429 réponses à ce sujet

[Pygmali0n]

Exactly what's needed Firky. Sorry to bang on so, but suggestiveness was what ME1's scene was all about. And I never did understand those prissy guys whining about the cards, perhaps their mums were watching them type, and the criticism kind of turned Witcher 1's casual encounters from a good laugh to Witcher 2's feeding a basic need.

[Pygmali0n]

It's not all about sex, although it might be a better thread if we ignored it and concentrated on the childish warrior and rogue fighting styles, the limited choices, the anime style, etc. Or are you saying that video games are always inherently childish? Or just frustrated/bored/attention seeking?

[TheRealJayDee]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I've been told by these forums time and again that it is definitely NOT the changes between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II that people are objecting to, since that would lend credence to the "players can't handle Dragon Age II being different" (or "innovative") quote that gets thrown around.

You’re joking with us here, right? Of course, there are a lot of people who say that DA2 was a rather disappointing experience if you look at it as a game of its own, without involving it’s predecessor, and they are right. But a lot of players are extremely unhappy with the direction in which DA2 took the Dragon Age franchise, and that has naturally everything to do with the changes from DA:O to DA2. The whole “players can’t handle change” affair that, to the best of my knowledge, BioWare started is really ridiculous and was not very helpful in establishing a constructive dialogue. The problem wasn’t and isn’t that you guys changed something, but what you changed, how you changed it and why you changed it. It’s not that quite an amount of players can’t “handle” the change, they simply don’t like it.
 
I don’t believe you released DA2 with the intention of alienating parts of your fanbase, but I also can’t imagine you didn’t at least see the potential for a major backlash like the one we got. And I’m not talking about the recycled environments. The fact that DA2 was rushed… okay, let’s be diplomatic and say ‘the strong impression one could get that DA2 was released way too soon’ didn’t make players more willing to accept that DA2 not only did not feel like “the spiritual successor to Baldur’s Gate” (which I never played), but not even much like the spiritual successor to Dragon Age: Origins. And here our troubles began.
 
Changes in a sequel to me should work like this: “This worked in the first game, let’s make it better and add new stuff that enhances the whole experience further. This didn’t work as well as it could; let’s see if we can make it work properly now. Okay, this really doesn’t work, scrap it.”. DA2 didn’t feel like it was made that way, but I admit that I don’t know who made the decisions in that process and on what experiences and feedback they were based.
 
All in all I have to say that it feels like BioWare acted upon Barney Stinson’s “new is always better” maxim, and, no, that’s just not always the case. 
 

Stanley Woo wrote...

BUT...

IF (capital I, capital F) Art Spiegelman decided he wanted to use a different art style halfway through his story, so what? It's his story, and he can tell it in whatever way he wants. It's not the comic reader's place to tell Mr. Spiegelman he can't do it. the comic reader always has a choice to make, and that it whether to purchase or not purchase the content. IF (again, capital letters) that's the way the story was sold, how is your choice as a consumer changed?

Comic books have different creative teams draw their characters all the time, for example.

The “vote with your wallet” approach is exactly what happened with DA2, and it resulted in me being the only one of my DA:O liking circle of friends who purchased and played it.
 
It’s true what you say about comic books and different artists. That is one of many reasons I don’t bother to read any of the ongoing releases from Marvel or DC anymore, because it often resulted in me being forced to endure my favourite characters going from awesome to ****ty looking several times within one storyline (which are mostly pretty weak anyways). An example of where the “one author, different artists” formula worked really well is Neil Gaiman’s Sandman. On the other hand there was an adaptation of one of [insert fantasy author’s name, I can’t remember for the life of me]’s stories. I was amazed by how much I liked the art style, only to be hit in the face by it completely being changed halfway through. Never managed to finish it.   
 
As to Art Spiegelman: if he had, let’s say, an internet forum or something, then yes, I would probably try to communicate with him about his work and what problems I have with it. So far Spiegelman didn’t give me a reason, though.  
 

Stanley Woo wrote...


