talents etc. would be good to choose, especially to new players who don't want to use the auto-level up button. I know many old school gamers long for the days of cluttered UI-screens etc. I don't. I don't see improvements in UI as being dumbed down; I see it as way to present a good, clean and modern user interface to players, both old and new.

As for what was busted in DA:O, I'd say the combat and the way too many skills in it. In DA2, cunning directly affects your lockpicking skills just like dexterity? I think did in Dragon Age. (or was there a lockpicking skill?) I also like the way crafting is in DA2. Very nice.

I know there's probaby a thread for this floating around somewhere, but please do something about the length of the spells and talents cooldown. I'm using called healspell20sec (I think?) that sets the cooldown for the healing spells to 20 seconds. To me, this is fair as this means I still have to use potions and plan out a strategy and tactic for combat.

As for the re-use of areas (or rather modules?), I really didn't mind it - especially if it means that we're not going to get as much content - in future games - as in DA2. To me, content always wins over form and and style. While style, form and presentations are nice, more content and more story is the best for me.

I've said it before and I'm going to say it again: Hawke's personal story is a very well told story that to me resided up there with the story found in game like Planescape Torment. It's personal, it's engaing, it's emotional, it's tragic. And it feels like I'm playing, and staring, in a novel...

edit:
formatting

Modifié par aries1001, 15 août 2011 - 02:38 .

[ElvaliaRavenHart]

DaBigDragon wrote...

Origins was imposing for folks who have never played an RPG of that depth before. There's a lot of inventory managing that goes along with that game and yes, it was a difficult game even on Normal if you were not used to that type of gameplay.

I've only played through Origins once because I can't get over the clunky combat. DA2 has its faults, which have been acknowledged numerous times by Bioware by the way, but I love the combat. The story from the first game was better in my opinion, but Legacy was a step in the right direction for DA2.

A lot of folks don't seem to want to accept that Bioware, in my opinion, wants to get away from making games that only a smaller group of people can get into easily and enjoy right off the bat without a lot of practice or trial and error that a new player would need to get into the series.

I don't have as much experience playing video games that alot of other players here on the forums have.  So I do think I can address this issue.  I understand you're point in the direction that they might want to take this series in getting other types of gamers interested in rpg's.   The trailers that were released showing how DAO was going to be already clued me in as a player that it was going to be difficult for someone with a lack of experiencing playing this type of game,  and for me it was since my only other expericence was with NWN. 

As someone new to video games like NWN and DAO, I loved both experiences and I really enjoyed the challenge of DAO.  So I can't agree with you on the point of making the game easy for new players.  I totally disagree with you on this and even Bioware thinking this.  Even someone new to an rpg will have taken the time to learn what the game is about before purchase or I would think they would investigate the game before purchase.   If Bioware wishes to have future rpg's go this direction, fine.  Don't make DAO series their test game for this.  Therefore I can't agree with their decision in this area.  It's their game, they can do as they wish with it.  Since they seem to want fan feedback this is mine.


I made the comment along time ago and asked for battles to be really hard and they gave this to me with the wave action that most people hated in DA2.  I for one really enjoyed this because of the challenge of learning how play through those battles and the wave action is not difficult for me at all now that I learned how to play through them.  I don't want the game to be easier even as someone who is relatively new to rpgs and gaming in general.  I shouldn't have to play on hard or nightmare just because there are people who can't figure out how to play on easy until they learn the game and how to actually play it.  Why should I or others who are fans of the game be inconvienced because of new players to an rpg?  I'm guessing that Bioware is aware that they will need to find a balance for this if they don't wish to lose their fan base.  

[Alexander1136]

Valcutio wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Zoikster wrote...
Exactly what was busted? I'd love some clarification. What exactly was so "imposing" about DA:O? I introducted several people to it who weren't familiar with the RPG genre who absolutely loved it; and hated DA 2. A lot of casual types adored the game. Laidlaw has made some serious miscalculations here.I just can't wrap my mind around his throught process except to think that EA says to dumb the game down to try and draw a larger audience. Which obviously would/has backfired. Can we at least stop blaming DA 2 problems on Origins?

