235 réponses à ce sujet

[Zcorck]

Morroian wrote...

So where are the people calling it a total overhaul getting that from?

My guess would be that they're getting it from the same place as the the extreme DA2-haters in order to try and assort TW2's superiority over DA2/BioWare in hopes that they will learn from their "mistakes". (quotes due to the word being sorta double-edged in this case at least)

Agree with the others that BW should just move on to DA3, and hopefully it will surpass DA2.

[Alexander1136]

I just want them to fix the import bugs<_<

[Wusword77]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Ulous wrote...

The first Witcher was broken so they fixed it.

Regardless of what you think of DA2 personally the game is not broken.

Regardless of? Interesting way to qualify that 


I'll pick some games that readily spring to mind as famously "broken" at release - Fallout 3 and Empire: Total War - actually even HL2 a bit, if you count the terrible audio looping you could get - 

No amount of CTD or technical problems from these games brought as many gaming sessions to an end as the frustrations and annoyances of DA2 gameplay and its cut corners, nor did they cause me to uninstall and put the disk/case out of sight instead of on the shelf next to the other fallout/total war/HL games.

Give me 100 CTDs over that kind of brokenness any day of the week. 

Yeah, it's quite clear that it's not financially viable to "fix" it, even if they thought it needed that. on the other hand, it's really not financially viable for lots of us to blow 60 bucks on an experiment in radically, knowingly and admittedly departing from what we were expecting.

The idea that loads of fans just absorb the cost of that experiment is just as laughable as the idea of people expecting BioWare to rewrite the game now - the difference is that one of the parties is SOL and stuck with it anyway. 

So, your saying that you would rather get a game that is full of bugs that causes the game to be near unplayable (by the actual definition of the word) at launch then get a game that is completely playable that you don't like or didn't meet your expectations.  Personally I'd be just as pissed if I bought a game that was unplayable at launch as I would if I bought a game and found out I didn't like it.

You also bring up in your post that the game was "admittedly departing from what we were expecting," implying that you as the consumer knew the game was going to be different from DA:O and you still bought it anyway.  If you know going into the game that it will be different from what you were expecting and you didn't like it it's your own fault.

Lastly, if gaming companies never released games that were experimental and different we'd all still be playing Pong.

[Gotholhorakh]

Wusword77 wrote...

So, your saying that you would rather get a game that is full of bugs that causes the game to be near unplayable (by the actual definition of the word) at launch then get a game that is completely playable that you don't like or didn't meet your expectations. 

Me personally? Damned straight I would. That's why Fallout 3 and Half Life 2 are still installed on my machine now, years after release, and DA2 is gone within months.

You also bring up in your post that the game was "admittedly departing from what we were expecting," implying that you as the consumer knew the game was going to be different from DA:O and you still bought it anyway.

No. Admittedly on the part of the developer.

Vicious wrote...
maybe some of us would rather they spent time on DA2 DLC and making ME3
great and getting DA3 right, than re-releasing  DA2 just to please some
'fans' who probably don't give a crap anyway.

Just a thought.

I don't think most of us would expect them to do anything at all (well, beyond the really easy to fix and common causes of negative feedback). That ship has sailed, obviously.

I'm not sure which fans "don't give a crap", they wouldn't be fans at all, am I right? A girlfriend and I booked 2 days of our annual leave for the release of this game and.. well I won't go into our DA nuttiness. I would consider us to be "fans".

Zcorck wrote...
My
guess would be that they're getting it from the same place as the the
extreme DA2-haters in order to try and assort TW2's superiority over
DA2/BioWare in hopes that they will learn from their "mistakes". (quotes
due to the word being sorta double-edged in this case at least)

Agree with the others that BW should just move on to DA3, and hopefully it will surpass DA2.

I agree on the double-edged swordness!

Firstly, TW1 is knocked into touch VERY EASILY by DA:O, it's not half the game DA:O is, there's lots of love in it but the comparison makes it look childish and misogynistic, its voice acting and dialogue are often just bad and some of its gameplay just.. doesn't work so well. Secondly, TW2 might be a good game (I don't know, I had to choose between it and DA2 so meh) but it's been made abundantly clear it's no tactical party-based RPG. In giving it the status of RPG of the century they are essentially rubber-stamping a good implementation of everything DA2 is supposed to have failed miserably to do.

It's not tactical party-based combat. It's not close to D&D, it's got a locked protagonist. There's a multitude of parallels but I think the people crowing about it might be very sorry if BioWare went in that direction permanently, because there would be nobody producing good, big-budget tactical party-based crpgs of the pedigree of DA:O, BG2 and so on.

Double edged indeed.

Wusword77 wrote...

Lastly, if gaming companies never released games that were experimental and different we'd all still be playing Pong.

Well hang on, that's true but don't games companies usually let experiments stand on their own merits, rather than raking in cash by calling it SomethingElse 2?