When is this "fromt he start" that we have to "decide... how such things work in the world [we] create"? Right from the get-go in the concepting stage? When finalizing the game? We can't change things from one game to the next? You know the combat in the Dragon Age Legends Facebook game is very different from the combat in Dragon Age II, right? Is that allowed? And Funimation is developing a Dragon Age anime, which will likely portray combat differently again.

And what if players don't like something we've done and we want to change things in future games, which is one of the reasons combat changed between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II? Are we obligated to continue presenting a feature in a certain way, or are we allowed to change it? And--here's the important question--who gets to make that choice?

“From the start” to me means when you plan and establish your fantasy world. That started at the concepting stage for Dragon Age: Origins, and was finished when we played it. DA:O  is how Thedas and the Dragon Age were presented to us, and that should imo be the guideline for any further stories set there. I’m not only talking about the combat here, but also things like the prominent races, the way magic works etc. Of course you are free to change whatever you like from game to game, but don’t expect everyone to like and/or understand it. I never had much of a problem with the combat in DA:O, but I agree that it was an element of the game with a lot of room for improvements. I don’t think, however, I will ever understand why the combat was changed the way it was.
 
Not to start another “was DA:O realistic?” discussion, but DA2 definitely went overboard with the combat animations. In combination with the others changes it just didn’t feel like Dragon Age to me (and I guess not only me), and that is just not healthy for a new franchise. Again, I don’t know how you collect your feedback, but I’m really curious as to how the DA:O/DA2 schism will influence your next game. You’ve brought yourself in an uncomfortable situation, or at least that’s how it looks like, and it will be hard to win back the disappointed DA:O fans while satisfying the new/converted DA2 fans. Oh, and about who should make the important choices for future games – obviously that has to be me!
 
Anyways, thanks for participating in this discussion, it’s much appreciated!

[TheRealJayDee]

Persephone wrote...

chitek23 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

So let's cut that out, shall we?

the ridiculous, exploding enemies? the childish blood fountain?

yes, please. cut that out.

Done. All one has to use is Patch 1.03. The official patch available for all platforms. For months, no less.

The problem here is that a the time the patch hit a lot of us already lost interest in DA2 as a game we want to play. That's how it was for me, anyway. But the exploding enemies are one of the things that are stuck in our heads as something representative for DA2. It doesn't help that it didn't feel like a bug back then, but like a serious attempt at increasing the "badass" level. I guess we'll never know wether it actually was a bug or just the criticized feature that could be patched away the easiest (still too late for me and others).

[happy_daiz]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

I can't believe this thread actually exists.

[JerHopp]

Well if DA2 is for kids then the child in me loves it... a lot!!

[nightscrawl]

BrandonMotz wrote...

"Do you ever have the feeling that the word is getting.... simpler? Like everything from eating to fighting is a lot less complex than it used to be?"

Quote from talkative man in The Hanged Man

I was reading a post earlier in the week from someone who was miffed because DA2 was "Kiddied down" from Dragon Age 1 in its difficulty.

After going through my second playthrough I have to agree. From this quote it seems as if Bioware knows they kiddied it down. Cmon BW!! Plese make DA 3 more adult friendly! More tactical options, More blood... More gore... More sexually appealing options.

Video game target audience is what... 16 to 34?

Please Bioware, make DA3 for the mature audience (18 +)  and put an "M"rating on it. Let the stupid parents make the decision to purchase their underage children an M rated game take responsibility for their own actions, instead of forcing everyone to play a game that is suitable for 12 year old children.

If it is a matter of sales...... I promise to purchase 10 copies of the Dragon Age 3!

No idea why I am writing and whining about this.... Probably the rum I have been drinking!

Cheers Mates

Arrrrr!

To me, this post is talking about two (perhaps three) completely separate issues: complexity or difficulty of the gameplay, and maturity of the content. They are NOT the same.