While I can't speak for Mike specifically, a quick comment:

Origins was not a perfect game. It's perfectly acceptable to like a game despite its flaws (as every game has them), but from a design perspective it would be inexcusable to say that just because a game was good that means everything about it was good.

It would also be incorrect to suggest that just because some things didn't work that none of them did. Mike neither said nor implied that all of DAO was "busted"-- he said some things were, and those things he wanted to change.

While it might be difficult for a fan to understand (not because they're unintelligent, but because from your end it's indistinguishable), not everything that is changed from one game to the next is a deliberate design choice-- like the area re-use, for instance. So it would be a mistake to look at every change made between DAO and DA2 and assume they were all just that. The original thread where Mike made these comments is an excellent place to look for his thoughts on this front.

So nobody's "blaming" DAO for anything-- but neither do we put it on a pedestal. We worked on DAO's issues just as we'll work on DA2's issues, changing the things we believe didn't work and the things we want to change, based on what we can afford with the resources at hand. As to what will change about DA2, as Mike has said we'll talk more about this in time... and I believe his comments offer excellent insight, provided you're willing to take them at face value.

I think that's the problem, David. You don't put DA:O on a pedestal. Maybe that's why it's a far better game. I'm sure Brent Knowles put it on a pedestal when he was helping to craft it. If he would have been involved with the sequel, I'm sure it would have gone a long way toward making another masterpiece. And no game is perfect - but to diminish a wonderful game like DAO to make excuses for the disaster that is DA2 is lame.

I think the gaming community as a whole is stunned when comments like "We worked on DAO's issues" are said. What issues? The deep and involving story? Yeah, you fixed that. The core RPG statistical mechanics? Yup, fixed that too. The likeable characters that weren't sexual predators? Looks like Bioware fixed that. I'd mention the area re-use but you guys knew that was going to be an issue before the game even launched. I do love all the mock-surprise though. "Oh, you guys didn't like going back to the same exact area 7 times over the course of the game? We'll work on that!" And then you act like we should be grateful when you address the one concern that was so blatantly obvious as to not even merit mentioning.

I understand defending your project in the face of scrutiny. What I don't understand are the insulting tones used towards the fan-favorite product that made the series to begin with. Perfect? No. Amazing? Yes.

They don't put it on a pedestal because  it wasn't perfect. It was better than da2 but not perfect.  IDK why your going off on a tangent about 1 guy in a group but let me say this; The combat shuffle in origins was frustrating, the graphics weren't that great ect. little things like that. Which is all that should've been fixed IMO leave everything else be just fix the combat shuffle and add a little more detail to the textures. The changes that occured in da2 did sadden me but thats ok because the constructive criticism came pooring in.  The RPG fans didn't like that it got dumbed down and the Action-Adventure fans like the new combat system. I prefered the Origins combat except the shuffle. But i did like walking up to say a hurlock Alpha w/ my twin sword rouge warden and using riposte then dual sweep with flurry then finish them off with cripple, i felt like i was preforming the combo not just tapping X like a mad man preforming the same animation over and over.  I did miss going to camp and talking to companions and i missed just randomly making out w/ morrigan. but like i said the contructive criticism came pooring in so no worries. they've proven they are competent by making the first one that you hold on a pedestal so let them show you what the can make w/ some more xp under there belt for DA3:police:

Lastly, I have yet to read anything insulting towards origins by a dev.

[MrProliferation]

I will say that I have several friends who never made it through DAO who are into the Fallout games (not just 3 and NV, but the older ones), games like Alpha Protocol, and action RPGs like Diablo and Torchlight. They understandably hit sections like the Fade in the Circle Tower and the Deep Roads and basically rage-quitted the game. I know a lot of people will say they weren't "true RPG fans," whatever that means, but they're generally amenable to this type of game and DAO just rubbed them the wrong way. One person I know never finished it because the Archdemon battle was too tedious for them. They pretty much aren't even interested in DA2 because they told me they were worried it would be more stuff like Fade section and the Deep Roads.

