jbrand2002uk wrote...
As an action game with RPG elements its actually a fairly good game not perfect but maybe a 7/10
So of course they were going to market DA2 as the sequel to DAO and create the expectation that it would be in the vein of DAO
While you wernt the only one to make the comparisson between DAO and DA2 you were all certainly wrong to do so it unlikely you or the Developers will admit this, its likely that the Devs wouldnt admit this due to a fear of alienating even more of the DA fanbase and the DAO wouldn't because doing so would remove their only legitimate reason to complain.
A traditional RPG has its focus on a branching story with multiple variations on every scene including the ending but most of all the combat if any takes a back seat in relation to the story and collecting items and customization of the PC and if relevant his/her companions so unless DA2 follows this method then it cannot be called a traditional RPG and cannot be compared to DAO
I both agree and disagree on some fundamental points there.
First off, I completely agree that as an action-driven RPG, DA2 is actually pretty good. Not sure I'd have been quite as generous as 7/10, but it wasn't a terrible game in its own right.
However, I don't think its wrong to compare DA2 to DA:O on the basis that they're different approaches to an RPG game. Just because Bioware decided to take a significantly different tack doesn't mean that this forbids all criticism and comparison to the previous approach - its still an RPG, its still very much 'Bioware' in style, and it stands alongside other RPG games past and present.
Otherwise, where do you draw the line? What feature(s) of DA2 prevent comparison with DA:O in their own right? Personally, I have no problem comparing games from the Deus Ex series to DA2, despite it being a first-person shooter-RPG base rather than a party-based action-RPG base. Both contained elements of action, of challenge, of puzzles, main quests and side quests, establishing the game world, giving players the opportunity to achieve things through different routes and end up with different outcomes.
Ultimately, I think its two problems being combined into one. Firstly, that a fair chunk of people (wrongly) suspected DA2 would be a broadly similar type of game, both in style and feel to DA:O, on account of it being a sequel. Not an entirely unreasonable expectation, I might add.
Secondly, even setting that aside, that same group of players do seem more likely to hold the opinion that DA2 just isn't as good a game as DA:O...and I think its that combination which drove the furious backlash on these forums. Quite a few people have used the words 'tricked' or 'betrayed'.
We can argue whether this is a justified reaction or not, but the fact that people *did* react in that way is telling...and from what we've seen from Mike Laidlaw since, I think he's keen to avoid a repeat of this by being more open at an earlier stage about game direction and decisions.
Of course, just calling DA2 something like "Kirkwall Chronicles" and advertising it as an action RPG set in the DA universe, but a very different game to Origins, wouldn't have solved the problem.
It would have cued people in to the concept that it was very, very different to DA:O so there would have been less shock and surprise when it came to getting the game, but a fair chunk of DA:O fans would still be asking for "DA2" to be like DA:O, and Kirkwall Chronicles fans would have been asking for "DA2" to be like Kirkwall Chronicles.
Its a nice illustration of the perils of fierce divisions in the fanbase within a franchise.
Modifié par Wozearly, 26 septembre 2011 - 06:05 .
Retour en haut
That's my biggest pet peeve. I can handle anything else.