Difficulty level is extremely subjective. I play on Normal and have never tried the higher difficulties. Pushing myself to the limit with the gameplay here is not a goal of mine. On the other hand, I can appreciate those who play on Nightmare, and even those who wish Nightmare were even more difficult than it is.

You might also argue that complexity is also a separate category, since I feel it was toned down and the reason for that was to appeal to a wider console audience. I don't have too much a problem with that, as long as the story elements stay the same.

Then there is the entirely different area of mature content, which relates mainly to the story and graphics somewhat. The blood and gore, alcohol consumption, romantic sex, mention and suggestions of rape, and so forth are all things that are covered by the ratings agencies. All of these things make it very much an adult game and have nothing whatsoever to do with the difficulty or complexity of the gameplay itself.

[Stanley Woo]

Nice breakdown, nightscrawl. Thank you.

[The Executioner]

Some of the criticism is clearly just mindless nitpicking. The game is what it is. I liked it despite it's flaws.

[Roland Aseph]

wow talk about a mountain out of a mole hill...I look down at the game box cover and see the M (17+ mature) box. That right there gives me a basic, though pretty good idea as to what might be found in the game.

I don't look down ...and see oh wow here's what looks like a fantasy game my 8 year old might enjoy and completely ignore the rating!

Is it really that hard?

(speaking/thinking about the maturity lvl and mature content aspect)

Modifié par Roland Aseph, 08 octobre 2011 - 01:31 .

[Kail Ashton]

so 12 pages of people & developers all basicly pointing out the topic creator unknowingly had his brain replaced with rat dropings, perhaps it was elective surgary he got on discount? i heard it did wonders for Rick Sloan

[Yrkoon]

Kail Ashton wrote...

so 12 pages of people & developers all basicly pointing out the topic creator unknowingly had his brain replaced with rat dropings, perhaps it was elective surgary he got on discount? i heard it did wonders for Rick Sloan

And here I thought the mods/devs frowned upon trolling.    Yeah, lets call other posters sh**t brained.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 08 octobre 2011 - 03:42 .

[Maconbar]

Yrkoon wrote...

Kail Ashton wrote...

so 12 pages of people & developers all basicly pointing out the topic creator unknowingly had his brain replaced with rat dropings, perhaps it was elective surgary he got on discount? i heard it did wonders for Rick Sloan

And here I thought the mods/devs frowned upon trolling.    Yeah, lets call other posters sh**t brained.

Or just report it and move on.

[LordKinoda]

Good plain speaking post from Lord Kinoda too, though the way you put it it sounds like you want porn, which definitely would put me right off the game. Do the scenes with humour and style, try not to be self conscious and keep it natural - again ME1 got it right, Witcher 2 got it right. This is the one time you ought to copy Mass Effect.

Haha, I don't need video games for my porn fix. There are plenty of other options, EASIER options, out there to explore for that. ME1 did do it pretty good, and the Witcher 2 did them the best I've seen to date. I'll ask for nothing more than scenes akin to those.

And the epilogues were great! They engage your imagination in a different way - they would be vastly improved with some epic artwork and wouldn't be suitable for an absolute ending of a story - but they are a perfectly legitimate way to provide something extra, meaningful and much appreciated

Great isn't the word I would choose to describe them. Decent is more applicable. Epic artwork ? YES. More than a one shot screen with text on it. Cinematics even better.

without burdening the team with lot of new work (and my imagination has better graphics anyway).

I say burden away. Actual cinematics would be WAY more rewarding. They wouldn't have to be anything too gigantic either. Take Morrigan for example. They could of shown her sneaking through a crowded market, or small hamlet trying not to be noticed by guards or something similar, so as not to arouse suspicion and alert the Warden where she may be going. Just a small 15-30 second animation for each little blurb of text. And while I'm at it, narrate the text from one of the characters, ala Varric. It's just cooler IMO. Don't get me wrong, I love to read too, but not so much when I'm playing a game.

You made us read your long post LK, the least you can do at the end of a game is wind-down and read some brief epilogues.