So while I loved DAO there were plenty out there who didn't. I even stopped playing DAO for about 3 months because I couldn't finish the archdemon fight since, in my idiocy, I decided my first character would be a warrior-archer and that I was going to play without a healer. Yeah, stupid I know. It was only on my second or third playthrough that I actually understood how to play DAO right. Some people are not going to tolerate that kind of learning curve, even if they are used to what I would call RPGs even though I know plenty of people on this forum believe anything that wasn't BG or DAO isn't a "real" RPG.

[Elhanan]

Maybe this might help; use earlier link for full context:

http://social.biowar...ex/7992640&lf=8

Modifié par Elhanan, 15 août 2011 - 03:18 .

[csfteeeer]

DaBigDragon wrote...

Origins was imposing for folks who have never played an RPG of that depth before. There's a lot of inventory managing that goes along with that game and yes, it was a difficult game even on Normal if you were not used to that type of gameplay.

I've only played through Origins once because I can't get over the clunky combat. DA2 has its faults, which have been acknowledged numerous times by Bioware by the way, but I love the combat. The story from the first game was better in my opinion, but Legacy was a step in the right direction for DA2.

A lot of folks don't seem to want to accept that Bioware, in my opinion, wants to get away from making games that only a smaller group of people can get into easily and enjoy right off the bat without a lot of practice or trial and error that a new player would need to get into the series.

I, as many other people do, disagree with this and can prove that wrong.

my case is this: My Girlfriend, never was an RPG player, she wasn't even more than a Casual Gamer, she played a few basic games here and there, but nothing more, she never really understood why i was inmersed in these games and why i loved them so much.
and then, she saw me playing Origins, we didn't really had anything to do, so she sat back and watched me play Origins on my PC(using an HDMI cable to play on the TV, but that's another thing), and she was actually really getting into it, she liked watching me play, she liked the Characters and how the game looked.
a few days later she asked me if i could play, i said ok, and then, she started playing.
she started in the Morning, and did not stop playing night, and i actually had to force her to get up.

She Loved it, she was talking to me about how much she thought the game was fun, wonderful, with a great story chracters, and all that.

and she was addicted to it, to the point where, in her birthday(a couple of months after that) i had to buy her a damn Alienware Laptop so i could finally play on my trusty PC(Alienware: Raping your wallet in every chance they get:crying:).

Ever since then, she has gotten into RPGs, and she has played many(and i mean, MANY), and she loves them, but Origins is and has always been her favorite because of what it is and what it represents to her.

However, when we finally bought DA2(which she was doubtful about), i started playing myself, and she started watching me like she does when she doesn't have anything to play, and believe me when i say, she was not pleased.
the very first comment she said was "No Multiple Race choices? Bulls**t", and i agreed, but decided to just keep playing, the next comment she gave me was "What the hell is up with their faces? they're squared and weird, kinda cartoony i think", i agreed too btw, but kept i playing, and then, she complained about the combat "ok, what is up with the combat? i can appreciate being fast, but this fast? it's just stupid, and there is so much blood in your face that it's just annoying", and a lot of other things she said afterwards.

She watched me play the hole game(obviously not in one sit) cause she wanted to see if it gets any better, and the first thing she said after the ending, was "Ok, two things, one, that was a horrible ending, and two, this game blows", something i agreed with.

you see my point? Origins was not a super imposing game for regular people, it simply was more than other games out there (it's actually a lot more simple than games like Baldur's Gate), and yet, many people who would have never even considered playing this kind of game, still enjoyed it and loved it.

This is why i don't buy into the hole "Busted" thing, that is why is i think it's Bulls**t to think that just because a game it's more complex than others out there, people who are not into these games will not like it, and that is why i don't think companies know what they're talking about when they say things about about Larger audiences, because not everything can a be COD and they should know that.