I mean your favourite fast food chain might think it would rock to fill their next burger bun with nougat instead of beef, but wouldn't they be guaranteed to disappoint people if they called it the "Big Mac 2"?

I'm not really seeking to express disgruntlement here (I am largely
regruntled now), but since you make the point I feel it wants answering.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 22 août 2011 - 03:17 .

[Wusword77]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Wusword77 wrote...

So, your saying that you would rather get a game that is full of bugs that causes the game to be near unplayable (by the actual definition of the word) at launch then get a game that is completely playable that you don't like or didn't meet your expectations. 

Me personally? Damned straight I would. That's why Fallout 3 and Half Life 2 are still installed on my machine now, years after release, and DA2 is gone within months.

OK, I'm not sure I understand the logic as I would personally rather have a game I paid full price for actually work on my machine and be playable at launch but thats me.  And if I don't like the end product, well I'm **** out of luck aren't I?  I didn't need to buy the game.  Thats why I play demo's and use gamefly.

You also bring up in your post that the game was "admittedly departing from what we were expecting," implying that you as the consumer knew the game was going to be different from DA:O and you still bought it anyway.

No. Admittedly on the part of the developer.

So the developer came out with what was being changed on their part and you still bought the game.  That's not the developers problem you didn't get what you were expecting if you didn't listen to them.  Thats your own fault.

Seriously, the information about the game wasn't on lockdown.  There were video's and demo's available for people to see and play.  We knew how this game was going to play before the launch.  People need to do more research about the games they want to purchase.

Wusword77 wrote...

Lastly, if gaming companies never released games that were experimental and different we'd all still be playing Pong.

Well hang on, that's true but don't games companies usually let experiments stand on their own merits, rather than raking in cash by calling it SomethingElse 2?

I mean your favourite fast food chain might think it would rock to fill their next burger bun with nougat instead of beef, but wouldn't they be guaranteed to disappoint people if they called it the "Big Mac 2"?

I'm not really seeking to express disgruntlement here (I am largely
regruntled now), but since you make the point I feel it wants answering.

Actually plenty of companies use flagship series/names/franchises to promote new ideas and experiment.  It's a safe way to ensure that the product sells.  Provided they don't totally change the product it works almost all of the time.  Just take a look at the evolution of any series of games, Mass Effect being a prime example of this mentality.  You also have the Final Fantasy Series, Legend of Zelda, Super Mario, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, 
Fallout, and Castlevania to name a few.  All of these series are very different from their first incarnation to now, so much so that they can barely be compared, even beyond a technology standpoint.

[Drasill]

Ariella wrote...

LTD wrote...

Ariella wrote...


Actually, for the English version at least they have to fix the lip synch, which was terrible, and the controls need work too.

As a general rule of thumb, if lip synch is the most severe flaw you can think of in an RPG, then surely the game must be perfect enough.

Not when the lip synch is so bad it throws you out of your immersion, and I'm sorry, if you're going to be a AAA designer and sell to various nations, it makes sense to have the animation synch to the voice overs of the language it's going to be sold in. The fact that they didn't bother shows either laziness or lack of professionalism.

Also it isn't the only issue I had with TW2. I found the controls to be clunky. They made terrible use of the mouse as an input device. The combat balance was terrible: settings like casual and normal still had too steep a learning curve and caused a great deal of frustration during the prologue. The fact that the Witcher training tree is the only available tree until it's finished.

The Witcher 2 is nice to look at but, I wouldn't call it perfect.

"OMG I'm bad there must be something wrong!"

[Giubba]

Ariella wrote...

LTD wrote...

Ariella wrote...


Actually, for the English version at least they have to fix the lip synch, which was terrible, and the controls need work too.

As a general rule of thumb, if lip synch is the most severe flaw you can think of in an RPG, then surely the game must be perfect enough.

Not when the lip synch is so bad it throws you out of your immersion, and I'm sorry, if you're going to be a AAA designer and sell to various nations, it makes sense to have the animation synch to the voice overs of the language it's going to be sold in. The fact that they didn't bother shows either laziness or lack of professionalism.

Also it isn't the only issue I had with TW2. I found the controls to be clunky. They made terrible use of the mouse as an input device. The combat balance was terrible: settings like casual and normal still had too steep a learning curve and caused a great deal of frustration during the prologue. The fact that the Witcher training tree is the only available tree until it's finished.

The Witcher 2 is nice to look at but, I wouldn't call it perfect.

Agree with Ariella

Modifié par Giubba1985, 22 août 2011 - 06:16 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Wusword77 wrote...


So the developer came out with what was being changed on their part and you still bought the game.  That's not the developers problem you didn't get what you were expecting if you didn't listen to them.  Thats your own fault.