Heh, I made you did I ? Or maybe what I had to say what at least a little interesting and you agree with it ? I read through others whole posts too, not just snippets

Personallly, I'm quite happy with a "fade to balck".
There's nothing unrealistic about not shoing a sex scene. You don't have to see it. It doesn't make the world any less real - they don't show you answering the natures call either. As long as it's implied...

I suppose it would of been easier to swallow if they hadn't already established more visual scenes in DAO. But alas, they didn't.

It's not all about sex, although it might be a better thread if we ignored it and concentrated on the childish warrior and rogue fighting styles, the limited choices, the anime style, etc. Or are you saying that video games are always inherently childish? Or just frustrated/bored/attention seeking?

Who said it was ALL about sex ? There are plenty of other posts in this thread that take issue with other aspects of the game. Sex is just one of them.

[dragonfire100]

How is the game meant for kids?blood sex in the game boobs showing high cuss words yeah i dont thats meant for kids

[Imrahil_]

Stanley, you seem conciliatory some of the time, but you also seem belligerant some of the time, as well. So I'm going to address a whole bunch of your posts at once, keeping in mind that some of the time you seem to be open to accepting constructive ideas & some of the time you seem to be a jerk, but I'm going to try to address all your points in the "open to constuctive criticism mode".

Stanley Woo wrote...

LeBurns wrote...
The cartoon art style (plain colors and little or no clutter anywhere) - Kiddie

Art direction does not indicate anything without the content. It is a medium through which the visual content is delivered and stories are told. There are many "non-kiddie" genres and stories told through use of comparatively simplistic art styles. Read "Maus" some time for an example of how mature a "cartoon" can be.

Here's an example of you tilting at a strawman. You don't address the point, but bring up something completely irrelevant. South Park has fairly primitive animation. Yet it addresses mature themes. Maus does as well. But you ignored the point. Just because *it is possible* to address mature themes using simplistic art does not mean that all content that uses simplistic art addresses mature themes. You do this a lot. I mean A LOT.

A implies B does not mean B implies A. I know you're familair with this concept, but you constantly abuse it when responding to posters. It's poor debate style. It's not a valid response to point out that other "primitive" art styles deal with mature subject matter when you receive critcism that your primitive art style does not deal with mature subject matter.

The waves and enemies literally falling out of the sky for me to attack - Kiddie

This doesn't make much sense at all. Disagreeing with something doesn't make it immature, nor does enemy spawn rate or placement. this word "kiddie," I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think you are going out of your way to misundersand the poster here. She chose "kiddie" to represent a broad spectrum of issues one would expect in a game aimed at kids. In this case, enemies that parachute in, or teleport in, & don't follow a "realistic" spawn pattern, is a hallmark of Mario Brothers type games. The turtle drops from the sky. The turtle magically appears from a block. You surely get the idea.

Your pedantic, literal dismissal smacks of an unwillingness to understand the point. Surely you know what was meant, right? It's not "disagreeing with something", and, come on, you know it's not. It's pointing out that the mechanics echo kiddie games. Kiddie games can be fun. Mario Bros. is fun. But the spawn mechanism of Mario Bros. doesn't fit in a "realistic" game.

The super, over-the-top, impossible in real life, combat moves - Kiddie

Mortal Kombat, God of War, The Matrix, wuxia films, Hong kong action films, ANY ACTION MOVIE. Realism does not indicate maturity or sophistication. This relates to art direction and presentation of combat. any game that involves magic portrays characters doing things impossible in real life, but what is actually, physically involved in the casting of a magic spell? Is it over the top to require a wand and incant verbally, or is it over the top to wave your hands around in a certain way? Heck, is it over the top to do anything but exert your will or read from a spellbook?

See, now this is why it's incredibly frustrating to read your responses. You strawman everything. It's amazingly easy to knock down an argument no one made. "Magic isn't real!". Well, duh. We all accept that. You establish the rules of magic in your world & we all accept them & play along. But that wasn't the point, was it?