[Elhanan]

ElvaliaRavenHart wrote...

@Yrkoon

Uh, Laidlaw said that DAO and DAA is broken, he actually said this. I read enough of this thread to realize this point. So it is more than just art design or new design decision for whatever reason. He actually commented in another thread that the imports are broken or might be broken. Many of the community would like to know what was actually broken from Origins and Awakenings. What does he consider broken from the two previous games besides the imports?

For me patch 1.03 is the whole reason that the game is broken now. My whole point is that modders themselves have fixed these problems.

It was his decision to scrap DAO and DAA and how they were buildt. My whole point and also others in this thread have said they didn't see that much wrong with DAO to be totally rebuilt for DA2.

I'm also saying that patch 1.03 damaged Awakenings for me and it still hasn't been repaired to this day. As a consumer I shouldn't have to go to DragonAgeNexus and download a file that repairs my game when Bioware should have rolled back or fixed this patch. For me my game wasn't broken until patch 1.03. If Mr. Laidlaw is saying that something is broken from the two previous games, which he has, then I'm saying I believe it to be this patch and informing him of such on this forum.

Techless One here, but I am fairly certain that most any patching will not take Player created mods into the repair process. While there may be exceptions, it is my guess that it is not the rule. And the last patch works well for me.

As far as DAO and DAA, Rob Bartel has this info posted:

http://social.biowar...ex/7137421&lf=8

And there is this:

http://social.biowar...ex/7438366&lf=8

More in the DAO Tech Forums

Modifié par Elhanan, 15 août 2011 - 03:31 .

[Addai]

MrProliferation wrote...
So while I loved DAO there were plenty out there who didn't. I even stopped playing DAO for about 3 months because I couldn't finish the archdemon fight since, in my idiocy, I decided my first character would be a warrior-archer and that I was going to play without a healer. Yeah, stupid I know. It was only on my second or third playthrough that I actually understood how to play DAO right. Some people are not going to tolerate that kind of learning curve, even if they are used to what I would call RPGs even though I know plenty of people on this forum believe anything that wasn't BG or DAO isn't a "real" RPG.

Let me guess, you didn't put the difficulty down, because real men play on Normal or something.  lol

[DaBigDragon]

ElvaliaRavenHart wrote...

DaBigDragon wrote...

Origins was imposing for folks who have never played an RPG of that depth before. There's a lot of inventory managing that goes along with that game and yes, it was a difficult game even on Normal if you were not used to that type of gameplay.

I've only played through Origins once because I can't get over the clunky combat. DA2 has its faults, which have been acknowledged numerous times by Bioware by the way, but I love the combat. The story from the first game was better in my opinion, but Legacy was a step in the right direction for DA2.

A lot of folks don't seem to want to accept that Bioware, in my opinion, wants to get away from making games that only a smaller group of people can get into easily and enjoy right off the bat without a lot of practice or trial and error that a new player would need to get into the series.

I don't have as much experience playing video games that alot of other players here on the forums have.  So I do think I can address this issue.  I understand you're point in the direction that they might want to take this series in getting other types of gamers interested in rpg's.   The trailers that were released showing how DAO was going to be already clued me in as a player that it was going to be difficult for someone with a lack of experiencing playing this type of game,  and for me it was since my only other expericence was with NWN. 

As someone new to video games like NWN and DAO, I loved both experiences and I really enjoyed the challenge of DAO.  So I can't agree with you on the point of making the game easy for new players.  I totally disagree with you on this and even Bioware thinking this.  Even someone new to an rpg will have taken the time to learn what the game is about before purchase or I would think they would investigate the game before purchase.   If Bioware wishes to have future rpg's go this direction, fine.  Don't make DAO series their test game for this.  Therefore I can't agree with their decision in this area.  It's their game, they can do as they wish with it.  Since they seem to want fan feedback this is mine.