Seriously, the information about the game wasn't on lockdown.  There were video's and demo's available for people to see and play.  We knew how this game was going to play before the launch.  People need to do more research about the games they want to purchase.

No, I completely disagree on whether we were presented with the full picture about the game before its release.
Since it being "our own fault" relies on that premise, clearly that's bunk as far as I'm concerned.

In the run-up to the game there was concern because of the things you mention, and the marketing was all "this is what you like but better" and "this is improved" and "this is everything DA:O was and then some". I'm paraphrasing a marketing guy there "reassuring" existing fans like me who were concerned by said videos, and I can find the video if need be.

Never was there a mention of this grand experimentation for growth, of knowing that existing fans would be upset, or of upset fans all being change-resistant, trolls or retarded, until after the game was released and we had all bought it.

Up until that point it was all "BioWare reassures fans" and "we already reached a massive audience with DA:O. It would be silly to make DA2 into something that the DA:O audience couldn't recognize" in answer to the "concerns" we are now all supposed to have acted on.

If BioWare are guilty of anything, it's discarding stuff that they knew people liked about the games, then appearing to be wrongfooted by the inevitable dissatisfaction. If the dissatisfied people who believed reassurances are guilty of anything, it's naïveté.

For my part I don't expect anything to be "fixed". I'd imagine more that the lovely margins on boshing DA2 together will encourage more of the same. The effect of disappointment on future sales remains to be seen though, and margins on paper don't take account of loss of custom in future.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 22 août 2011 - 06:25 .

[Wusword77]

Gotholhorakh wrote...
No, I completely disagree on whether we were presented with the full picture about the game before its release.
Since it being "our own fault" relies on that premise, clearly that's bunk as far as I'm concerned.

Except your never given the full picture of a game/movie/book/anything before it's release.  You make your own impressions on the product from what you see leading up to it's release.

In the run-up to the game there was concern because of the things you mention, and the marketing was all "this is what you like but better" and "this is improved" and "this is everything DA:O was and then some". I'm paraphrasing a marketing guy there "reassuring" existing fans like me who were concerned by said videos, and I can find the video if need be.

Never was there a mention of this grand experimentation for growth, of knowing that existing fans would be upset, or of upset fans all being change-resistant, trolls or retarded, until after the game was released and we had all bought it.

Up until that point it was all "BioWare reassures fans" and "we already reached a massive audience with DA:O. It would be silly to make DA2 into something that the DA:O audience couldn't recognize" in answer to the "concerns" we are now all supposed to have acted on.

You were shown what the game would be like, the demo let people play the game, if people still thought that DA2 was going to be DA:O with a different story then they deserve what they got.  All that aside, using the term "all you like but better" is a matter of opinion.  Bioware could really believe that the changes made to the DA franchise were for the better and I agree with them in that regard.

If BioWare are guilty of anything, it's discarding stuff that they knew people liked about the games, then appearing to be wrongfooted by the inevitable dissatisfaction. If the dissatisfied people who believed reassurances are guilty of anything, it's naïveté.

To be honest I didn't like DA:O.  I can see where people who might want to play it for the sake of nostalgia would think it's a great game, but to me it felt old.  I liked what I got out of DA2, and I've been playing RPG's for over 2 decades.  I feel that the things they removed from the gme were worth removing and changing for the most part.  Does my opinion not matter because I wasn't a fan of DA:O?

I do agree that at this point it's water under the bridge.  Nothing we say or do here will in anyway affect DA2.  But healthly discussion about what we did and didn't like about DA2 is vital (in my opinion) for Bioware to make a 3rd Dragon Age game that can approach the hopes we have for the series.

[Samhiel]

I liked DA2 just fine as it was, patches have made it better, but how to improve upon awesome?

[Ariella]

Drasill wrote...

Ariella wrote...

LTD wrote...

Ariella wrote...


Actually, for the English version at least they have to fix the lip synch, which was terrible, and the controls need work too.

As a general rule of thumb, if lip synch is the most severe flaw you can think of in an RPG, then surely the game must be perfect enough.

Not when the lip synch is so bad it throws you out of your immersion, and I'm sorry, if you're going to be a AAA designer and sell to various nations, it makes sense to have the animation synch to the voice overs of the language it's going to be sold in. The fact that they didn't bother shows either laziness or lack of professionalism.

Also it isn't the only issue I had with TW2. I found the controls to be clunky. They made terrible use of the mouse as an input device. The combat balance was terrible: settings like casual and normal still had too steep a learning curve and caused a great deal of frustration during the prologue. The fact that the Witcher training tree is the only available tree until it's finished.

The Witcher 2 is nice to look at but, I wouldn't call it perfect.

"OMG I'm bad there must be something wrong!"

And your point being? TW2 is pretty, but there are some problems with it... the controls are one and lip synch is another on that list, so to call the game perfect as the person I responded to did, is hyperbole at best.