Just because your Mage can cast a Fireball doesn't imply that your Rogue can teleport behind an enemy, or kick a bomb onto multiple enemies. The physics of the DA world are, as far as has been established, the same as our world (except that people can't jump in the DA world, of course). People can use magic. Sure. Got it. Not the point. Non-Mage people can't summersault over another entity, though. They can't move faster than light. They can't jump off the left-side of the screen & appear on the right. They can't shoot lightning out their hands like Raiden. They can't use Medusa's Gaze like Kratos. They can't dodge bullets like Neo.

Comparing Dragon Age to "Mortal Kombat, God of War, The Matrix, wuxia films, Hong kong action films, ANY ACTION MOVIE" means you concede the realsim argument. DA:O stretched the realism boundary. DA2 broke it.

And is capoeira considered "over the top, impossible in real life, combat moves?" is your criteria real life, in which case
you're missing the point of what fiction is all about, or is your criteria "things you yourself cannot do"?

Yes. Capoeira takes a lifetime to master. Just selecting the Rogue class is not the same. Granting capoeira-mastery for nothing is like granting "full black belt" to anyone who selects a Rogue. It's gratuitous "ninja-combat", for free. I mean, if it was a deep skill tree, sure, that's fine, but yes, capoeira is considered "over the top, impossible in real life, combat moves" if granted for free to a character who hasn't spent extesive training learning it.
Oh, jeez. I just realize I wasted a lot of text on another one of your strawmen. I feel silly. I momentarily forgot that you like to argue against points that have never been raised, by anyone.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 08 octobre 2011 - 07:31 .

[Imrahil_]

[quote][quote]Romance of talking, kissing, falling in bed and the next scene just talking about it - Kiddie
[/quote]
Again, this is a matter of presentation. You don't like the fade to black, fine. but we're not dealing with a binary state here (ie. either it shows nudity or it's for children). the implication I'm seeing from the pro-nudity, pro-more mature content arguments in this thread are that if we don't show boobies, the game is meant for children. Sorry, but this is precisely the "mature content does not necessarily mean graphic nudity, sex and violence" argument the anti-more mature content side is against. This is also the argument that the pro-more mature content side is insisting it's not saying..

Yes, we could certainly show more nudity or sex in our love scenes because we are a mature game and we are creating our game for mature audiences, both in age and attitude. But we are not obligated to include such content, nor does its absence indicate a lack or reduction in the maturity of the game or its developer. As purportedly "mature" gamers, we should be able to discuss our preferences, suggestions, and critiques without such "immature" statements.
[/quote]
It's amusing how you point out that it's not a binary state & then suggest that it's a binary state ("the implication I'm seeing from the pro-nudity, pro-more mature content arguments in this thread are that if we don't show boobies, the game is meant for children"). Oh, how you love your strawmen. Has anyone actually said that? No? Amazing how easy strawmen are to knock down, isn't it? "the implication I'm seeing"! The implication you're seeing is easy to refute, isn't it? Try reading what people are actually saying & maybe you'll understand it better.

Ok, that was overly sarcastic. Fair enough. But consider this: "the implication I'm seeing from Stanley Woo is that he is squicked out by boobies! Stanley hates boobies, so he's against showing them!" Now, did you say that? No. Is that an easy point to belittle & not take seriously? Sure. So stop doing the same thing & read the actual reasons..
[quote][quote]Bodies exploding into unrealistic bits of jam - Kiddie
[/quote]
Japanese manga, some of which is anything but childish. Again, this is matter of style and presentation, not maturity.
[/quote]
Seriously? You're going to fall back on manga? That stuff is totally childish. You know who loves manga? Early teen boys. Ok, maybe even late teen boys. Lotsa boobs, lotsa splatter, lotsa tentacled demon-spawn raping nubian big-eyed chicks with gigantic boobs. Plus the occasional awesome-super-mega-power-blast to destroy the demon-spawn, rescue the recently raped big-eyed chick, who then has UberSex!!!!!! Manga=mature? Wow. This all starting to make sense now. You think manga is mature. No wonder.