I made the comment along time ago and asked for battles to be really hard and they gave this to me with the wave action that most people hated in DA2.  I for one really enjoyed this because of the challenge of learning how play through those battles and the wave action is not difficult for me at all now that I learned how to play through them.  I don't want the game to be easier even as someone who is relatively new to rpgs and gaming in general.  I shouldn't have to play on hard or nightmare just because there are people who can't figure out how to play on easy until they learn the game and how to actually play it.  Why should I or others who are fans of the game be inconvienced because of new players to an rpg?  I'm guessing that Bioware is aware that they will need to find a balance for this if they don't wish to lose their fan base.  

Good points, however, I do not see why turning the difficulty of a video game up a notch to present a challenge for yourself is such a big issue.

Essentially, what you are saying boils down to "Normal difficulty should be a good challenge for veteran RPG players or folks who "get" the gameplay, but if it is too hard for new players then tough. They should just turn it down to casual."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me, it sounds like you and a few other folks believe it is OK for a new player to have to turn the difficulty down a notch to be able to enjoy the game's experience, but it is NOT OK for someone who had no trouble with "Normal" in Origins to have to turn the difficulty up to enjoy the same experience in future installments of the series.

Using this point of view then, Bioware should be balancing the games like this: Normal and above for "veteran players" or "players who pick the gameplay up quickly and easily" and Casual difficulty for the newest players. HOWEVER, Dragon Age 2 skewed that balance and made it: Casual and Normal for the newest players and Hard and Nightmare for "veteran players" or "players who pick the gameplay up quickly and easily".

I do agree that there needs to be a balance for this game series between difficulty for new players and difficulty for veteran players and folks who pick up the gameplay easily.

However, I respectfully disagree that Normal in DA2 should be just as difficult as Normal in Origins. It should not be. In my opinion, the Dragon Age team were in the right when they shifted that balance to Casual and Normal for newer players and Hard and Nightmare for veteran players.

[Valcutio]

MrProliferation wrote...

I will say that I have several friends who never made it through DAO who are into the Fallout games (not just 3 and NV, but the older ones), games like Alpha Protocol, and action RPGs like Diablo and Torchlight. They understandably hit sections like the Fade in the Circle Tower and the Deep Roads and basically rage-quitted the game. I know a lot of people will say they weren't "true RPG fans," whatever that means, but they're generally amenable to this type of game and DAO just rubbed them the wrong way. One person I know never finished it because the Archdemon battle was too tedious for them. They pretty much aren't even interested in DA2 because they told me they were worried it would be more stuff like Fade section and the Deep Roads.

So while I loved DAO there were plenty out there who didn't. I even stopped playing DAO for about 3 months because I couldn't finish the archdemon fight since, in my idiocy, I decided my first character would be a warrior-archer and that I was going to play without a healer. Yeah, stupid I know. It was only on my second or third playthrough that I actually understood how to play DAO right. Some people are not going to tolerate that kind of learning curve, even if they are used to what I would call RPGs even though I know plenty of people on this forum believe anything that wasn't BG or DAO isn't a "real" RPG.

I understand where you're coming from but does that mean we should remove the heart and complexities that RPG fans love just to appease those who are unskilled in the genre? Shouldn't we expect a game to challenge us more than the previous entries and raise the bar?

I'm all for inclusiveness and reduced difficulty settings for the less skilled. What I'm against is dumbing down a game entirely to pander to those that are too lazy to engage their minds in something more demanding than deciding which order to headshot enemies.

I love these devs that speak as if wanting a game to challenge us in some other way than twitch-factor is selfish. It's not. Wanting difficult puzzles, conversation statistics and consequences for poor decisions is NOT selfish. It's called being an intelligent gamer that wants more from their playing sessions than a high score.

Will this exclude some people? Yeah. Just like pumpkin pie excludes those that don't like pumpkin. You don't start pumping the pumpkin pie full of apple just to get a few new customers. You make the best damn pumpkin pie you can and soon you'll convert some pumpkin haters over to your side.