[quote][quote]Over stylized and over sized armor and weapons - Kiddie
[/quote]
Once again, a matter of visual presentation/art direction, not maturity.[/quote]
I'm starting to understand you. You think Ronin Warriors is "a matter of visual presentation/art direction". Ronin Warriors was fun, sure, but mature? Fitting to Dragon Age? No. No wonder you don't get the kiddie description. Do you honestly think that a game with sword bigger than the wieilder is not kiddie? Adults like kiddie stuff. No doubt. Doesn't make it not-kiddie.
[quote][quote]Limited character customization - Kiddie
[/quote]
Another one that makes no sense. There is no character customization in games like Max Payne 2, yet no one would call that game "immature" or "kiddie." Likewise, there is much character customization in MMOs like World of Warcraft, a game which has often been criticized as being "kiddie" or"simplistic" in this community. Lack of choice, or an abundance of choice, does not indicate maturity of a game or its developer. i don't consider Morrowind to be any more or less "mature" than Dragon Age 2 based on character customization options, nor do I consider Bioshock and more or less mature because of it.[/quote]
Ok, this one I'll agree with you. "Kiddie" is the wrong term. Simplistic. Dumbed-down. Consolized. Those are the right terms. Not complimentary terms. But more appropriate.

[quote][quote]No real choices that matter - Kiddie
[/quote]
Now this particular complaint is one of my pet peeves, not because it's not true, but because it's so subjective and people keep bringing it up like it's a universal constant like c. Many people complain that, because they can't go around killing people and have the game react to all that change, there is no choice in videogames. Some complain that, because the end boss is the same no matter what choices you make, there is no choice in videogames. And finally, some complain that, because they can't do every little thing that they can in real life (like eat, sleep, defecate, kick someone in the shins, slap someone, steal from people, belch, maintain weapons and armour, etc.), there is no choice in videogames.
[/quote]
Oh, how easy it is to refute a strawman. You'd think you'd get tired of defeating points no one made. Re-read your above paragraph. Now, find me anyone who actually said that. I'll be the first, I guess. It would be better if you could attack anyone you wanted to (& suffer the consequences, even if it meant your game was borked). But no one has really complained that the "end boss is the same no matter what choices you make", except in the obvious case of DA2 where your choice doesn't matter & you fight them both, I guess, but that's kind of stretching it.

That complaint is that your decision doesn't matter, when it's implied that it would. The complaint is that you are told to pick a side, & you fight both sides' boss. It's subtly different than a complaint that the "end boss is the same no matter what choices you make". I hope you understand the difference.

[quote][quote]Overall, I would have to say the OP as a valid point. If a DA3 is made (at this point I wouldn't care) I would hope that more goes into the details that would make the game more focused to the mature gamer.
[/quote]
Obviously, you must care at least a little bit, or you wouldn't be here. And you must care more than just a little bit, otherwise you wouldn't be posting and trying to get your point heard and perhaps sympathized with. now, whether you care more than a bit is not my concern, but if you want to try and convince me Dragon Age II is a "kiddie" game, you're going to have to do a lot more than type "kiddie" after every thing you disagree with in the game. Sorry, but I can't agree with your agument.
[/quote][/quote]
You shouldn't be in the business of trolling posters, IMO. "Obviously, you must care at least a little bit, or you wouldn't be here." " And you must care more than just a little bit, otherwise you wouldn't be posting..." You have the bully-pulpit.

[quote]Stanley Woo wrote...
[quote]TheRealJayDee wrote...
Art Spiegelman at least didn't decide to drastically change his art style between "My Father Bleeds History" and "And Here My Troubles Began", and it fit the story he told.
[/quote]
I've been told by these forums time and again that it is definitely NOT the changes between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II that people are objecting to, since that would lend credence to the "players can't handle Dragon Age II being different" (or "innovative") quote that gets thrown around.
[/quote]
It's obvious that you were getting fed up here, but again, you're a Moderator. You don't get to be condescending, else it's just bullying, 'cause posters don't have the power you do.

But surely you get the point being made. It's not *that* there were changes. It's *the* changes that were made. I'd have liked to have seen changes to combat, crafting, some skills, classes (mostly specializations), potion-abuse, etc. Those would be changes, & there's other changes I'd be happy about. It's the specific changes that were made that people don't like, not that changes were made. Responses like this wouldn't be accepted at face value from a generic poster, & they won't be accepted from you, either. You know what the issues are. Don't pretend it's just "oh, changes!".

[quote]IF (capital I, capital F) Art Spiegelman decided he wanted to use a different art style halfway through his story, so what? It's his story, and he can tell it in whatever way he wants. It's not the comic reader's place to tell Mr. Spiegelman he can't do it. the comic reader always has a choice to make, and that it whether to purchase or not purchase the content. IF (again, capital letters) that's the way the story was sold, how is your choice as a consumer changed?
[/quote]
Well, obviously, people might stop buying Maus. It's not our place to tell you what you must do, but it's our place to tell you what we won't buy. That's all that's happening here, really.


[quote][quote]Of course it's BioWare's decision how to deal with things like that, but in an RPG that puts as much emphasis on relationships and romance as DA2 it is not out of place to ask for a little more balance between ott violence maturity and well done intimacy maturity.
[/quote]
Not out of place at all, and it's a suggestion that we get for many of our games. It's only when you begin to imply that not having such a balance makes our game more "immature" or "kiddie" that I will take issue with the suggestion, as it starts to sound more like a demand then (ie. "put in more boobs or your game is for children/teens/mogwai/whatever").
As I've said, I'm totally cool with people wanting or suggesting more nudity, more sex, more gore/violence, or what have you, but once you start putting conditions or resort to emotional blackmail, that's when I can't agree with you.
[/quote]
Who has done that? I mean, other than someone saying they won't buy DA3? What kind of "emotional blackmail" do you see happening here? Some people say what they want in order to go back to buying your games. Again, I think you're playing for faux-sympathy here by claiming people are saying something that no one's saying. All we, as consumers, can do is declare our desires before the game is made & then vote with our wallets once it's made. You seem to be giving us too much power here.
 

Modifié par Imrahil_, 08 octobre 2011 - 07:33 .

[bEVEsthda]

Pygmali0n wrote...

It's not all about sex, although it might be a better thread if we ignored it and concentrated on the childish warrior and rogue fighting styles, the limited choices, the anime style, etc.

Yes. This^

That would prob throw a tremendous spanner in EA's cogs, particularly their market science (which is always wrong, btw), so EA/Bioware is now probably tempted to look at techniques to ignore and disrupt any such debate., now that they're on the completely other side of the world. They would have to totally change their mindset, which they collectively travelled so far to reach, for developing DA2, which is supposed to put Dragon Age "in a much better market position", (or words to that effect, by M. Laidlaw).

I don't know why Bioware changed. Maybe it's the people that make up the company today, in case they're probably doomed and SW Old Republic will tank horribly and DA3 will be DA2:2 and will tank horribly...
But looking at other companies, I think there might be a brainwash by EA marketing (who are always wrong, btw) involved (remember Spore). A great pity that they chose DA for yet another attempt at this 'childishness'-revolution. ME2 is also pretty crappish sequel, but no one seem to notice because they kept ME original style (that's my theory). It will be interesting to see which direction ME3 will go.

Looking at EA's fantasy catalogue as a whole, the amount of horns, spikes and fluffy hairdos is striking. Remarkable, even. I would definitely say that horns is very, very, very,.. (what was that word again?) - cliché! I would strongly recommend removing qunari horns for DA3, as an attempt to be more original and unique. (like Sten, very unique).
Holding that thought, it's also painfully apparent that DA2's art, looking at said catalogue, eastern rpg's and anime, is horribly, horribly, horribly GENERIC(!!!)  A far cry from the unique, beautiful, cohesive style DA:Origins totally owned.