[Realmzmaster]

Opinions are just that opinions. Many of you are talking about dumbing down. Well in my opinion DAO is dumbed down from a lot of the CRPGS I have played over years. (I have been playing CRPGS since 1980.) DAO is about as dumbed down as DA2.

In the early CPGS there was no instant regeneration of health and mana. If a companion died they were dead until you could resurrect him/her. If the main character died it was game over. The combat was turn based. Mages had to memorize spells and clerics had to pray for them. There were enough skilld and feats that the manuals to explain them ran over 200 pages.

There has been a progression of dumbing down (If you choose to use that word). I look at it has changing the genre to meet the expectations of the different generations.

Yes you have to change CRPGS to meet the expectations of different generations or not have a fan base in the future. Why should new players be inconvenienced because older players want to hang on to conventions that dilute the playing experience for new players.

Why did I have to accept the changes in DAO from games like PST or Baldur's Gate? Why was DAO so dumbed down from what I was use to playing?

For the record I like both DAO and DA2 for what they are not what I want them to be. Because what I want could be very different from what you want.

[Ariella]

csfteeeer wrote...

DaBigDragon wrote...
A lot of folks don't seem to want to accept that Bioware, in my opinion, wants to get away from making games that only a smaller group of people can get into easily and enjoy right off the bat without a lot of practice or trial and error that a new player would need to get into the series.

I, as many other people do, disagree with this and can prove that wrong.

my case is this: My Girlfriend, never was an RPG player, she wasn't even more than a Casual Gamer, she played a few basic games here and there, but nothing more, she never really understood why i was inmersed in these games and why i loved them so much.
and then, she saw me playing Origins, we didn't really had anything to do, so she sat back and watched me play Origins on my PC(using an HDMI cable to play on the TV, but that's another thing), and she was actually really getting into it, she liked watching me play, she liked the Characters and how the game looked.
a few days later she asked me if i could play, i said ok, and then, she started playing.
she started in the Morning, and did not stop playing night, and i actually had to force her to get up.

She Loved it, she was talking to me about how much she thought the game was fun, wonderful, with a great story chracters, and all that.

and she was addicted to it, to the point where, in her birthday(a couple of months after that) i had to buy her a damn Alienware Laptop so i could finally play on my trusty PC(Alienware: Raping your wallet in every chance they get:crying:).

Ever since then, she has gotten into RPGs, and she has played many(and i mean, MANY), and she loves them, but Origins is and has always been her favorite because of what it is and what it represents to her.

However, when we finally bought DA2(which she was doubtful about), i started playing myself, and she started watching me like she does when she doesn't have anything to play, and believe me when i say, she was not pleased.
the very first comment she said was "No Multiple Race choices? Bulls**t", and i agreed, but decided to just keep playing, the next comment she gave me was "What the hell is up with their faces? they're squared and weird, kinda cartoony i think", i agreed too btw, but kept i playing, and then, she complained about the combat "ok, what is up with the combat? i can appreciate being fast, but this fast? it's just stupid, and there is so much blood in your face that it's just annoying", and a lot of other things she said afterwards.

She watched me play the hole game(obviously not in one sit) cause she wanted to see if it gets any better, and the first thing she said after the ending, was "Ok, two things, one, that was a horrible ending, and two, this game blows", something i agreed with.

you see my point? Origins was not a super imposing game for regular people, it simply was more than other games out there (it's actually a lot more simple than games like Baldur's Gate), and yet, many people who would have never even considered playing this kind of game, still enjoyed it and loved it.

I have to laugh at this considering the exact opposite happened with a friend of mine who played Origins until about Ostagar and just board out of his mind, then gave DA2 a try and loved it. Said friend has been playing RPGs both computer and console and table top for quite some time.

I'm pretty sure every person on this board could come up with a story like this pro or con for DA2. It's subjective.

As for the blood on the face? Huh? I had that much blood on my characters in Origins and it's something that can be turned off.

Plus we were told point blank that Hawke was going to be human this time around long before the game came out.