It's also very easy to get a strong suspicion that 'Kingdoms of Amalur' may have also got this EA 'childishness'-treatment. But Kingdoms will be the original game in it's franchise. It may tank, but at least there won't be a backlash.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 08 octobre 2011 - 09:31 .

[Yrkoon]

Wow, this thread suddenly got about 10 times more interesting to read  in the last couple of hours.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 08 octobre 2011 - 09:54 .

[bEVEsthda]

Couple of great posts by Imrahil_  (and TheRealJayDee too)
...which I totally underwrite. As any mature, sane and intelligent person caring for DA would. It's a real mystery why Bioware themselves aren't already there.

(...unless they really are in the business of making games for kiddies, and then stamping them "M" just to make them more desirable, -for kids.)

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 08 octobre 2011 - 09:49 .

[Yrkoon]

Slightly off topic  (but hey, you brought it up, Woo, not me.

Stanley Woo wrote...
Obviously, you must care at least a little bit, or you wouldn't be here. And you must care more than just a little bit, otherwise you wouldn't be posting and trying to get your point heard and perhaps sympathized with. 

^You are miskaken.       No, worse.   This is no different than when those one-liner-spewing trolls enter a DA2-criticism thread and say:  "If you don't like the game, then how come you're still here posting?  Why haven't you moved on?!"

But whatever.   There's at least a dozen valid responses to  this "point" of yours.  Here's a few.

1) some of us enjoy debating.    Doesn't matter  what the topic is, although having actually played the game in question, it's far easier to debate it.    In other words,  regardless of whether we care or not, it's a subject we know, therefore, can debate.  In fact, I'm so emotionally detatched from this topic that I can  easily  debate both sides of it.
2)This place is a community.     And as such, Some of us have been here since before DA2 was even conceptualized, and some of us will be here long after it has been completely forgotten.  The reasons why we're here are really none of your business, although you're certainly free to speculate, and be  wrong.
3) And while  one would think  it should go without saying, some of us don't care anymore.  We may have  at one time, but no longer.  So now we're here commenting on why we don't care.    And that can easily manifest itself in a thread like this one, which features a "hot" topic, a Developer defending a game HE cares about, and the general nature of an active thread that keeps popping itself back up to the top of the page.

Stanley Woo wrote...

but if you want to try and convince me Dragon Age II is a "kiddie" game, you're going to have to do a lot more than type "kiddie"

No doubt about that.  I imagine  successfully convincing you that DA2  is less mature than its peers and (its predecessor) will take much more than words.

 For Me though,  It took nothing more than watching   David Silverman waving his hands like a drunk and yelling:  "WHEN YOU PRESS A BUT'UN, SOMETHING AWESOME HAS TO HAPPEN!   But'un -Awesome!"    And then confirmed,  after I actually got the game and discovered that  "awesome" meant backflipping rogues on crack; pole-dancing mages on speed,   and lego pieces flying everywhere when you kill someone.   

And yes, The ceiling dropping  waves.  I know you tried to dismiss that one away as "personal taste" or whatever.  But it's not.      I would call it lazy encounter design, but it's not that either, since if you look closely, you'll actually notice that Bioware  must have spent quite a bit of time creating  detailed animations for  those ceiling-spawns.  No.  It's just plain immature... or KIDDIE.  No way around it.   As someone else pointed out, thats the kind of CRAP   that happens in Mario games. 


And lastly, if I can be a *little* more objective.  Aside from arbitrary  (and artificial) ESRB ratings,   Judging maturity of something is a relative, comparative thing.    When someone asks me if DA2 is mature, the first thing that pops into my head is:  Don't know... mature compared to what?  DA:O?   The Witcher 2?    Pulp Fiction?  Oh and that brings me to my next point.  if DA2 was a movie, do you honestly think it'd get an R rating?  You're *wrong* if you think so, It'd get a PG-13 rating at the very VERY  most.

[Monica83]

Versago lol i know what you tryng to do there you are a genius! hahaha